National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior

History Program

Northeast Region 

 

Hopewell Furnace 

National Historic Site 

 

Administrative History

 

HOPEWELL FURNACE 

NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE

Administrative History 

August 2005 

Leah Glaser 

 

Northeast Regional Office Organization of 

National Park Service American Historians

U.S. Department of the Interior P.O. Box 5457 

Philadelphia and Boston Bloomington, Indiana 

Table of Contents 

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

Preface................................................................................................................................................vii 

I. Introduction ...............................................................................................................................1 

II. Conservation and Preservation: The French Creek Recreational 

 Demonstration Area................................................................................................................13 

III. The Development and Establishment of a National Historic Site, 1936-1941................. 38 

IV. WWII Occupation and the Administration of a Multi-use Park, 1942-1947...................72 

V. “The Golden Age:” The Restoration of Hopewell Village in the 

 Post-war Era, 1947-65 ....................................................................................................... 113 

VI. What Now? Preservation and Celebration in the Post-Restoration 

 Period, 1966-1988 ..............................................................................................................155 

VII. Restoration, Religion, Recreation, and Roads: Conflicts in Resource Use...................182 

VIII. Preserving the Rural-Industrial Landscape: Natural Resource and Cultural 

 Landscape Management ................................................................................................. 216 

IX. Facts and Artifacts: Research and Collections at Hopewell Furnace National 

 Historic Site.......................................................................................................................239 

X. “From a Village to a Furnace:” Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

 at Hopewell .......................................................................................................................256 

XI. Conclusion.............................................................................................................................309 

Annotated Bibliography .................................................................................................................316 

Appendices: 

Appendix A: Guide to Selected Acronyms .......................................................................324 

Appendix B: Permanent/Full-time Employees at Hopewell Village/Hopewell 

 Furnace National Historic Park, 1939 to Present......................................................... 325 

Appendix C: Dates of Key Legislation............................................................................... 328 

Appendix D: Annual Visitation ..........................................................................................329 
Appendix E: Appropriations for Hopewell Village/Furnace National Historic 

 Park ....................................................................................................................................330 

Appendix F: Era of Significance ......................................................................................... 332 

Appendix G: List of Selected Resources and Restoration Dates ................................... 334 

Appendix H: Maps ............................................................................................................... 335 

Index ................................................................................................................................................ 337 
List of Illustrations 

1.1 Old Cast House, 1889. Stokes Collection, HOFU Photographic Archives. 

1.2 Wheelwright Shop, ca. 1890. Bull Collection, HOFU Photographic Archives. 

1. 3 General View of Village from South, 1920. Stauffer Collection, HOFU 

 Photographic Archives. 

2.1 Old Hopewell Lake with Building 36 in Background, 1920, Stauffer Collection, 

HOFU Photographic Archives. 

2.2 CCC Building RDA Structure, ca. 1936. HOFU Photographic Archives. 

3.1 Furnace Group-CCC Restoration, 1935. HOFU Photographic Archives. 

3.2 General View, North, CCC Grading Road Slopes, 1935. HOFU Photographic 

 Archives. 

3.3 Superintendent Lemuel Garrison, 1940. HOFU Photographic Archives. 

3.4 CCC Cleaning Debris from Furnace, 1936, HOFU Photographic Archives. 

4.1 General View of the Wheel Pit Excavations from Furnace Bank, 1941. HOFU

 Photographic Archives. 

4.2 British Sailors Looking at Anthracite Furnace, 1944. Photo Book, French Creek 

RDA, HOFU Photographic Archives. 

4.3 Naval District, CCC Building, 1943. Photo Book, French Creek RDA, HOFU 

 Photographic Archives. 

4.4 Naval Rest Camp, 1943. Photo Book, French Creek RDA, HOFU Photographic 

 Archives. 

4.5 Emil Heinrich (back right), Catherine Fritz and Part-time Staff, 1943. HOFU 

 Photographic Archives.

5.1 Ranger in Interior of Barn Displaying Model of Furnace and Waterwheel, 1951. 

5.2 Cars and People in Village for Dedication of Waterwheel Ceremony, 1952, HOFU 

 Photographic Archives.

5.3 Visitors Viewing Waterwheel Operation, 1953, HOFU Photographic Archives. 

5.4 Seasonal Ranger-Historians Bill Bitler and Bob Franz, 1957, HOFU Photographic 

 Archives. 

5.5 Excavating with a Front End Loader near the Furnace, 1955, HOFU Photographic 

 Archives. 

5.6 Charcoal Cooling Shed Reconstruction, 1958, HOFU Photographic Archives. 

5.7 East End of Dairy Barn, 1958, Photo by Bob Ronsheim. HOFU Photographic 

 Archives. 

5.8 North View of Dairy Barn, Photo by Bob Ronsheim, 1958. HOFU Photographic 

 Archives. 

5.9 Barn Reconstruction, 1959, HOFU Photographic Archives. 

5.10 Barn Reconstruction, 1959, HOFU Photographic Archives. 

5.11 Looking North from Bridge at Barn, Office-Store, and “Big House,” 1961, HOFU 

 Photographic Archives.

5.12 Front of Cast House under Construction, 1964, HOFU Photographic Archives. 

v
5.13 General View of Amish Workers Preparing Beams Prior to the Cast House 

 Reconstruction, 1964. HOFU Photographic Archives. 

9.1 Collier’s Hut, 1936, HOFU Photographic Archives. 

10.1 Establishment Day, George Buck Demonstrating Molding under the Connecting 

 Shed, 1963, HOFU Photographic Archives. 

10.2 Wagon Rides in front of Cast House, ca.1975, HOFU Photographic Archives. 

10.3 Charcoal Burn, ca.1975, HOFU Photographic Archives. 

10.4 Cooking, 1975, HOFU Photographic Archives. 

10.5 Parlor of Ironmaster’s House, ca.1975, HOFU Photographic Archives. 

10.6 Moulding demonstration in Cast House, ca 1975, HOFU Photographic Archives. 

10.7 Gypsey Prince, ca.1942. HOFU Photographic Archives, HOFU Photographic 

 Archives. 

vi
Foreword

Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, located in the Schuylkill River Valley 

watershed in Chester and Berks Counties, Pennsylvania, preserves and interprets one of the 

finest examples of an early American iron plantation. Founded in 1771 by Ironmaster Mark Bird,

the furnace operated intermittently until 1883. Generations of ironmasters, craftsmen, and 

laborers produced iron goods, primarily bars of pig iron to be processed into finished products 

elsewhere, and castings such as iron-plate stoves for the domestic trade. Furnace workers, 

including men and women, slaves and free blacks, immigrants, tradesmen, domestic workers, 

and their families, formed a community whose lifestyles are as integral to the park story as are 

the details of iron-making technology. 

During the Administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the abandoned furnace 

property and some remaining buildings were still in the ownership of the last ironmaster’s 

descendants and the extensive lands were mostly in agricultural use. The entire property was 

purchased by the federal government for the Recreation Demonstration Area program, one of

the many New Deal initiatives to help the nation recover from the Great Depression. The 

Civilian Conservation Corps arrived to convert the lands into a public recreation area and 

engaged the National Park Service (NPS) to evaluate the furnace ruins found on the property. 

NPS historians recognized the value of the buildings in preserving the story of iron-making in 

America and worked tirelessly to restore and conserve the site for future generations. Hopewell

thus can be said to be a “historians’” park. In 1938 the property was designated Hopewell Village 

National Historic Site under the authority of the Historic Sites Act, thereby becoming one of the 

earliest cultural units of the National Park System. 

Today, the park is surrounded on three sides by French Creek State Park and 

Pennsylvania State Gamelands, which preserve the forested lands which historically were mostly

owned by Hopewell Furnace to provide the natural resources—iron ore, limestone, timber for 

charcoal, and water power—needed to produce the iron. The park’s resources include a 

reconstructed charcoal-fueled furnace complex, the ruins of an anthracite furnace, the 

ironmaster's mansion, tenant houses, barns, and a mixed industrial, domestic, and agricultural 

landscape on some 800 mostly wooded acres. Although the park and the state-managed lands 

still retain their rural character today, rapidly encroaching residential development has greatly 

changed the character of the surrounding countryside. 

vii 
Foreword 

This study recounts the more than thirty-year effort to define and return the park to its 

historic appearance, culminating in the major infrastructure development of the site during the 

Park Service’s “Mission 66” era; and it tells the full history of the site’s operation. It is an 

important case study of the Park Service’s efforts to accurately recreate and depict iron making 

and life in an iron-making community within the context of evolving historic preservation 

policies. In particular, during the long period of restoration and reconstruction, the NPS 

struggled over how most accurately to represent Hopewell Furnace’s historic appearance; and 

the NPS has continuously debated the issue of “furnace” versus “village”—whether technology 

or social history took precedence. Through World War II, the historic site still contained all the 

approximately 6,000 acres that would be permanently separated into a small national historic 

site surrounded by a large state park (French Creek State Park) after the war. In 1985 the park 

was renamed Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site to re-emphasize the importance of its 

iron-making story. 

It has long been recognized that the park needed an Administrative History to tell its 

important story. The park’s current General Management Plan effort provided the impetus to

fund the project. 

This study was undertaken through the Park Service’s cooperative agreement with the 

Organization of American Historians (OAH). The collaboration between the NPS and the OAH

has been particularly fruitful in bringing cultural resource management and historical 

scholarship together. We would like to give special thanks to Susan Ferentinos, the Public 

History Manager for the OAH, who managed the project on behalf of the organization; and we 

would like to thank Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site Superintendent Bill Sanders and 

his staff for their assistance. 

Clifford I. Tobias, Ph.D. 

Historian, History Program, 

Northeast Region

Philadelphia 

August 2005 

viii
 

1

I. Introduction 

Nestled among the trees of the Schuylkill River Valley in Berks County, Pennsylvania, 

the restored historic buildings of Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site1

 commemorate 

America’s technological heritage. To many visitors of the National Parks, the idea of an 

“industrial complex” situated in a rural rather than an urban setting seems counter-intuitive, an 

oxymoron. But within this idyllic, pastoral landscape, an ironmaking operation ran 

intermittently for over a century, 1771-1883. Far from any city, an active, diverse, and isolated 

community of workers and structures grew around the glow and blast cycles of an iron furnace 

that produced its product for distant urban markets. While nearby farmers cultivated their soils 

and toiled in their fields, the ironmaster and his workers exploited the forest for fuel to make 

charcoal, funneled the available water supply down sloping hills for energy, and crafted massive 

amounts of industrial products and implements for America’s growing industrial society. As one 

observer noted in 1959, “The visitor today can hardly realize that the furnace—with its lazilyturning waterwheel disturbing the tranquility of this place where time has long since stopped—

was once the hub of great activity.”2

 

No public buses deliver battlefield-weary tourists and history buffs to Hopewell 

Furnace. Rather, many come with school field trips or as a segment of an itinerary that includes 

Valley Forge and Gettysburg. Many arrive to take advantage of the recreational opportunities in 

the nearby French Creek State Park and escape from the pollution, noise, and pace of Reading 

to the northwest and Philadelphia, located an hour’s car ride away to the southeast. Some 

visitors have probably never heard of Hopewell Furnace, because unlike the nearby military 

sites, no singular extraordinary event occurred there. Rather, the site reflects a period of time 

and a process that played an integral role in the everyday socioeconomic life of early America 

for many decades. Hopewell Furnace became the first National Park Service (NPS) site to earn 

national recognition for industrial history in the United States and illustrates the agency’s 

 

1

The property of the Hopewell Furnace differed from that of the present park. In addition, the 

park was initially called Hopewell Village National Historic Site. In an effort to be more precise, I will 

refer to the historic furnace itself, as well as its property, as “Hopewell Furnace;” the park from 1938 to 

1985 as “Hopewell Village;” and the park from 1985 to present as “Hopewell Furnace NHS.” If I am 

referring to the area over a general geographic area or time period, I will simply use “Hopewell.” 

2

 G. Clymer Brooke, Birdsboro: Company with a Past Built to Last (New York: The Newcomen 

Society in North America, 1959), 11. 
Introduction 

2

recognition of “a people’s history” well ahead of the academy.3

 While not the earliest, largest, or 

longest-lasting furnace in Pennsylvania, NPS historians still felt the remains at Hopewell 

possessed all the resources to illustrate the typical lifestyles and work involved in the iron 

industry. They agreed that iron production served as a key component of industrialization 

during America’s transition from an agricultural to an industrial economy. Hopewell Furnace 

operated in a time many patriots have touted as America’s golden agrarian age; one before the 

steel monopolies of Andrew Carnegie transformed locally-based industry into great national 

corporations. These issues make the site’s plentiful resources difficult to manage and its full 

meaning a complex message to convey to a general public. 

As a historical park, the story of Hopewell Furnace extends well beyond its reflection of 

early American industry. Born out of the exigencies the Great Depression in 1938, the site’s 

establishment as a unit of the National Park System reflects the progressive and conservation era 

philosophies governing the New Deal. Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site similarly serves 

as a case study for examining changes in preservation policies and attitudes over time, especially 

how they interacted with contemporary issues of natural conservation. Its development by the 

federal government raises complicated preservation issues, offers complex discussions about the 

relationships (and inter-relationships) between cultural, recreational, and natural resources and 

their use. Hopewell also provides useful lessons about the restoration, interpretation, and 

management of historical sites, buildings, and museums in the United States, particularly in a 

rural setting. 

Setting 

Located about five miles south of the small town of Birdsboro, Hopewell Furnace 

National Historic Site currently lies within the largest contiguous forest in southeastern 

Pennsylvania. Amidst rolling uplands, the 848-acre park encompasses about 635 acres of 

woodland and 145 acres of farmland, meadows, and pastures. A haven to sportsmen, hunters, 

 

3

Jay Anderson, “Living History: Simulating Everyday Life in Living Museums,” American 

Quarterly 34, no. 3 (1982): 293. See also Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States (New York: 

HarperPerrenial, 1980). 
Introduction 

3

and vacationers alike, French Creek State Park, state game lands, and privately-held land border 

the historic site.4

 

Found artifacts likely belonging to the Delaware Indians attest to some habitation of this 

region, but there presently exists no documentation of subsequent non-Indian settlement prior 

to the eighteenth century. England’s American colonies still depended on an agricultural 

economy throughout the 1700s; however, iron furnaces began to take advantage of lands that 

remained “unimproved” or undeveloped. To operate a furnace for just one day required an acre 

of forestland. Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, and Maryland all had successful enterprises, 

but Pennsylvania became an exceptionally appropriate place for the iron industry. Settlers had 

cleared much of the eastern coastline of trees, but dense forests filled the northeastern interior, 

particularly in the Pennsylvania hillsides, which also claimed considerable iron ore and the 

running streams of the Delaware and Schuylkill River Valleys.5

 Several agricultural communities 

and settlements developed around them, often populated by those who worked for the 

ironmaster on a seasonal schedule. However, just north of the farms, and near the present 

border of Berks and Chester Counties, French Creek flowed between two hills in Union 

Township. Floods often deluged the heavily forested area of oak, poplar, chestnut, hickory, 

maple, and beech trees, and left marshy conditions, ruining the land for farming. 

While not conducive for agrarian pursuits, the topography in this area proved ideal for 

industrial ones. When Hopewell Furnace founder Mark Bird searched for a location to build his 

iron furnace and plantation, he looked for a place equipped with the necessary natural resources 

to run the machinery. He hoped for accessibility to iron ore, limestone with which to make flux 

(a substance used to combine with impurities in the ore to form slag, the refuse separated from 

metal during the smelting process), and plenty of trees to cut and turn into charcoal (the 

furnace’s fuel). Bird also sought a source of waterpower, some agricultural land, and finally, a 

hillside where topography would aid workers in pouring raw materials used to make iron into 

the top of the furnace (known as “charging”). The small hill between Mount Pleasure and Brush 

Hill proved an ideal slope for “charging” the furnace by simply constructing a bridge.6

 Iron ore 

 

4

 Kise, Franks, and Straw, with Menke and Menke, “Cultural Landscape Report: Hopewell 

Furnace National Historic Site,” (Philadelphia: National Park Service, Northeast Regional Office, 

December 1997), 1. (CLR) 

5

 Gary B. Nash, et al. The American People: Creating a Nation and a Society, 4th edition (New York: 

Addison Wesley Longman, 1998), 284. 

6

 CLR, 24. 
Introduction 

4

mines and limestone located only a few miles away, and nearby transportation facilities 

(including an extended network of public and private roads) would help ensure the financial 

success of the iron plantation that would operate there for the next several decades.7

“The Machine in the Garden:” Cultural History of the Site8

Mark Bird was able to select this ideal site for his furnace near the woodland area he 

inherited from his father William, a successful owner of two iron forges and a furnace. For over 

3,000 years people exploited iron ore by heating it with a charcoal fire at sites known as 

“bloomeries.” Large-scale colonial American iron production, largely characterized by the 

development of the blast furnace, began in the first quarter of the eighteenth century in both 

Virginia and Pennsylvania. Emblematic of the impinging industrial age, the Hopewell Furnace in 

southeast Pennsylvania became one of several self-contained iron communities of the colonial 

and post-Revolutionary eras. Flattened “pyramids of stone” became common sights across the 

rural countryside of the middle and northeastern colonies including the Schuylkill River Valley.9

Between 1716 and 1776, the Pennsylvania colony claimed twenty-one blast furnaces, forty-five 

forges, four bloomeries, six steel furnaces, three slitting mills, and one wire mill. One area in 

southeastern Pennsylvania claimed so many such sites that it became known as Valley Forge.10

The iron industry in the American colonies expanded quickly, producing pots, metal fire 

gates, horseshoes, utensils, and stoves. When England’s home enterprises feared competition, 

Parliament regulated colonial production by passing the Iron Act in 1750. This legislation 

essentially limited American iron production to wrought or to “pig” iron (unrefined cast iron 

bars, of uniform shape and weights–about three feet long and four inches thick–formed by 

 

7

Russell A. Apple, “Mission 66 Prospectus for Hopewell Village National Historic Site,” 

(Elverson, PA: Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, National Park Service, July 27, 1955). 8

 Many scholars and authors have told the history of Hopewell Furnace, so only a brief outline 

will be provided here. Much of this summary has been compiled from the CLR unless otherwise noted; 

Also see Joseph E. Walker, Hopewell Village: The Dynamics of a Nineteenth Century Iron-Making 

Community (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1967). 

9

 Roy Appleman, “Historical Report: French Creek Area,” (Bronxville, NY: Second Regional 

Office, National Park Service, August 19, 1935), 2 (Appleman, “Historical Report,” 1935); Walter Hugins, 

“The Story of a 19th Century Ironmaking Community,” in Hopewell Furnace: A Guide to Hopewell Furnace 

National Historic Site, Pennsyslvania. Historic Handbook Series No. 124. (Washington, DC: National Park 

Service, 1983), 28. (Hopewell Furnace: A Guide) 
Introduction 

5

funneling liquid iron into gutters carved into the sand floor of the cast house). The furnace 

would then ship these bars to English mills where workers would convert them into finished 

products.11

Mark Bird took measures to ensure the success and longevity of his enterprise. Bird 

purchased additional acreage beyond his immediate needs in order to ensure that the enterprise 

would not suffer the fate of other furnaces, which had progressively lost their woodland fuel 

sources to farmers and land developers. After securing thirty-three additional acres near Brush 

Hill from Owen Hugh in 1769, he began building his furnace and iron plantation, initiating 

operations about 1771. Bird named the complex “Hopewell,” a popular name for many towns 

and immigrant passenger ships carrying hopeful immigrants, presumably after his father’s 

forge.12 One theory contends that the Bird family originally hailed from Hopewell Township 

near Raritan, New Jersey.13

Bird erected various structures to support the operation. In addition to the furnace itself, 

he built a waterwheel, a charging bridge, a cast house, a manor-type home for himself (the 

ironmaster), a blacksmith shop, a store, a barn, and tenant housing for workers. He dug a 

headrace (or open ditch) to the east to carry water from nearby Baptism Creek and a tailrace to 

funnel the water away. Several years later, he also siphoned the water from the west out of 

springs near French Creek (a section known today as Scotts Run), to feed the waterwheel. 

Hopewell historians believe Bird’s slaves dug at least one of these headraces.14

Bird’s operation of over 4,000-acres also entailed cultivating arable farmland for clover, 

and later corn and buckwheat, to support the laboring community. An advertisement in the 

local newspaper, the Pennsylvania Gazette, suggested that Bird had drained the wet, marsh-like 

 10 Hugins, “Story of a 19th Century Ironmaking Community,” 8, 32; Appleman, “Historical Report,” 

1935, 3; and Lorett Treese, Valley Forge: Making and Remaking a National Symbol (University Park, PA: 

Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995), 3. 

11 “Pig iron” was named for what some perceived looked like a litter of piglets suckling their 

mother. W. David Lewis, “Iron Making in Early America,” in Hopewell Furnace: A Guide.), 6-21; John 

Mack Faragher, et al. Out of Many: A History of the American People, Brief Third Edition, (Upper Saddle 

River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2001), 11, 15. 

12 Hugins, ”Story of a 19th Century Ironmaking Community”, 6-21, 29. 

13 Lemuel Garrison, The Making of a Ranger: Forty Years with the National Parks (Chicago: Howe 

Brothers; Sun City: The Institute of the American West, 1983), 168-169; Lemuel Garrison to G. W. 

Clemens, September 11, 1941, “W” File, Central Files, Office of the Cultural Resource Manager, Hopewell 

Furnace National Historic Site. (HOFU) 

14 CLR, 24-36. 
Introduction 

6

lands on the south side of French Creek and transformed them into meadows. More traditional 

agricultural properties encircled the complex, especially to the south. Thomas Lloyd’s 134-acre 

farm lay just east of the Bird’s lands in Chester County. Lloyd also built a church he named 

“Bethesda” on the site that supported other neighboring farmers and likely iron plantation 

workers as well. During certain seasons, the workforce of full-time ironworkers overlapped 

with local farmers who performed part-time duties for the furnace such as woodcutting.15

Bird’s activities extended beyond purely commercial when he produced cannon and 

shot for the Continental Navy during the Revolutionary War. This patriotic endeavor nearly 

ruined him when the financially strapped United States government was unable to repay its 

debts following the Treaty of Paris. A flood that destroyed most of Bird’s property offered the 

ironmaster additional incentive to appeal for tax relief. In April 1786 Bird even tried to sell 

Hopewell Furnace along with his forges, Birdsboro and Spring. He finally lost the furnace to 

creditors, and the property—now over 5,000 acres— changed hands at least five times before 

the year 1800. At that time, Daniel Buckley and his brothers-in-law Thomas and Mathew 

Brooke purchased the property at auction and brought ironmaking operations into a new era.16

 

Buckley and the Brookes tried to avoid Bird’s financial fate by updating the technology at 

the furnace, improving and extending the boundaries of the property, and rebuilding structures 

like the West Headrace and the waterwheel. Water rights litigation also prompted some of this 

activity. The nearby Warwick Iron Company claimed the water right to the spring from which 

the West Headrace took its water, and launched a lawsuit to stop the flow of the furnace’s 

waterpower. After settling the suit, Buckley and the Brookes dammed French Creek, and ran 

the furnace operations off and on for nearly eight more decades before shutting it down in 1883. 

The property remained in the Brooke family until the 1930s. Longevity, however, did not 

necessarily translate into unbridled success. More lawsuits forced the owners to close the 

furnace from 1808 to 1816 while they continued structural improvements. Most notably, they 

expanded operations with an ore roaster that allowed them to refine iron production for better 

casting results. The Panic of 1819 threatened to doom the furnace once again, but by 1820, a new 

wheelhouse sheltered the waterwheel, and the ironmaster’s house (also known as the “big 

 

15 Ibid., 27-29. 

16 Ibid., 23-30. See Chapter 8 for more detailed discussion of water rights issue. 
Introduction 

7

house,” the same term used for masters’ homes on southern plantations) boasted running water. 

Oral histories attested to a carpenter’s shop that also housed some of the workers.17

Hopewell Furnace emerged from the depression into prosperous times. The furnace and 

its new owners finally earned a profit thanks to improved area roads, the construction of the 

Schuylkill Navigation Canal, and Clement Brooke’s decision to focus manufacturing on 

expensive, finished goods like cast iron stoves. As old mill towns and transportation centers 

began to grow and urbanize, cities required cast iron pipes and other materials for erecting 

buildings and infrastructure. In addition, the iron industry sold over a half a million stoves to 

their urban inhabitants. Over the next several years, Clement Brooke planted a new orchard and 

employed twenty-one farm workers. He also leased land outside the furnace to supplement 

production. Work animals like horses, oxen, and mules as well as cows, poultry, sheep, and pigs 

provided labor, food, and cloth. At the height of its production in 1837, Hopewell’s furnace 

produced 720 tons of iron and “consumed approximately six thousand cords of wood per year” 

(only 4,000 of which came from Hopewell Furnace lands).18

The construction of a local school at this time attested to the sizeable population that the 

furnace’s prosperity had brought to this corner of rural Pennsylvania. The wooded, remote area 

also attracted free blacks and escaped slaves who sought refuge in the nearby homes of Quaker 

operatives on the Underground Railroad. By the 1850s, communities in several nearby 

townships and the establishment of the Mount Frisby Church in 1856 attested to a strong black 

work force at the furnace. 19 

Unfortunately, by the time this community had fully formed, Hopewell Furnace had 

entered what Hopewell’s chroniclers have described as the furnace’s period of decline. 

Economic troubles and the failures to successfully implement technological improvements to 

the ironmaking process peppered the period from 1846 to 1883. In response to the depleting 

forests in England, the British developed a more purified form of coal, known as “coke,” which 

replaced charcoal as furnace fuel. Another innovation involved the “hot blast” furnace, which 

preheated the air blown into it. The Brookes tried to address issues of changing technology by 

erecting a coal-fueled anthracite furnace. Unfortunately, a poor design resulting in a 

catastrophic collapse of the furnace, and the expense of hauling anthracite, a hard coal that gives 

 

17 Ibid., 30. 

18 Nash, Birdsboro, 340; Hugins, “Story of a 19th Century Ironmaking Community,” 6-21; CLR, 41. 
Introduction 

8

off intense heat with little smoke, put an end to their experiment. The demand for iron during 

the Civil War and the simultaneous expansion of the railroad during the 1850s and ‘60s 

temporarily brought the charcoal furnace back to life, but with only sporadic success.20 By the 

end of the nineteenth century, America had transformed into more of an urban industrial, than a 

rural agricultural nation. When the iron and steel industries consolidated in urban 

manufacturing centers like Pittsburgh, Bethlehem, and Chicago, small independent rural 

enterprises like Hopewell could no longer compete. 

When Clement Brooke retired, Brooke’s son-in-law, Charles Clingan, reverted back to 

producing primarily unrefined “pig iron” bars. Edward S. Buckley, an heir to M. Brooke 

Buckley, and Clement Brooke’s daughter, Maria Clingan, oversaw the last blast of the furnace in 

1883. The property continued to yield some meager amount of profit through house rentals, 

farm operations, pig iron and timber sales, charcoal production, and stone quarry royalties. The 

industrial function of the area gave way to a more pastoral and agricultural one. Meanwhile, 

despite the oversight of manager Harker Long and then caretaker Nathan Care, the industrial 

buildings and the furnace itself began to collapse, fall to disrepair, or even disintegrate as nature 

reclaimed the area. The Brooke and Clingan families continued to return to the ironmaster’s 

house as a summer residence until around 1915 and purchased more of the surrounding 

agricultural land. They even constructed a new barn over the original in 1926. 

 19 Walker, Hopewell Village, 312-317; Inscription on the Mount Frisby Church. The church was also 

known as the Six Penny Colored Church and the Mt. Zion Church. 

20 CLR, 42. At eighty to ninety dollars per ton, the value of pig iron almost tripled. 
Introduction 

9

1.1 Old Cast House, 1889. Stokes Collection, HOFU Photographic Archives. 

1.2 Wheelwright Shop, ca 1890. Bull Collection, HOFU Photographic Archives. 
Introduction 

10

1.3 General View of Village from South, 1920. Stauffer Collection, HOFU Photographic Archives. 

In 1930, almost fifty years after the last blast, Louise Clingan Brooke offered Hopewell 

Furnace’s crumbling waterwheel and blast machinery to the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, a 

facility specializing in scientific and technological education. The Institute sent out staff to 

evaluate what items of interest might be left of Hopewell Furnace. Impressed with what they 

saw, engineers sketched the machinery, then dismantled and stored it in a nearby structure to 

await transfer to the Institute as an outdoor exhibit. Before that occurred, the federal 

government claimed all the other remnants of the furnace for parklands.21

The historians in the History Division of the National Park Service, a fledgling program 

in the 1930s, saw in Hopewell a precursor to twentieth-century steel factories, but also a place 

that evoked the sense of self-sufficiency and community cherished in public memories of 

colonial America. The Hopewell area was and remains the pristine picture of Thomas 

Jefferson’s agrarian dream of “the garden,” of independent, self-sufficient yeoman farmers who 

carefully tended and cultivated their fields. Amidst this literary and political pastoral ideal that 

had defined “the meaning of America ever since the age of discovery,” is an example of a 

paradox American Studies scholar Leo Marx described as “the machine in the garden.”22 Here, 

 

21 Hopewell Furnace: A Guide, 68; Appleman, “Historical Report,” 1935, 39-41; Roy Appleman and 

Melvin Borgeson to H. B. Allen, December 19, 1935, HOFU Cultural Resources Management Bibliography 

(CRBIB Files), Northeast Regional Office, Philadelphia, PA. (NERO-P) 

22 Leo Marx, The Machine in the Garden: Technology and the Pastoral Ideal in America (New York: 

Oxford University Press, 1964), 3, 73. The phrase “the garden” often referred to the paradise achieved 

through cultivating one’s own land for use, as in the Garden of Eden; Richard V. Francaviglia, Hard 

Places: Reading the Landscape of America’s Historic Mining Districts (Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 

1991), 4-5. 
Introduction 

11

industrialization had carved out a place for itself in Pennsylvania’s agrarian landscape and 

economy. Some people then and some today view such contrasts in the landscape as 

disharmonious and exploitative, but NPS’s historians saw this bucolic landscape and its natural 

resources as an essential component in maintaining what many refer to as “the historic scene.” 

Administrative History 

The history of the Hopewell Furnace ends here, and the history of Hopewell Furnace 

National Historic Site begins. Those interested in finding further information on social and 

economic life during the furnace’s operation can look at Joseph E. Walker’s Hopewell Village: 

The Dynamics of a Nineteenth Century Ironmaking Community. Rather, the following study will 

focus upon various people, agencies, issues and trends affecting the historical development and 

management of Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site including personnel, legislation, land 

acquisitions, boundary changes, and facilities. The site’s history and longevity complicated the 

park’s interpretation, and activities related to the site’s preservation were central to the growth 

and development of the historic site. They reflected how administrators over the years worked 

to realize the dreams and visions of the site’s original promoters for preserving, revitalizing, and 

interpreting the ruins. This document contains no architectural history for each of the 

numerous individual structures at the site since much of that information can be found in other 

reports, but discussions about particular resources will be selective.23 Following an overall 

narrative (chapters 2-6), key issues, themes, and underlying theories or philosophies regarding 

natural resources and interpretation that do not fit into the general development chronology 

will follow in four separate chapters (7-10). This will allow for more detailed analysis of issues 

critical to the park’s management. These chapters should also offer additional insight into the 

park’s significance. Finally, several appendices should aid readers and provide them with 

reference points for staff, statistics, changing restoration policies, and the dates of restoration 

for various resources. 

The significance of Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site lies in its setting, the good 

fortune and convenience of its purchase and designation, and how its development responded 

to challenges and reconciled trends in natural conservation, preservation, and interpretation. 

For years, preservationists and National Park Service officials have viewed Hopewell as a model 

 

23 See Historic Structure Reports at NERO-P and forthcoming Historic Resource Study. 
Introduction 

12

for historic site designation and historic restoration, yet students and scholars of historic 

preservation rarely cite it alongside Williamsburg, Virginia; Dearborn, Michigan; or Sturbridge 

Village, Massachusetts as an example of an outdoor museum. The following effort illustrates 

that long-time assumptions of a fairy tale-like development might have ignored complicated, 

often contentious, issues such as conflict of use, natural resource management, reconstruction, 

and living history. Furthermore, decisions regarding the management, preservation and 

interpretation of park resources tell us as much about the time period in which people made 

them, as they do about the site itself. These discussions should offer insight into how the 

National Park Service, the park’s managers, and its public have reconciled, and should reconcile, 

the conundrum of “the machine in the garden.” 
 

13

II. Conservation and Preservation: 

The French Creek Recreational Demonstration Area 

When the stock market crashed in October of 1929, the country plummeted into the 

Great Depression. By 1934 the fate of Hopewell Furnace would enter another stage of 

development, one that contributed to the nation’s recovery efforts. Yet the government did 

not take initial interest in the furnace itself, but in its rural setting. The same woodlands and 

streams that enticed Mark Bird with its industrial resources proved attractive for recreation as 

well. Ironically, the industrial village of Hopewell Furnace owes its second life as a historical 

park to a federal economic relief and conservation program designed to offer unemployed 

men work and urban people refuge from their own industrial environment. 

As part of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, the Recreational 

Demonstration Area (RDA) program addressed issues of urban social reform and economic 

aid, as well as land planning and conservation. The conservation movement emerged alongside 

other Progressive Era social and political reform movements, many of which inspired New 

Deal legislation. Rather than preserve the environment for its own sake, mainstream 

conservationists believed in the protection, efficient development, and use of the nation’s 

natural resources in order to benefit as many people as possible. Both the establishment of 

National Forest Preserves and the construction of hydroelectric dams realized this idea.1

 The 

conservationist idea behind the RDA portion of a general land program was to provide 

temporary service to rehabilitate unfarmable, and therefore considered “non-productive,” 

land for use, preferably recreation, as experts predicted a rise in American leisure time.2

 

Although the RDA initiative served as a work program, philosophically it symbolized an 

attempt to return Americans to their “healthier” agrarian roots. Weary city-dwellers of the 

1930s could revisit that pastoral ideal at a time when the country that had established itself as a 

major industrial world power a decade earlier lost confidence in its broken economic system. 

This recreational purpose also grew out of the longtime efforts of progressive reformers to 

provide low-income residents of cities, particularly children, with a respite from urban blight 

and unsanitary environments. Public parks and indeed the establishment of several national 

 

1

 Bonj Szczygiel, “The Recreation Demonstration Area Program of the New Deal” (MA Thesis, 

School of Architecture, Pennsylvania State University, Spring 1992), 25. 2

 Ibid. Non-productive land primarily refers to land not used for farming, or land that had been 

abused. 
Conservation and Preservation 

14

parks were further responses to this same sentiment. By the 1930s, the affordable Model T 

allowed more people to travel to the countryside for short vacations, weekends, or day trips.3

In the spirit of the Public Works Administration, the Civil Works Administration, and 

the Works Progress Administration (WPA), the Recreational Demonstration Area program 

likewise pursued economic relief for a country in crisis. While the more well-known Civilian 

Conservation Corps (CCC) was designed exclusively to employ, the RDA program focused on 

providing work for the CCC as well as exemplifying theories of productive land use. The 

federal government would acquire property, resettle any inhabitants, improve the land 

through development, and eventually turn ownership over to local jurisdictions to administer 

as state parks.4

No legislation or executive order specifically established the program; rather it grew 

out of the first actions of Roosevelt’s New Deal administration. In January 1933 the President 

set up a Land Planning Committee. The heads of four federal agencies would man it: Federal 

Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) Administrator Harry Hopkins, Secretary of the 

Interior Harold Ickes, Secretary of Agriculture Henry A. Wallace, and Farm Credit 

Administration Chief William Myers. The committee assigned cooperating agencies to 

coordinate the program. Conrad L. Wirth was appointed for the Department of the Interior 

and Matt Huppuch of the National Park Service as his alternate.5

 On its recommendation, 

Congress appropriated 25 million dollars to the Board of Public Works for the development of 

the RDA program the very next month (February 28, 1934) through the Land Program of the 

newly created Federal Emergency Relief Administration, an agency charged with granting 

relief money to the states. The National Park Service designed the criteria for the selection and 

purchase of lands for the program by defining four different types of recreation areas: areas 

within national parks, waysides along highways, extensions of state parks, and lastly, those 

areas designated as vacation areas. The National Park Service then assumed the 

responsibilities for purchasing, developing, and maintaining these areas.6

 In order to prevent 

 

3

 Ibid. “Historians on Tour Endorse French Creek Area Project,” Daily Local News, July 20, 1936, 

Newspaper Clippings, Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU.. 4

 Szczygiel, “Recreation Demonstration Area,” 25. 

5

 Conrad L. Wirth, Parks, Politics and the People (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 

1980), 177; Susan Cary Strickland, Prince William Forest State Park: An Administrative History

(Washington, DC: History Division, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, January 1986). 6

 Wirth, Parks, 177-8; William E. Leuchtenburg, Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, 1932-

1940 (New York: Harper and Row, 1963), 140; and Szczygiel, “Recreation Demonstration Area,” 20. 
Conservation and Preservation 

15

confusion, NPS Associate Director Arthur E. Demaray explained the difference between the 

National Parks and RDAs. “Whereas national parks primarily are set aside because of 

superlative scenic beauty, natural phenomena... and rare wilderness features, the recreational 

demonstration areas, though often possessing scenic beauty, are actually in the submarginal 

land class.”7

The French Creek Recreation Demonstration Area, also known as the French Creek 

Submarginal Land Project, became one of forty-six RDAs, primarily located in eastern states, 

where perhaps the ill effects of urbanization had hit the hardest. Pennsylvania had five, more 

than any other state. This relatively large number may have been partially due to the many 

charcoal furnaces and other industrial activities that scarred and abused the lands after 

decades of mining and deforestation. Founder of the conservation movement and Forest 

Service Director Gifford Pinchot had served twice as Pennsylvania’s governor, which no doubt 

contributed to the state’s large share of RDAs as well.8

 Regardless of these explanations, the 

selection of RDA sites was supposed to be a democratic process among federal, state, and local 

agencies in accordance with a 1934 NPS study of recreational needs. Selection guidelines 

targeted environmentally interesting properties having 2,000 to 10,000 acres “ravaged” by 

natural or artificial conditions and which were “submarginal from an agricultural standpoint.”9

Ideally, such areas would be located within a day’s drive (about 50 miles) from a metropolitan 

area of at least 300,000 people, possess plenty of water and building materials, be reasonably 

priced at “an average price of ten dollars an acre,” and found within those states where some 

type of park administrative body already existed.10 Pennsylvania’s Department of Forests and 

Waters had expressed a desire and need to establish more state parks closer to centers of 

population, and would therefore provide a mechanism to eventually turn over the five RDAs 

from the federal government to the state.11

 

 

7

 As quoted in Szczygiel, “Recreation Demonstration Area,” 22. 8

 Ibid., 25; John C. Paige, The Civilian Conservation Corps and the National Park Service, 1933-

1942: An Administrative History (Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 

1985), 117. 9

 Conrad L. Wirth, as quoted in Strickland, Prince William Forest. 10 Leuchtenburg, Franklin D. Roosevelt, 29; Conrad L. Wirth as quoted in Strickland, Prince 

William Forest. 11 William E. Montgomery, Recreation: In the State Parks and State Forests of Pennsylvania

(Harrisburg, PA, Department of Forests and Waters, 1935), 31-34. Copy at Berks County Historical 

Society. 
Conservation and Preservation 

16

The Government Buys Hopewell Furnace Land 

The area around Mark Bird’s former furnace lands possessed several attractive 

characteristics for selection as an RDA. In addition to the beauty of the area long known to 

locals as the “Hopewell Hills,” appraisal reports also described the property, in its 1930s state, 

as relatively uselessness for anything other than recreation. 

This property was originally virgin timber. The timber has been cut from time to time 

and this property now is mostly idle. There are very few cultivated areas, which are 

small in the community in general. This section has little, if anything, to offer to the 

farmer. The soil is badly washed and very stony.12

Furthermore, the “Hopewell Hills” were located in an accessible place, an easy day’s 

drive from the major population center of Philadelphia. The acres of woodlands offered 

inviting locations for campgrounds, picnic sites, bridal paths, and hiking trails. Hopewell Lake, 

the dammed reservoir that had supplied water to the furnace’s West Headrace, could be 

enlarged into an attractive “centerpiece” for water sports and activities like boating, fishing, 

and even swimming. Furthermore, the status of the area’s land tenure would facilitate a simple 

land transfer since a large portion of the property (4,227 acres) had only a single owner, Louise 

C. Brooke. One Hopewell Furnace historian even speculated that “the presence of the furnace 

ruins also provided an interesting backdrop for the park and would, they believed, attract 

many, historically-minded visitors.”13 Beyond that comment, however, no one seemed to 

consider the integrity of the ruins as evidenced when the state ripped out the retaining wall 

between the office-store and the connecting shed and paved a main thoroughfare through the 

core of the village area in 1932.14

 

12 French Creek Appraisal Reports, “French Creek, 1936-1939,” Box 4, General Correspondence, 

Series 6.12, Record Group 6, Records of the Department of Forests and Waters, Pennsylvania State 

Archives, Harrisburg, PA. (PSA) 13 Lawrence H. Jones, “The Restoration of the Furnace Group at Hopewell Village National 

Historic Site,” (Honors Thesis, Princeton University, April 15, 1981). Copy at HOFU; “National Officials 

Laud Hopewell Site,” Reading Eagle, October 17, 1935, Newspaper Clippings, Central Files, Bally 

Building, HOFU. 14 “Hopewell Revives Old Look: Ancient Wall Uncovered,” n.d., Hopewell Village, Vertical File, 

Reading Public Library, Reading, PA. 
Conservation and Preservation 

17

2.1 Old Hopewell Lake with Building 36 in Background, 1920, Stauffer Collection, 

HOFU Photographic Archives. 

Originally, surveyors proposed up to 7,500 acres for what would soon be identified as 

the French Creek Recreational Demonstration Area. In addition to acquiring land for 

development, the supervisors at the French Creek RDA hoped to prevent undesirable 

encroachments from the city into the recreational site. Securing tracts to the south for 

additional day use areas to accommodate the Philadelphia travelers had not proved easy. In 

August 1935 the government paid Louise C. Brooke (daughter of Charles and Maria Clingan) 

$86,970 for over 4,000 acres of property that included the Hopewell Furnace ruins.15 In 

addition, the government would have to settle leases with or eject various tenants occupying 

Brooke land. One deal allowed caretaker Nathan Care, who had paid his rent in grain to 

Brooke, to continue occupancy of the Ironmaster’s House on the same terms with the 

understanding that his presence would help maintain the property until development. Many 

in the government’s land program also hoped to secure adjacent tracts from neighboring 

owners to add about 3,000 more acres.16 However, the government ran into difficulties 

 

15 “Set Up Work at Hopewell,” Reading Eagle, August 15, 1935; “Government Acquires 3,780 Acres 

of Land for Hopewell Project,” August 13, 1935, Newspaper Clippings, Central Files, Bally Building, 

HOFU. See Louise C. Brooke to United States of America, DB 768, p. 642, Berks County Court House, 

August 13, 1935, in Charlotte J. Fairbairn, “Abstracts of Title, 1737-1873 Hopewell Furnace Lands,” 1963, 

HOFU for specific descriptions of tracts included in the sale. 16 “Resettlement Administration, Mails and Files Section, Option Register LP-PA-7,” Land 

Acquisition PA-Correspondence-Surveys-French Creek, Land Acquisition, PA, Charles Kraus to 

Rexford Tugwell, December 27, 1935, Charles Kraus to Monroe Oppenheimer, “Description of Land,” 

Snyder to Lansin, March 2, 1935 “Tract 68A [1],” General Correspondence to 1938, Hopewell Furnace 
Conservation and Preservation 

18

securing several tracts of land and the French Creek RDA boundary fell about 1,000 acres short 

of the planners’ original goals. 

The Warwick Ore Reserve proved the most challenging for the government to secure 

due to the mineral rights attached to the title. While ownership to the reserve rights had been 

nearly impossible to determine and state geologists doubted anyone would ever exercise these 

rights, the reservation encumbered the sales on many tracts targeted for the French Creek 

project. To make matters more difficult, Louise Brooke passed away in the middle of the land 

transfer and her estate rejected the government’s offer of $7,100 for her land. In order to avoid 

additional delays by negotiating further with the estate, the government condemned the 

property to take it for public use in February of 1936.17 The Brooke trustees launched legal 

objections on the grounds that the government did not have the authority to use New Deal 

funds to acquire the land. 18

 

Almost immediately, other property owners tied to the Warwick Ore Reserve sent 

telegrams accusing the government of trespassing, forcing the WPA to close down all of its 

skilled work there and move activities onto federal property to lay bathhouse water lines and 

the excavate the dam. Then, on November 14, 1936, the President signed Executive Order 7496 

allowing the Secretary of the Interior the authority to acquire land. 19 Soon afterward, a federal 

judge ruled that the law allowing the U.S. government to condemn 459 acres of land for the 

purpose of commemoration did not apply to recreational parks, and the NPS would need the 

state’s permission in order to secure the land. Not until June of 1938 did a court order allow 

the government to assume title after compensating the owners for a total of $7,110.50.20

 

 

NHS, Record Group 79 (RG 79), National Archives and Records Administration-Mid Atlantic Region 

(Philadelphia) (NARA-P). 17 Harry Hopkins to J. R. McCarl, April 20, 1935, “Tract 68A,” Conrad Wirth to Irving Levy, 

February 1, 1936, “Hopewell Village NHS Tract 68A,” Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, General 

Correspondence to 1938, RG 79, NARA-P. 18 Paige, Civilian Conservation Corps, 118. 19 Paige, Civilian Conservaton Corps, 118; Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Executive Order, Transfer 

of Property, Functions, Funds, etc. Pertaining to Recreational Demonstration Projects from the Resettlement 

Administration to the Secretary of the Interior, No. 7496, November 14, 1936. 20 Based on the Supreme Court case US v Gettysburg Electric Railway Co., (1896), a ruling that 

gave teeth to an 1893 law allowing federal condemnation in order to commemorate Gettysburg 

Battlefield and protect it from defacement by a railroad, in which a judge ruled that the right of eminent 

domain did not apply to recreational parks without the permission of the host state. US v. Gettysburg 

Electric Railway Co. 160 US 668 (1896), http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/ 

conlaw/gettsburg.html (accessed March 3, 2003); “US Loses Park Claim: Court Rules Against 

Government in Hopewell Case,” (September 5, 1937), “US Enlarges Hopewell Park: Court Order Puts 
Conservation and Preservation 

19

Ultimately, the disputed property would benefit thousands of people in numerous 

ways. A. W. Manchester, an official in the Department of Agriculture, claimed that, “the 

utilization of land in this area for a recreational development fulfills a crying need long voiced 

by leaders interested in making available recreational opportunities to thousands of people 

living in this highly industrial region who otherwise do not have or can not afford them.”21 The 

Pennsylvania Department of Forest and Waters was “enthusiastically behind this much needed 

recreational area” and promised to “assume responsibility for its control and maintenance” 

upon the completion of the park.22 The program was hardly worthwhile, however, without an 

organized workforce. A 1935 press release announced that the French Creek RDA Project 

would employ hundreds of unemployed men. For these types of projects, Roosevelt’s 

administration would turn to the CCC program.23 (See Maps 2.1,2.3). 

The CCC at Hopewell 

The creation of the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) work program in March of 1933 

(almost simultaneous with the passage of FERA and the National Industrial Recovery Act 

(NIRA)) came out of a conservationist philosophy similar to that of the RDA’s. The idea of 

using transients for public works had been discussed for years before economic circumstances 

necessitated the labor experiment. The goal of the CCC, initially called the Emergency 

Conservation Work (ECW) program, was to make single, idle and unemployed 18-25 year-old 

men, who would agree to send a percentage of their paycheck back to their families, into 

productive members of their communities and society at large. In pioneer tradition, they 

would tame the wilderness and turn it into public gardens for people to escape for leisure and 

recreation.24

 

 

Cash in Deposit to Pay Brooke Estate,” (June 5, 1938), Newspaper Clippings, Articles, Box 3, Bally 

Building, HOFU. 21 “Press Release for French Creek Recreational Demonstration Project,” 1935, SP-7, 

Pennsylvania, Project Reports on CCC Projects in State and Local Parks 1933-37, Record Group 79 (RG 

79), National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, MD. (NACP) 22 Ibid. 

23 Paige, Civilian Conservation Corps, 118. 24 Ibid., 11-15. 
Conservation and Preservation 

20

2.2 CCC Building RDA Structure, ca.1936. HOFU Photographic Archives. 

Like the RDA program, several different governmental departments took part in the 

operation of the CCC. In order to efficiently establish and administer the program, the Labor 

Department was charged with nationwide recruiting. Young men would enlist in a program 

designed with the regimen and discipline required of soldiers, but this time nature would serve 

as their foe. The War Department would condition the enrollees and transport them to work 

camps and assign regular, reserve, commissioned, and non-commissioned officers to 

command these camps. The National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service would supervise 

work assignments usually located within areas of their jurisdiction. The NPS would supervise 

the work in those areas being developed as state parks such as the RDAs. Through this 

temporary employment program, unemployed men could work and in return, the CCC would 

improve lands for public use, drain waterlogged swamps, irrigate deserts, protect watersheds, 

and fireproof dried forests. These tasks would clear land for the development of national and 

state parks. A month after the program began, the government extended enrollment to 

American Indians, locally employed men (usually older with conservation skills and 

experience), and war veterans.25 NPS Director Horace Albright charged Conrad L. Wirth with 

organizing the Service’s State Parks Division, a department charged with managing the 

hundreds of CCC camps in current and future state parks.26

 

25 Paige, Civilian Conservation Corps, 11-15. 26 Wirth, Parks, 75. 
Conservation and Preservation 

21

Even before officially securing the land for the French Creek RDA, a CCC unit of about 

200 young men (Company 2213) arrived to occupy an unfinished camp at the French Creek 

RDA identified as SP (State Park)-7-PA on December 6, 1934. The project’s supervisory 

personnel arrived on December 10th: Park Superintendent Michael J. McCarthy (who 

coordinated project work), and Edwin L. Murdough, John N. Bastress, and Paul U. Koch as 

the foremen who directed daily work crews. Charles M. Boardman of FERA, served as the 

Project Manager who provided the staff with work plans. The supervisors directed crews to 

take over five of the old buildings, evicting Brooke caretaker Nathan Care from the largest of 

them in the process. They established their headquarters in the old office building until they 

moved to nearby Pottstown in December of 1936, converted the Charcoal House to a garage, 

and used the Blacksmith Shop as a general utility site. The workers replaced the roofing, 

stabilized the structures for occupancy and reportedly “cleaned out” many of the remaining 

artifacts to prepare them for occupancy. They also picked apart the ruins for additional 

building materials and road construction.27

Several issues delayed progress. The discovery of poison sumac, cold weather, and 

floods placed work at the lake and dam site on hold. Issues of land tenure also affected the 

CCC work schedule considerably.28 The government had secured nearly 4,000 acres of 

property, but still hoped to eventually extend the park property. On May 18, 1935, the owners 

withdrew their previous permission for the workers to enter their property until the 

government paid them. Those working at the dam site shifted their activity to the construction 

of the family campsite. Supervisors also initiated replacement projects to keep the CCC busy 

including a service road, trail work, and a drainage system.29

 

 

27 Nathan Care to Albert Ellis, January 24, 1936, “Land Acquisition PA-Correspondence-SurveyFrench Creek, Land Acquisition-PA,” Records Concerning Land Acquisitions for Recreational 

Demonstration Areas, 1934-45, RG 79, NACP; M. J. McCarthy, Superintendent’s Narrative Report, 

December 1934-January 1935, “Hopewell Park-Pennsylvania State Park 7, French Creek Area, Bridsboro, 

Pennsylvania,” January 31, 1935, “SP-7,” Pennsylvania, Project Reports on CCC Projects in State and 

Local Parks 1933-37, RG 79, NACP; Roy Appleman, “Historical Report,” 1935, 30, Copy at HOFU; 

Lawrence H. Jones, “The Restoration of the Furnace Group at Hopewell Village National Historic Site,” 

Honors Thesis, Princeton University, 1981, 22; “Master Plan for Preservation and Use of Hopewell 

Village National Historic Site,” Vol. III, General Park Information, Section A, Park Origin and Land 

Status, Hopewell Village National Historic Site, National Park Service, January 1962 3. 28 Robert I. Kintzer, ‘Special Report: Camp SP-7, CCC Company 3301 (Veterans), Birdsboro, 

Berks County, Pennsylvania, French Creek Recreational Demonstration Project,” March 31, 1936, Folder 

“SP-7”, Pennsylvania, Project Reports on CCC Projects in State and Local Parks, 1933-37, RG 79, NACP. 29 “Recommendation for the Acquisition of Land at French Creek RDA Pennsylvania, “French 

Creek, 1936-39,” General Correspondence, Box 4, Series 6.12, RG 6, PSA; Narrative Report Camp SP-7 
Conservation and Preservation 

22

Company 2213 transferred to another assignment altogether that summer, and two 

groups of World War I veterans replaced them (the three units overlapped for a brief period).30

 

Camp Superintendent Robert I. Kintzer directed and Captain Thomas A. Lane commanded 

Company 3301, a group organized from Elizabethville’s Company 1326. The first 96 veterans 

came into the Hopewell area on July 6, 1935, where they endured a rainy couple of months in 

the 2213 barracks at SP-7-PA until moving into their new camp overlooking the valley on 

October 31. The new facilities at “SP-17-PA” were a great improvement. “The barracks, the 

recreation hall, the mess hall and other buildings have become a real homespot that equals any 

veteran’s camp in the state,” boasted the camp newsletter. Arthur Sylvester served as the 

Project Manager.31

Company 3304, made up of men from Weikert, Pennsylvania, and Camp Meade, 

Maryland, arrived at the SP-7-PA site on August 2 and 3, 1935. M. J. McCarthy served as 

superintendent and W. H. Francisco commanded the group. Unfortunately, the delay in 

securing the land allowed only a few projects, where private landowners granted permission as 

long as there would be no damage to their property, to proceed. Work primarily involved the 

clearing of land in preparation for the dam and lake and improving the infrastructure of the 

camp itself. Company 3304 began to prepare organized campsites with the intention that they 

would eventually be chartered by groups like the Boy and Girl Scouts and developed the Six 

Penny and Baptism Creek picnic sites. They also set to work converting a former army camp in 

the area into a Family Cabin Area by installing sewer lines, laying power lines, and seeding 

trees. NPS officials also wanted to open some facilities like picnic areas for “immediate use.” 

Crews developed 35 stone fireplaces, a springhouse, 1,500 linear feet of pipes to provide water 

to two drinking fountains, 25 park seats, tables, benches of native timber in picnic area, latrines, 

 

French Creek Project Birdsboro, PA (February and March 1935), March 31, 1935, Project Reports on 

CCC Projects in State and Local Parks, 1933-37, RG 79, NACP. 30 Roy E. Appleman, “Memorandum Respecting the Historical and Archaeological Importance 

of the French Creek Recreational Demonstration Area, Pennsylvania, and the Proposal that it be Made a 

National Monument,” October 17, 1939, HOFU library (Appleman, “Memo,” (1939)); “Superintendents 

Narrative Report,” December-January, February-March, 1935, French Creek Project SP-7, “Special 

Report,” March 31, 1936, in “Inspection Reports, French Creek,” French Creek State Park (FCSP); 

“Government Acquires 3,780 Acres of Land for Hopewell Project,” Reading Eagle (August 13, 1935) 

Newspaper Clippings, Box 3, Bally Building, HOFU. 31 “Company 3301 Moves In,” The Keystone Veteran 1, no. 1, “Mr. Sylvester Gives Talk on 

National Parks,” The Keystone Veteran 1, no. 1, Civilian Conservation Corps Papers, Company 3301, 
Conservation and Preservation 

23

a parking area, and laid power lines. Surveying crews sketched out a base map. Company 3304 

also helped Company 2213 construct the dam and clear the area for a lake.32

 

The CCC foremen laid out a work program revolving around the expansion of 

Hopewell Dam to provide a seventy-acre lake. Forty acres of the tract needed to be cleared of 

timber and stumps. Workers began to salvage some of the materials for the recreational area 

from the walls of the Hopewell Furnace ruins for use in rebuilding the dam.33 In spite of the 

apparent carelessness, the CCC Project Superintendent Kintzer still claimed that, “The entire 

work program of PA SP-17 [sic] is aimed toward building a Recreational Area in a section of 

primitive Pennsylvania wilderness and every effort is being made to restore and preserve this 

historic site.”34 CCC workers even referred to the future park as “Hopewell Park.” Due to the 

level of skilled labor required for much of the site, a WPA program staffed by local residents 

operated jointly with the CCC to develop the French Creek RDA in 1935.35

 

CCC workers also kept busy during their off hours. Most of the veterans’ groups were 

older and more hardworking than their youthful counterparts in other CCC units; however, 

their shared war experiences left many prone to alcohol problems, especially during slow 

periods. Some complained about poor conditions, namely bedbugs and overly aggressive 

commanders. Non-work related activities included classes, reading, attending religious 

services, and participating in sports tournaments. Newsletters (Keystone Veteran for Company 

3301 and the Hopewell Howl for 3304) carried jokes, gossips, word puzzles, safety tips, cartoons, 

announcements, and general CCC articles that cultivated congeniality and community spirit.36

 

microfilm, FCSP; “History Company 3301 SP-17-PA,” “CCC,” Hopewell Furnace Superintendent’s 

Documents ACC. 905, Bally Building, HOFU. 32 “CCC,” Hopewell Furnace Superintendent’s Documents, ACC. 905, Bally Building, HOFU; 

The Keystone Veteran 1, no. 1, Civilian Conservation Corps Papers, Company 3301, microfilm, FCSP; Earl 

R. Webber, “What the CCC Boys Have Done at Hopewell,” The Hopewell Howl (December 21, 1935) in 

Civilian Conservation Corps Papers, Company 3304-V, microfilm, FCSP. 33 Kintzer; Jones, “Restoration of the Furnace Group,” 22. 34 M.J. McCarthy, Superintendent, “Special Report: Camp SP-7, CCC Company 3304 (Veterans), 

Birdsboro, Berks County, Pennsylvania, French Creek Recreational Demonstration Project,” March 31, 

1936, Folder “SP-7,” Pennsylvania, Project Reports on CCC Projects in State and Local Parks, 1933-37, 

RG 79, NACP; Kintzer. 35 “Hopewell Park,” The Keystone Veteran 3, no. 5, CCC Microfilm A, FCSP; Appleman, “Memo” 

(1939). 

36 Inspection Reports, 1936-37, FCSP. 
Conservation and Preservation 

24

The CCC’s activities received considerable attention from the local press as well. A 

large picnic grove was one of the first CCC facilities opened to the public.37 Two foot bridges 

and one vehicular bridge spanned the area around the winding creek. The Baptism Creek 

Picnic Site included stone and timber shelters, fireplaces, a water supply, tables, a 100-car 

parking area, and a footpath that led to a cluster of old buildings. The CCC newsletter 

predicted an additional amenity. “Visitors this summer to the new picnic grove will find 

themselves in an interesting neighborhood. They will see the old village of Hopewell, the site 

of an ironmaking community which flourished 150 years ago, as one of the most important 

industrial towns of Pennsylvania in colonial times and the early days of the Republic.”38 This 

old village would soon come to the attention of newly hired National Park Service historians at 

a time when the agency began taking an interest in preserving historic sites in addition to its 

natural ones. (See Map 2.2). 

“Discovery” of History at French Creek 

When the government purchased Louise Brooke’s land for recreational development 

near Birdsboro, Pennsylvania, in 1935, the land included the ruins of an eighteenth and 

nineteenth-century iron blast furnace and community, formally known as Hopewell. The 

inclusion of the properties was not intentional, but came about as the result of several 

important governmental changes that all occurred about the same time. In May 1935 the new 

Resettlement Administration (RA), an agency of the Department of Agriculture designed to 

address rural poverty, assumed jurisdiction over the rural rehabilitation and land use programs 

initiated under FERA. By the end of the summer, Congress passed the Historic Sites Act. This 

act, which set up an advisory board to address regulations and procedures of the legislation, 

was a key component in a series of legislative acts, which progressively granted the federal 

government more power in designating historic sites.39 Through the Historic American 

Building Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) program (where 

architects would document structures worthy of preservation) and the activities of the CCC, 

 

37 Kintzer. 

38 “15-acre Tract at French Creek Park to be Opened,” Hopewell Howl (June 29, 1936), CCC 

papers, microfilm, FCSP. 39 William J. Murtagh, Keeping Time: The History and Theory of Preservation in America (New 

York: Sterling Publishing Company, 1993), 53. For a comprehensive legislative history, see Ronald F. Lee, 

The Antiquities Act of 1906 (Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1970). 
Conservation and Preservation 

25

the Historic Sites Act expanded the influence and size of the NPS and gave the agency a 

leading national role in the preservation movement.40 Executive Order 7496, which Roosevelt 

signed on November 14, 1936, transferred the RDA program to the authority of National Park 

Service, although the Resettlement Administration continued to fund the RDAs’ 

development.41

In addition to these directives, the 1935 Historic Sites Act for the first time drafted 

policies and provisions to guide the Secretary of the Interior in acquiring historic sites.42 By 

way of selection criteria, NPS Associate Director Arthur E. Demaray had written, “The sum 

total of the [historic] sites which we select should make it possible for us to tell a more or less 

complete story of American History. Keeping in mind the fact that our history is a series of 

processes marked by certain stages of development, our sites should illustrate and make 

possible the interpretation of these processes at certain levels of growth.”43 The government 

soon discovered a property already in its possession fitting that very description. 

While other CCC administrators regarded the remains of Hopewell as merely a 

residential convenience or fodder for newer construction, CCC Architect Gustavus Mang 

informed his regional supervisors in April of 1935 that he believed the old buildings and 

structures were of “valuable heritage” and that “the old work should all be preserved.”44 The 

following month, National Park Service employee Ronald F. Lee, an ECW historian for the 

State Parks Division, investigated rumors of a group of ruins lying within the soon to be 

acquired land. 45 

NPS Chief Historian Verne Chatelain had hired Lee, a teaching fellow and doctoral 

student in History at the University of Minnesota, and several others from his department as 

“historical technicians” two years earlier to oversee NPS work in eight CCC camps located at 

 

40 For a comprehensive overview of the history of national parks, especially in the 1930s, see 

Harlan D. Unrau and G. Frank Willis, Administrative History: Expansion of the National Park Service in 

the 1930s (Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1983). 41 Roosevelt, Executive Order, No. 7496, November 14, 1936. 42 Murtagh, Keeping Time, 55-58. 43 As quoted in Barry Mackintosh, “Inagurating the Program” in Interpretation in the National 

Park Service: A Historical Perspective (Washington, DC: History Division, National Park Service, 

Department of the Interior, 1986) http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/mackintosh2/ 

branching_inagurating.htm (accessed October 4, 2002). 44 Kurtz, “The History of Archaeology and Artifact Curation at Hopewell Furnace National 

Historic Site,” 3. Copy at HOFU. 45 Ronald F. Lee, “Inspection Report on French Creek Submarginal Land Project,” May 29, 1935, 

“HVNHS, PA,” General Files, RG 79, NACP. 
Conservation and Preservation 

26

military parks. After working at Shiloh Battlefield in Tennessee, Lee moved to the Washington 

Area Support Office (WASO)46 where he helped draft the Historic Sites Act. Lee then 

transferred from Chatelain’s office to work for Conrad L. Wirth at the State Parks Division.47 

As part of his duties, Lee toured the French Creek RDA with CCC Project Superintendent 

McCarthy and other local officials in search of historical remains. During this visit, Lee 

determined the cluster of buildings around a crumbled furnace worthy of historical 

development. He emphasized the problems associated with the buildings’ current function as 

the CCC’s “nucleus of park development” and administrative activities.Determined to 

discourage any additional occupation or building “improvements,” Lee proposed that NPS set 

the group of buildings aside in the immediate future, and consider more permanent 

segregation following extensive research by a qualified historian and a reevaluation of the 

RDA’s development plan.48

Lee then contacted a friend, Allen Nevins, at Columbia University in June of 1935 to 

help him fill the position for a Region II (New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania) historian out 

of Bronxville, New York. Lee offered the job to a graduate student named Roy E. Appleman 

who still needed to complete and publish his dissertation and eagerly accepted any extra 

money to do so.49 Appleman was one of several trained historians Lee hired that year to 

oversee CCC work and advise states about issues of historic preservation in their parks. 

Appleman, who would enjoy a long and successful career with the NPS, cut some of his first 

teeth at Hopewell.50 In a 1983 letter to then Superintendent Elizabeth Disrude, he recalled the 

situation: 

 

46 The Washington Area Support Office (WASO) is often referred to as “the Washington office” 

throughout this text. 47 Charles B. Hosmer, Jr. Preservation Comes of Age: From Williamsburg to the National Trust, 

1926-1949 (Charlottesville, Va: University Press of Virginia, 1981), 583; “Biography,” in Finding Aid for 

Ronald F. Lee Papers, National Park Service History Collection, RG 1, Library, Harpers Ferry Center, 

Harpers Ferry, West Virginia.(HFC) Found at www.nps.gov/hfc/library/lee.htm (accessed January 28, 

2003); Stephanie Tuill, “Ronald F. Lee,” (Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences, Texas 

A&M University, 2001), http://www.rpts.tamu.edu/Pugsley/Lee%20R%20F.htm (accessed May 4, 2003). 

48 Ronald F. Lee, “Inspection Report on French Creek Submarginal Land Project,” May 29, 1935, 

“HVNHS, PA,” General Files, RG 79, NACP. 49 Roy Appleman, Interview by Charles B. Hosmer, April 15, 1970, Transcript in Charles B. 

Hosmer, Interviews Concerning Historic Preservation, 1969-1976, Archives of American Art, 

Washington, DC. (AAA) 50 Roy Appleman, Interview by Herb Evison, February 10, 1971, Papers of Charles Hosmer, 

National Trust Library, University of Maryland. (NTL); Constance M. Grieff, “Park Boundaries,” in 
Conservation and Preservation 

27

Some of the professional men on the local CCC staffs had mentioned the possibility of 

saving some of the historic structures in the old ironmaking village. That had filtered up 

to some higher officials, including Mr. Melvin Borgeson, my immediate boss and 

Director of the Bronxville District Office. Mr. Borgeson wanted me to visit the place, 

inventory and evaluate the historic features, and make some recommendations for his 

guidance and consideration.51

Soon after he began his new job on July 18, Appleman visited the Hopewell site for 

several days to conduct interviews and research. Some of the CCC workers acted as his tour 

guides, pointing out various ruins and remains they had noticed over the last few months. 

While many of the veterans had admired the ruins, few considered the possibility of preserving 

them. Gustavus Mang, George Haws, and Harker Long, all natives of the area, and George 

Schultz, an expert on Pennsylvania’s iron industry, further assisted Appleman in field, library, 

and historical society investigations.52

The Appleman Reports 

Following his visit, Roy Appleman drafted a report to document the historical 

background and context of the furnace. His findings and enthusiasm for the site set the 

groundwork for ambitious preservation and development plans. He included a comprehensive 

discussion about the history of the iron industry in Pennsylvania, the significant place of 

Hopewell within it, and associated the site with important people and events in American 

colonial history. He wrote that by 1828, Berks County led the country in iron production and 

owner Mark Bird briefly partnered with George Ross, a signer of the Declaration of 

Independence and brother-in-law to James Wilson, a signer of the Declaration and the 

Constitution. Bird himself served as a colonel in the Revolutionary War, and he supplied the 

Continental Navy with provisions and iron, including cannon and shot. However, rather than 

for these romantic associations, Appleman identified the ruins of the furnace itself and the 

nearby cluster of “buildings grouped together to form the old Hopewell Village” as the most 

notable historical resources at the French Creek RDA. Furthermore, “nothing has been done 

 

Independence: The Creation of a National Park (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press), 1987. 

Published online at www.ushistory.org/iha/dreams/dreams21.htm (accessed January 28, 2003). 51 Roy Appleman to Elizabeth E. Disrude, September 25, 1983, Vertical Files, HOFU. 52 Appleman, “Historical Report,” 1935, 28. 
Conservation and Preservation 

28

to alter or to develop the historical remains.”53 Although historians have since discovered that 

operators at Hopewell Furnace tried to improve the machinery with additions like a steam 

engine and hot blast technology, Appleman argued that Hopewell had maintained colonial 

charcoal-burning throughout its operations, making it a rare treasure for historians of original 

furnace technology.54 In comparison to other sites Appleman had seen, he was “convinced that 

the restoration of Hopewell Furnace would give to the people of the state of Pennsylvania and 

the United States a cultural monument that can hardly be found elsewhere. Hopewell Furnace 

is one of the oldest standing anywhere in the country.”55

 

Appleman maintained that the furnace group, Blacksmith Shop, Charcoal Storage 

House, Bake Ovens, Office-Store, Tenant Houses, traces of the old tailrace, and the thirty-foot 

high shaft of the furnace stack, still maintained enough of their original form to possess 

historical integrity. Other notable ruins included those of a brick charcoal kiln, a failed 

experiment to make charcoal more efficiently, and the remains of some 1880 equipment that 

offered steam power to supplement water-powered Blast Machinery. The spring still operated 

at the Springhouse. Water “trickled down the tail race [sic]” and the headrace that brought 

water from the dam was still visible in some places. The Blast Machinery (waterwheel, blowing 

tubs, and receiver), dismantled and owned by the Franklin Institute, remained on site. 

Appleman hoped to convince the Institute to allow the machinery to remain in its original 

historical context.56

 

Other features posed a challenge to the site’s historical integrity. Trees had grown out 

of the mortar joints and split apart the masonry. It appeared that only small trees, shrubs, and 

grass held the top together. The bridge house and roof timbers to the casting house had “long 

since disappeared.”57 A modern barn covered the original. A highway relocation in the 1920s 

tore down a wheelwright shop, and a schoolhouse was long gone along with several tenant 

houses. Appleman described the Ironmaster’s House as “of a not very interesting colonial 

 

53 Ibid., 24, 30. 

54 Ibid., 6-11. 

55 Appleman, “Historical Report,” 1935, 33, 39; Garrison, Making of a Ranger, 155. 

56 Appleman, “Historical Report,” 1935, 24, 26, 40. 

57 Ibid., 24; Appleman to Regional Director, November 8, 1946, General File, Hopewell Village, 

NERO-P. 
Conservation and Preservation 

29

style,” determining that the original, which he identified by thick, two-foot walls, had been 

altered at least twice.58

In spite of these issues, Appleman hardly seemed to doubt, challenge, or even debate 

whether or not restoration served as the most appropriate means of preserving the site when 

he enthusiastically recommended its development by “some public agency” in a “scientific 

manner.”59 He offered several of his own ideas regarding the restoration and treatment of 

Hopewell Furnace, none of which stopped at stabilizing the ruins. Rather than simply preserve 

the remnants of the buildings, or restore them to how they may have appeared in the 

revolutionary era, Appleman’s object was to instead return the village to its “golden era,” 

which he determined to be the late nineteenth century. Appleman therefore proposed to bring 

the furnace back to its original condition of 1883, the year of its last blast. He focused his 

comments on the industrial and technological aspects of the site, leaving supporting village 

resources like the Ironmaster’s House, Office-Store, and Springhouse to serve only as context. 

Appleman suggested using the Charcoal House as a museum and discussed filling it with 

collections and objects about ironmaking at Hopewell. Though it would not necessarily have 

to return to full working condition, he hoped that any restoration would at least allow water to 

run over the waterwheel by opening the headrace and taking water from the site of the 

Brooke’s dam, now a new lake for the French Creek RDA. The tailrace could be opened up as 

well, and the Blacksmith Shop might be used for displays. He offered an idea for exhibits: 

showing piles of charcoal and slag and products produced at the furnace, mule team wagons, 

implements and tools used by the workers, and processes explained. Simple labels and 

markers could identify structures for visitors who would arrive at the site along the footpath 

that took them from the recreational portion of the park to the historical section.60

 

 

58 Appleman, “Historical Report,” 1935, 24; Lemuel Garrison to C. M. Mishler, May 9, 1941, 

NMP-CCC Hopewell Village April–December 1941, General Correspondence 1939-1952, Hopewell 

Village, Region V, NARA-P. 59 Appleman, “Historical Report,” 1935, 31, 39. The National Park Service Advisory Council 

would develop a restoration policy several months later. Also see John Matzko, “Historical 

Reconstructions and the National Park Service,” in Reconstructing Fort Union (Lincoln: University of 

Nebraska Press, 2001), 1-9 for a thorough discussion on the issue of the reconstruction of historic sites, 

particularly within the National Park System. 60 Ibid., 31-34. 
Conservation and Preservation 

30

Finally, Appleman lamented over the care given to the site’s historical documents by 

the Brooke family, the Berks County Historical Society, and the CCC workers, many of who 

had built up a fairly poor reputation when it came to the care of government property.61

During the first few days after the camp was established at French Creek and before 

proper steps had been taken to safeguard anything of historical value which might be 

found on the premises, camp boys appropriated for their own possession whatever they 

found in the old office that suited their fancy, and burnt the remainder. Evidently they 

had no sense of the historical value of the old records. It would appear impossible to 

recover any of this material as the original group of men at French Creek, SP-7 have 

been moved elsewhere.62

The historian complained further that had the Brooke family or the local historical societies 

been properly vigilant, these records could have been spared their fate as CCC kindling. 

Superintendent McCarthy turned over the remaining ledger books, largely yellowed and 

chewed up by vermin. Only the Franklin Institute had made any gestures to preserve the 

resources. Most of the available historical documentation would come from the Berks County 

Historical Society, sketches drawn by George Schultz, and the most valuable insight from 

Harker Long, a former Hopewell resident and caretaker.63

Appleman’s subsequent actions in pursuing the equipment from the Franklin Institute 

indicate his superiors authorized him to continue to develop his ambitious ideas.64 Over the 

next few months, his ideas about how to preserve Hopewell Furnace and its accompanying 

structures changed somewhat, perhaps informed and influenced by an NPS Regional 

Landscape Architect, “Red” Ewald. Appleman also consulted further with Gustavus Mang, 

Harker Long, French Creek Landscape Architect Richard Yager, and Robert Brooke in 

assessing the present status, condition, use, and estimated cost of restoration to expand on his 

initial proposal. With Ewald, Appleman developed another, more ambitious “master plan” 

detailing a proposal for the restoration of the furnace complex and the problems associated 

with such a project.65 Not nearly as ideologically or fiscally conservative as the previous one, 

they expected the report would act as a guide for an official policy governing the treatment of 

Hopewell Furnace as an outdoor living museum. Ronald Lee praised the detailed proposal 

 

61 “Inspection Reports, French Creek,” 1936-37, FCSP. 

62 Appleman, “Historical Report,” 1935, 20. 

63 Ibid., 19-20, 40. 

64 Project Manager Charles Boardman to Roy Appleman, December 24, 1935, H14 Restoration 

and Survey” Central Files, HOFU. 

65 Melvin Weig, Interview by Herbert Evison, September 1, 1971, Oral History Collection, HFC. 
Conservation and Preservation 

31

soon after reviewing it in January of 1936, about the same time that the NPS took over 

administrative affairs at the park and Albert Ellis replaced Charles Boardman as project 

manager.66

Instead of 1883, the new report suggested the earlier time period, 1785 to 1800, to restore 

thirty resources, but rated them by importance in case funds did not allow for such a plan. 

According to Appleman, these years covered not only the “first decade of our existence as a 

nation,” but “the period for which the village can best be restored with substantial historical 

accuracy.”67 Appleman justified the recommendation according to the criteria of authenticity. 

Surviving documentation could easily address this period, and, he argued, technology had 

changed little between that period and the later one that local informants like Harker Long 

remembered.68

In this second report, Appleman had devised an even more complex vision for the site. 

He stressed more of the social aspects of Hopewell Furnace complex and all of its components 

than in his original assessment for preservation of just the furnace and its associated 

technologies. While the furnace stack would remain the centerpiece of the site, each resource 

represented a particular aspect of life in the village, serving visitors with the specific purpose of 

display or concession. “Each feature of the village should be its own museum,” he wrote.69 Like 

its original purpose, the Ironmaster’s House would serve as the social center, offering food and 

refreshments to visitors. He advocated conducting extensive research to furnish and restore 

all of the buildings, not just the furnace, and envisioned water running through the West 

Headrace and pouring across the waterwheel, with live history demonstrations of crafts and 

food preparation in the Blacksmith Shop, Barn, and Tenant Houses. He even suggested 

moving beyond preservation and restoration toward the actual reconstruction of structures 

like a second Charcoal House, the Schoolhouse, and Wheelwright Shop. Rather than 

preserving or stabilizing Hopewell’s ruins to display the effects of time, Appleman ardently 

embraced the idea of re-creation through restoration. He believed the park should “aim at 

 

66 Lee to Conrad Wirth, January 23, 1936, “Hopewell Furnace NHS,” Box 7, Series 5, Papers of 

Charles Hosmer, NTL; “The Park Service,” The Hopewell Howl 1, no. 2 (January 27, 1936), Microfiche D, 

FCSP. 

67 Roy Appleman, “Proposed Restoration Plan for Old Iron Making Village, French Creek 

Project, Hopewell, Pennsylvania,” (Bronxville, NY: National Park Service, Second Regional Office, 

January 15, 1936), 3. (Appleman, “Proposal,” (1936). 68 Ibid, 3. 

69 Ibid., 4. 
Conservation and Preservation 

32

vitalizing the village, and make it hum with the activity that was characteristic of it 150 years 

ago.”70 The only barriers Appleman expressed in literally bringing the furnace back to life 

entailed negotiating water rights from the French Creek reservoir and gaining title to the 

furnace equipment from the Franklin Institute.71 Otherwise, the remains of Hopewell Furnace 

offered the NPS the opportunity to employ some of the most popular preservation and 

interpretation ideas of the time. 

A Williamsburg of Our Own 

“Hopewell,” Appleman insisted, “deserves the same attention paid by [Henry] Ford at 

Dearborn, Michigan, and John D. Rockefeller Jr. at Williamsburg.”72 He was no doubt inspired 

by the recent trend in outdoor museum and historical villages. The idea of the outdoor 

museum, originating in Sweden in 1881, had become extremely popular in the United States 

during the 1920s. Perhaps to emphasize their status in a new society or to instill an appreciation 

for technological and social progress, Ford and Rockefeller inspired idealism and nostalgia for 

a simpler, bygone era through reconstructed communities. The trend of physically recreating 

the past, rather than just memorializing it continued even after Hopewell’s designation when 

entrepreneurs and local leaders created the Farmer’s Museum in Cooperstown, New York, 

Quineburg Village in Connecticut, Sturbridge Village in Massachusetts, and Lincoln’s New 

Salem in Illinois. In many of these places, costumed actors created living and unique historical 

experience for visitors as they walked through historic surroundings and supposedly 

“experienced” life and work in the past through architectural restorations and demonstrations 

by interpreters. Both Appleman and Ronald Lee cited Spring Mill, a state park in Indiana with 

a restored “pioneer village,” as a model for French Creek and Hopewell. Rather than 

“Hopewell Furnace,” NPS and CCC officials increasingly began referring to the site complex 

as “Hopewell Village,” a name that emphasized the community over the technology, and one 

never applied to the area during the furnace’s operation. It seemed Hopewell Village was 

“worthy as a replica of a living prototype from the past,” as much for social and romantic 

 

70 Ibid, 4. 

71 Appleman to Borgeson, “Letter of Transmittal and Historical Report on French Creek,” 

August 19, 1935, in “H14 Early Research and Survey,” Central Files, HOFU. 72 Appleman, “Proposal,” 1936, 4-5. 
Conservation and Preservation 

33

reasons as for industrial ones.73 Besides, doing so was part of the NPS mandate. Clearly 

influenced by the success of Williamsburg, the 1935 Historic Sites Act authorized the Service to 

“restore, reconstruct, rehabilitate, preserve, and maintain historic or prehistoric sites....”74

The trend toward village reconstruction and preservation echoed a tenor in American 

society as it moved from a pastoral society into an industrial one. Appleman and other NPS 

officials envisioned Hopewell as a revived village and a living museum, which also responded 

to popular nostalgic tendencies inherent in the historic preservation of industrial sites. The 

village at Hopewell was comparable to a southern plantation or a New England farm, but 

Hopewell celebrated an early industrial, not a pre-industrial town or agricultural community. 

As the railroad barreled through America’s countryside in the late nineteenth century, the 

conservation movement illustrated the widespread reaction against the effects of 

industrialization. Certainly the Great Depression made many doubt the effectiveness of 

America’s economic system that had replaced agrarian life as well. However, the ruins of 

Hopewell Furnace seemed less of a contradiction to the agrarian setting, because it had 

become part of a Romantic landscape, an aesthetic place of reflection for those contemplating 

profound technological and industrial changes.75

 

As a place that poetically combined the pastoral ideal with the remnants of a now 

obsolete industrial site, Appleman at first did not see restoration diminishing this aura, only 

enhancing it. In his 1935 report, he suggested that the agency in charge of the site’s 

preservation and restoration should keep the seedlings and growth along the top of the 

furnace. It would not just aid in preservation, but “add to the picturesqueness of the old 

furnace and speak powerfully of its antiquity.” Similarly, a grown over old slag pile would act 

as “a silent witness to the once great activity of the furnace.”76 In the 1936 proposal, when he 

was more focused on realism than romanticism, Appleman contended that reconstructing the 

stack and its machinery to working status, or close to it, would convey the reality of industrial 

operations to the public. The blowing tubs and waterwheel would serve as a rural contrast to 

 

73 Treese, Valley Forge, xii-xiii; Appleman, “Proposal,” (1936), 5; Diane Barthel, “Back to Utopia,” 

and “The Interpretation of Industrial Society,” in Historic Preservation: Collective Memory and Historical 

Identity (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1996), 35-53, 60; Hosmer, Preservation Comes of 

Age, 660; Murtagh, Keeping Time, 98-100. 74 As quoted in Barry Mackintosh, “To Reconstruct or Not to Reconstruct: An Overview of NPS 

Policy and Practice,” CRM Bulletin 13, no. 1 (1990). 75 Barthel, “Back to Utopia,” and “The Interpretation of Industrial Society,” 55-77. 

76 Appleman, “Historic Report,” (1935), 35. 
Conservation and Preservation 

34

modern, urban iron operations by contributing “a quaintness and a charm to the old furnace 

group that could be obtained in no other way.”77

In addition to experiencing a rural community lost in time and space, the site would 

illustrate to visitors the beginnings of the modern iron and steel industries and give them an 

“appreciation and respect for the course of industrial progress,” a reason to accept the 

dramatic changes.78 Although it still seems odd that at a time of economic crisis Appleman and 

others would advocate the remembrance and celebration of a system that was broken. Yet 

historically, the impetus for preservation in the United States followed one primary 

motivation: patriotism. Mount Vernon, Independence Hall, Valley Forge, Jamestown, the 

Alamo, and even Colonial Williamsburg all recalled ideals many citizens felt were the core of 

the nation’s identity. Hopewell simply did not exhibit the industrial transformation seen in the 

urban areas. It represented an industrial heritage that worked and functioned as a community. 

Lastly, what made Hopewell so unique from the other villages like Dearborn and what 

likely excited NPS officials, was that the site was not fabricated, but a real place. The buildings 

were still on their original site. Whereas Ford transplanted Edison’s Menlo Park from New 

Jersey to Michigan, careful restoration of extant structures would recall life in rural 

southeastern Pennsylvania. The feeling of authenticity that others had tried to recreate already 

existed at Hopewell. With care and consideration, Hopewell Village could serve as a legitimate 

living museum for interpreting America’s early industrial period. And most importantly, the 

government, not private enterprise or any other party, would own this one. 

Park Service officials embraced Appleman’s report and distributed it to local and state 

authorities for comment. Members of the local communities, especially historians associated 

with the Chester and Berks County Historical Societies, “heartily” approved of the plans to 

preserve Hopewell.79 Pennsylvania Department of Forest and Waters Secretary James 

Bogardus also praised the plans to restore Hopewell Furnace and its adjacent village “as a 

historical shrine and the beautifying of the grounds as a resort where the public may receive 

health and inspiration from recalling the early struggles and triumphs of our forefathers in 

pioneer days.”80 Even George Brooke, whose family had owned the property for over 125 

years, relayed his excitement over Appleman’s restoration proposal. The Franklin Institute 

 

77 Ibid., 32. 

78 Ibid. 

79 H14 Restoration and Survey, Central Files, HOFU. 
Conservation and Preservation 

35

also seemed receptive to seeing Hopewell restored and willing to eventually return the 

machinery in their possession. Milton Lightwood of the Federal Writers Project promised to 

prominently feature Hopewell in his write-up for the national guidebook. This action would 

no doubt increase public awareness of the property and encourage visitation.81

While public support was important, Hopewell Furnace’s future would depend on the 

persistence of NPS staff who believed in the site’s historical significance and development 

possibilities and pushed for its designation. NPS historians “discovered” and established 

Hopewell Village NHS at time when historians had tremendous influence in the National Park 

Service and the formation of its historic preservation policies. As the following chapter will 

illustrate, Hopewell Furnace became the third park and the first industrial site established 

under the provisions of the Historic Sites Act. The first two sites established under the act, 

Jefferson National Expansion Memorial and Salem Maritime National Historic Site, originated 

as development and renewal projects. In comparison, Historian Charles Hosmer cited 

Hopewell Village NHS as “the only example of the Historic Sites act being used in the way it 

was originally intended” since it had no sponsor outside of the enthusiastic NPS staff. Many of 

them, including Ronald Lee, Roy Appleman, and Melvin Weig (Appleman’s replacement on 

the district level and Hopewell’s de facto historian in the early years), would play prominent 

roles in the National Park Service in the future, and the preservation of Hopewell would serve 

as their training ground. “I think you can say Hopewell is one example of a site that has been 

preserved through the early CCC study by historians of the cultural values in areas developed 

through emergency funds in the Roosevelt Administration,” summarized Roy Appleman who, 

after an NPS-wide reorganization in 1936, continued to oversee Hopewell’s development from 

his new position at the new Region I office in Richmond, Virginia.82

 

Hopewell Village was also one of the few sites the government already owned, where in 

other cases the government had to depend on the donations of the state or private individuals. 

A CCC/WPA workforce was already in place at the RDA. Report after report explained the 

significance of Hopewell Furnace lay in its surviving resources and records as being 

 80 J. Carroll Hayes to Joseph Cope to James F. Bogardus, July 18, 1936, RG 6, PSA. 

81 Roy Appleman to Melvin Borgeson, May 13, 1936 in H14 Restoration and Survey, Central Files, 

HOFU; Walter Sheffield to Second Regional Office re “Hopewell Restoration,” March 23, 1936, CRBIB 

Files, NERO-P. 82 Roy Appleman, Interview by Charles B. Hosmer, April 15, 1970, AAA. Hopewell fell under the 

oversight of the new Region I, which encompassed all the states east of the Mississippi. 
Conservation and Preservation 

36

representative and illustrative of an early ironmaking complex in America. They contended 

that other nearby furnace remains like Cornwall, Isabella, Warwick, and Principio possessed 

neither Hopewell’s age, nor integrity. Early planners envisioned the restored structures as a 

museum in and of itself, yet realization of Roy Appleman’s ambitious and imaginative dreams 

for a “revitalized village” had a long way to go. 

Diane Barthel describes many of Hopewell’s models as the types of attractions that 

freeze the past to a certain era, extinguish all signs of future changes, and characterize a 

perceived social harmony of the past83. Such villages are isolated in time. They invite urban 

visitors to escape everyday life, similar to a recreational reprieve. To Hopewell’s planners, 

these appealing ideas coalesced nicely with those philosophies that inspired the RDA program. 

Roy Appleman expressed no concern over and apparently saw no disconnection between the 

visitors’ experiences as vacationers and students of history, or between the goals of recreation 

and preservation. To the contrary, he wrote that, “during the course of the year many 

thousands of people would traverse this trail gaining at the same time both pleasure and 

historical and cultural information...There would appear to be no conflict between the 

preservation of historic remains and their development and the carrying out of the present 

park project.”84 The recreational area would even act as a buffer against the modern intrusions 

seen at places like Williamsburg. 

The close association of Hopewell Furnace with the French Creek Recreation 

Demonstration Area, and today’s French Creek State Park, would dictate many of early 

management’s decisions and continues to cause significant dispute and dissent even today. 

Hopewell Furnace’s significance derives from its historical place in American industrialization. 

Yet the conservation and environmental efforts that inspired the RDA program responded to 

the effects of industrialization in the nation’s growing cities. A setting once ideal for industry 

became identified with a setting that the government would develop to escape industry. The 

irony of Hopewell, an industrial site within a rural and natural setting rather than an urban 

one, would complicate interpretation of the site as historical values and agendas competed 

 

83 Diane Barthel, Historic Preservation: Collective Memory and Historial Identity (New 

Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1996), 35-78. 

84Appleman, “Proposal,” (1936), 31-34, 38. 
Conservation and Preservation 

37

against recreational ones, an inherent symptom of what Service administrators would come to 

refer to as the “Hopewell Problem.”85

Having found its very own Williamsburg, Hopewell Village served as a proving ground 

for the National Park Service’s restoration policies and practices over several decades. Park 

development efforts focused immediately and almost exclusively on the restoration of 

Hopewell Furnace’s structures, over its natural and landscapes features. Disagreements and 

changes over what year to “freeze” the site repeatedly challenged the significance of Hopewell 

as a site of continuous social and industrial activity. These debates and questions stalled 

restoration efforts, as did securing enough money for professionals to conduct the extensive 

research needed for the legitimate “scientific” restoration, which Appleman and the Historic 

Sites Act prescribed. 

 

85 Borgeson and Weig to Appleman, January 18, 1937, W File, Central Files, Office of the Cultural 

Resource Manager, HOFU. 
 

38

III. The Development and Establishment of 

a National Historic Site, 1936-1941 

 The excitement surrounding the “discovery” of the Hopewell Furnace ruins propelled 

NPS Historian Roy Appleman and several others to move quickly to recognize the site in order 

to ensure preservation and expedite its restoration. About nine months after Appleman’s 

recommendations for Hopewell Furnace and its surrounding village structures, the Advisory 

Board on National Parks, Historic Sites, Buildings and Monuments, established under the 

Historic Sites Act, convened its second meeting in May of 1936. Although the minutes reveal no 

further details or discussions about Hopewell, nor why it possessed national significance or 

representativeness, all the members of the board concurred that “in the case of Hopewell 

Furnace, very little doubt was felt as to its national significance.”1

 

At the very same meeting, the advisory board’s sub-committee on Historical and 

Archeological Areas debated the wisdom, function, and disadvantages of reconstruction as a 

method of interpreting newly acquired historic sites with few, fragile, or altered historical 

remains. Both the board and NPS’s administrators in particular were cognizant of the perils of 

irresponsible reconstruction or restoration. Chief Historian Verne Chatelain urged his 

colleagues to search for alternative ways to interpret sites with few physical remains. NPS 

historian Albert Good commented that “the faint shadow of the genuine often [made] more 

intelligent appeal to the imagination than the crass and visionary replica.”2

 Board members 

Fiske Kimball and Alfred Kidder agreed to form a committee to establish a National Park 

Service policy in order to protect the physical source material at historic sites for scholars of 

future generations.3

 

At the following meeting in October, the board issued a fairly conservative set of 

preservation guidelines (adopted in 1937), that not only applied to reconstruction, but 

restoration as well. The policy statement included the statement, “Better to preserve than 

repair, better repair than restore, better restore than construct.” The guidelines insisted upon 

thorough archeological and documentary research prior to any reconstruction or restoration 

 

1

 Minutes to Second Advisory Board Meeting, May 7-9, 1936 at Washington, DC, Minutes to 

Meeting of the Advisory Board, Washington Area Support Office (WASO). 2

 As quoted in John Matzko, Reconstructing Fort Union, 6 and Barry Mackintosh, “The Case 

Against Reconstruction,” CRM Bulletin 13, no. 1 (1990). 3

 Matzko, Reconstructing Fort Union, 6. 
Development and Establishment 

39

work. However, the board primarily left the final decisions up “to the judgment of the men in 

charge.”4

 At the fourth meeting, the advisory board approved restoration as a primary and 

viable method of preservation and historical site interpretation. 

The objectives of national historical parks are to preserve against change and 

deterioration areas on which were enacted events of outstanding importance, and to 

portray and interpret by means of field museums and restoration, as well as ordinary 

museum exhibits, the mode of life of earlier generations of Americans.5

The general discussions and preservation guidelines of the advisory board undoubtedly 

influenced the decisions over management of resources at the Hopewell site, and consequently 

Hopewell served to test theories of restoration (and reconstruction) against this policy and 

other theories of interpretation. At the time, the NPS already had the authority to oversee the 

development of RDAs, but recall that in November 1936, Roosevelt transferred the 

management of the RDA program in its entirety from the Resettlement Administration to the 

NPS via an executive order. The action merged the professional staffs of the CCC and the NPS 

and placed Hopewell property, funding, and functions solely within the purview of the NPS 

and its preservation policies.6

Lacking Expertise: CCC Restoration from 1936-1938 

Prior to 1936, the National Park Service already had gained experience in 

reconstruction at the George Washington Birthplace and Colonial National Monument in 

Virginia.7

 Through Hopewell Village and the other early historical sites, the National Park 

Service continued to extend, expand, and define a national cultural preservation movement. A 

few days after Appleman submitted his restoration plan that year, Ronald Lee advised his 

 

4

 “Restoration Policy Adopted by the Advisory Board on National Parks, Historic Sites, 

Buildings, and Monuments, Third Meeting, October 22-23, 1936,” Minutes to Third Advisory Board 

Meeting, October 22-23, 1936, WASO; Barry Mackintosh, “To Reconstruct or Not to Reconstruct: An 

Overview of NPS Policy and Practices,” CRM Bulletin 13, no.1 (1990). 5

 Minutes to Fourth Advisory Board Meeting, March 25-26, 1937, at Washington, DC, WASO. 6

Charles B. Hosmer, Jr., Interview with Ronald F. Lee, August 17, 1962. Oral History Collection, 

HFC; Franklin Delano Roosevelt, President. Executive Order No. 7496, November 14, 1936. 7

 Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age, 478. 
Development and Establishment 

40

supervisor Conrad Wirth that the regional office should assign Hopewell Village a “priority 

rating.” 8

 

Lee suggested the CCC projects, under the purview of the NPS, might address some of 

the historical resources in Appleman’s report as long as they complemented the development 

of the recreational project. Lee also questioned the fate of Hopewell’s administration, 

especially considering its inclusion in an RDA destined for state ownership. He urged the NPS 

to consider purchasing the site outright and operating it separately “as a colonial village on a 

permanent basis,” rather than allowing it to be turned over to the state as part of the RDA. If 

this was not possible, perhaps the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Department of Forests 

and Waters could take it over and manage it “as they handle Valley Forge State Park.”9

 Failing 

that option, a local historical society like the Franklin Institute could operate a state- or 

federally-owned property. Whatever the decision, Lee clearly wanted to assure Hopewell’s 

future to a “competent and fiscally able agency.” He also raised the issue of fund-raising for 

the ambitious restoration project.10

Thus even before its designation as a national historic site in 1938, the National Park 

Service’s regional office began working on plans to make Hopewell Furnace live again. 

However, when the French Creek Job Priority Program officially authorized the Hopewell 

Village restoration project in 1936, district level Historian Melvin Weig and then Assistant 

Regional Officer Melvin Borgeson anxiously expressed their concern about moving forward 

on restoration activities before the NPS had conducted adequate research and planning. At the 

time, no topographic surveys, drawings, or photographic records could serve as guides. These 

activities were required in order to make the process, as Appleman had stipulated, as 

“scientific” as possible. Unfortunately, because the site was not yet declared a national historic 

site, and because French Creek remained “exclusively recreational” in purpose, adequate 

funding and qualified personnel were simply not available for archeological and historical 

research. In addition, the officials were intent on conducting a careful, “scientific” restoration, 

so it was difficult to secure qualified labor. Roy Appleman even consulted noted architect 

Fiske Kimball, member of the advisory board and then Director of the Philadelphia Museum 

of Art, to recommend architects with experience in restoration work for the French Creek 

 

8

 Historian Ronald F. Lee to Conrad Wirth, Supervisor, State Parks Division, January 23, 1936, 

“Hopewell National Historic Site,” Box 7, Series 5, Papers of Charles Hosmer, NTL. 9

 The National Park Service eventually acquired jurisdiction over the Valley Forge site in 1976. 
Development and Establishment 

41

project. Whenever funds were available, WPA quotas restricted the type of personnel they 

could hire outside the relief roles to ten percent. Qualified personnel were simply not part of 

that pool. Project Manager Arthur Sylvester was fortunate enough to secure Jackson Kemper 

off the relief roles. Only Kemper came even close to having the expertise required of the 

necessary historical research to pick up where Appleman’s historical work had left off. A local 

descendant from the Brooke family, Kemper had a personal connection to the site and had 

considerable access to local residents. Among many research duties, he oversaw the CCC 

crews as they cleaned out debris from the site in order to ensure the protection of artifacts.11

On Saturday, February 8, 1936, NPS Regional Director Melvin Borgeson organized a 

conference regarding the restoration project at Hopewell. The committee agreed to allot 

$2,400 to hire four consultants for two months—a civil engineer, a mechanical engineer, an 

architect, and a landscape architect/draftsman—to draw up detailed restoration plans. They 

granted $2,500 more for ongoing consultants, twenty-five workmen, and a foreman to direct 

restoration work. The funds also would provide money to negotiate the blast equipment from 

the Franklin Institute, and for restoring the cinder surface of roadways. They suggested that 

initial work begin on the less detailed jobs like the restoration of stone walls and picket fences 

around the garden and Ironmaster’s House in order to allow time to research the more 

significant buildings.12

Research, the pressure to take advantage of an untrained CCC labor force and federal 

construction funds, leadership changes, and designation as a historical site determined the 

nature of early preservation activities, which tended to focus on the site’s built environment 

over its natural resources and setting. NPS staff likely realized they had to balance the 

availability of New Deal funding and manpower with their desire to proceed with a responsible 

preservation project. Unfortunately, securing qualified personnel to properly oversee the 

restoration and excavation program often proved fiscally and bureaucratically difficult. 

Appleman and Lee decided on a conservative course of development. Initial ideas 

concentrated more on a way to “keep this old stone stack standing” in an economical fashion 

 10 Lee, January 23, 1936, Papers of Charles Hosmer, NTL. 

11 Borgeson and Weig to Appleman, January 18, 1937, W File, Central Files, HOFU; Weig Monthly 

Report, August 1937 in ECW reports, W File, Central Files, HOFU. 12 Melvin Borgeson re “Hopewell Furnace Restoration Project,” February 14, 1936, Borgeson and 

Appleman to Ronald Lee, State Parks Division, April 10, 1936, Papers of Charles Hosmer, NTL. 
Development and Establishment 

42

than laying out a comprehensive schedule of preservation.13 The CCC could begin by 

stabilizing and maintaining existing structures in order to prepare for a later restoration. These 

included the rapidly deteriorating furnace and the nearby stone walls that once supported the 

Wheelhouse, Bridge House, and Cast House. Unfortunately, the Resettlement Administration 

refused to commit the $12,000 worth of WPA labor that Appleman estimated the project would 

require. The ECW, however, allotted $3,800 for equipment and material. By May 1936 

Appleman convinced the ECW office to fund the entire project.14

 

3.1 Furnace Group-CCC Restoration, 1935. HOFU Photographic Archives. 

3.2 General View, North, CCC Grading Road Slopes, 1935. HOFU Photographic Archives. 

 

13 Appleman to Lee, State Parks Division, May 13, 1936, Papers of Charles Hosmer, NTL. 14 Ibid. 
Development and Establishment 

43

One of the CCC’s first official restoration projects entailed clearing the furnace of 

vegetation and constructing a large flume and auxiliary drainage ditches to carry area moisture 

away from the stack base. Other CCC job priorities first targeted repairs and smaller buildings 

in the most danger of collapsing.15 The number of people offering comments and opinions 

about Hopewell’s restoration, and the difficulty in securing qualified personnel to directly 

oversee it on site, often created confusion and miscommunication. Despite assurances to 

Appleman that the workers now understood the value of the Hopewell remains (recall the 

CCC crews had unwittingly wreaked considerable damage when they first arrived at French 

Creek, replaced the roofs and “cleaned up” the area, and disposed of documents), those in SP17 removed the stones from a hedge row fence in the vicinity of the Boarding House for 

construction purposes. Horrified when he discovered the infringement, Melvin Weig insisted 

that the damage be rectified. As CCC camp managers pointed fingers, Appleman lamented, 

“I’m at a loss to account for the negligence and indifference of the individuals in charge in 

permitting this to be done.”16

 

In spite of the mistakes by workers, a number of ECW workers contributed valuable 

construction skills to the project. Restoration work for Hopewell began within the CCC’s 

budget and under the supervision of “a large and well organized force” of ECW technicians 

and WPA crews. Those in charge of construction included the CCC’s Project Manager Arthur 

Sylvester, Superintendent M.J. McCarthy, and CCC Field Inspector John C. Diggs.17 Engineer 

Carl Ashley, Architect Stephen Pierpoint, and Engineer Waring “Mike” Mikell advised the 

CCC from the regional office, and other NPS officials oversaw all of the restoration work 

through frequent inspections and memos. Along with Mikell and Weig, Superintendent 

McCarthy devised a unique method of saving the furnace. McCarthy, who colleagues 

described as a gruff character who “swore like a trooper,” even suggested rebuilding the old 

furnace “from the inside out,” and he selected several seasoned CCC workers to aid in the 

 

15 Appleman to Regional Officer Herb Evison, August 1, 1936, Monthly Reports, Weig, in ECW 

Reports, 1936-37, W File, Central Files, HOFU; Kurtz, “History of Archeology,” 5-7. 16 Appleman to Evison, August 1, 1936, Monthly Reports, Weig, in ECW reports, 1936-37, W File, 

Central Files, HOFU; Appleman to Evison, Regional Officer, May 1, 1937, File through September 1940, 

Hopewell Village National Historic Site, NERO-P; Kurtz, “History of Archeology,” 5. See this report for 

more detailed discussion of archeological excavations. 17 Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age, 598, 661; Appleman to Lee, May 14, 1936, Papers of Charles 

Hosmer, NTL. 
Development and Establishment 

44

unique restoration.18 He proposed grouting rocks in place and inserting steel rods on the 

interior of the furnace for reinforcement. This technique would “leave the outside of the 

furnace practically untouched, thus insuring the appearance of great age which is so 

characteristic of the old furnace.” The restoration made it impossible for the furnace to 

function; however “it was possible to simulate operation with a fire down in the bottom of the 

bosh, and smoke coming up through the stack.”19 After CCC and WPA crews built a bypass 

road to divert traffic around the village in early 1937, workers began stabilizing and restoring 

the furnace stack. Company 3304 Foreman and Camp Engineer Chris Eben directed the 

project with Frank Hoffman, a trained stonemason and bricklayer. Stabilizing the furnace 

stack would take several years, but Eben would oversee about one-third of it under the 

supervision of various professionals associated with the Hopewell site. In June of 1937, work 

temporarily stopped when the ECW transferred Eben to another camp.20 In the meantime, 

CCC crews opened and cleaned out the furnace’s tailrace and rebuilt its last deteriorated 

sections.21

In early 1938, Superintendent McCarthy took over project manager duties during Chris 

Eben’s absence, but the gruff, “squinty-eyed” officer clashed with NPS officials when they 

assigned Historian John Cowan to the project over an engineer. McCarthy even accused 

Cowan of on-the-job-drunkeness, a charge that Cowan vigorously denied.22 Senior Foreman 

Paul Koch, an architect, then assumed McCarthy’s supervision duties. Acting Regional 

Historian Roy Appleman impressed upon Koch the importance of storing any bricks removed 

from the structures and photographing the stages of work for future articles and publicity.23

Melvin Weig expressed considerable satisfaction with the efforts of Koch and the new Project 

 

18 Appleman to Lee, May 14, 1936, Papers of Charles Hosmer, NTL. 

19 Melvin Weig, Interview with Charles Hosmer, August, 1974, Transcript in Charles B. Hosmer, 

Interviews Concerning Historic Preservation, 1969-1976, AAA. 20 “Rare Process Used on Stack: Hopewell Furnace Restoration is Being Made from Within,” 

Hopewell Howl (March 1937); “Iron Furnace Restoration,” Hopewell Iron Master (November 1941), 10; 

Arthur Demaray to Arno Cammerer, December 22, 1937, Papers of Charles Hosmer, NTL. 21 CLR, 62; Benjamin Zerbey to Regional Director, Correspondence 1960-74, “Hopewell NHS,” 

WASO. 22 “Old Hopewell to Live Again: US Restoring Furnace that Made Cannon Balls in 1776,” The 

Evening Bulletin, n.d.., Newspaper Clippings, Bally Building, HOFU; Historian John Cowan to Acting 

Regional Director Herb Evison, January 24, 1938, Hopewell Village National Historic Site through 

September 1940, NERO-P. 23 “Report of John P. Cowan, Senior Foreman-Historian, for June 1938, National Historic SitesHopewell, Central Classified Files 1933-49, RG 79, NACP. 
Development and Establishment 

45

Superintendent Charles Shearer. Appleman again requested an archeologist and twenty CCC 

workers to continue the furnace work in 1939. Understanding that a qualified archeologist 

could probably not be found among the relief roles, Appleman hoped to leave the work to 

Koch, or to arrange to bring back Chris Eben, who had proved competent and skilled. Eben 

returned soon afterwards to reassume his duties.24

 

Hopewell Village 

The construction activity at Hopewell prompted local newspaper articles to 

prematurely refer to the ruins as a “National Historic Site” several months before its official 

designation by the Advisory Board on National Parks, Historic Sites, Buildings and 

Monuments. Beyond the activity at and near the village site, the regional NPS officials 

stationed at Bronxville, New York urged the Washington office to take immediate steps to 

speed the site’s designation in order to separate it, at least administratively, from the French 

Creek Project.25 On February 17, 1937, Acting Director Arthur Demaray recommended setting 

aside 250 acres of the RDA for historical development as a historic site or monument. Demaray 

requested funds for preservation and restoration work as well as permission from the 

Department of the Interior to solicit private companies for donations to complete such 

activities. The area’s Coordinating Superintendent Elbert Cox submitted an almost $20,000 

budget for administration, museums and educational activities, ranger service, maintenance, 

and equipment.26 At Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes’ request, Appleman appointed 

District Historian Melvin Weig to submit a proposed boundary study as the “preliminary 

requisite” for historic site designation.27

 

24 Inspector John S. Diggs to Carl P. Russell, Regional Director, March 26, 1938, Hopewell Village 

National Historic Site through September 1940, Weig to Shearer, January 13, 1939, NERO-P; Appleman, 

June 29, 1939, Central Classified Files, Region 1, 1936-1952, Hopewell Village, RG 79, NARA-P; Chief 

Historian Ronald Lee to Acting Director A. E. Demaray, September 14, 1938, Papers of Charles Hosmer, 

NTL. 25 Borgeson and Weig to Appleman, January 18, 1937, W File, Central Files, HOFU; Weig 

Monthly Report, August 1937 in ECW reports, HOFU. 26 Acting Director A. E. Demaray to Charles West, February 17, 1937, Appleman to Lee, March 9, 

1937, Papers of Charles Hosmer, NTL. 27 Melvin Weig, “Report on Proposed Hopewell Village Boundary at French Creek 

Demonstration Project, Birdsboro, Pennsylvania,” (Bronxville, NY: Region 1 District 3, National Park 

Service, April 10, 1937); Elbert Cox, Coordinating Superintendent, July 12, 1937, General 

Correspondence, September 12, 1938 to December 30, 1939, National Historic Sites-Hopewell, Central 

Classified Files 1933-49, RG 79, NACP. 
Development and Establishment 

46

Establishing Borders 

Hopewell’s built environment primarily dictated boundary issues with one exception. 

The historic site would require an easement and water right to Hopewell Lake in order to 

operate the waterwheel machinery through the West Headrace, and the inclusion of a “typical 

wooded area, with hearth remains of charcoal pits” in order to illustrate the fuel which the 

furnace used for operation. Proper restoration, Historian Weig argued, would also have to 

include the display of homes with accompanying man-made “landscape surroundings” such as 

gardens, outbuildings and farm fields, and finally a reserve tract for administrative purposes. 

The most controversial area in the proposed boundaries involved reserve lands required for 

purposes of future administration. The government would still need to gain title to two tracts: 

the Warwick Ore Reserve Tract and the Charles Painter Tract in order to secure an adequate 

parcel on which to restore and interpret the Hopewell Furnace. 28 

The development of Hopewell would require the cooperation of two Park Service 

branches: the Branch of Historic Sites now directed by Ronald Lee and the Branch of 

Recreation, Land Planning and State Cooperation headed by his former supervisor, Conrad 

Wirth.29 Hopewell’s association with the French Creek Project thus prominently influenced 

the evaluation of its boundaries as a historic site. The boundaries would have to screen out the 

CCC camps and other modern intrusions, parts of the roads, and other additional structures. 

Furthermore, the RDA had its own development plans, issues over administrative controls and 

road systems, as well as a focus on providing recreational facilities in a naturally beautiful 

setting. Some felt that removing even Weig’s proposal of 140 acres of the land for a national 

historic site infringed upon the plans for the RDA (110 acres less than that approved by 

Secretary Ickes). Proponents of Hopewell insisted that this was the absolute minimum amount 

of property possible to ensure that the furnace group would receive the restoration it deserved 

and the public would expect. The proposed boundaries thus represented only a fraction of the 

original furnace property.30

 

 

28 Ibid. 

29 In 1936, Lee had returned to Washington as an NPS associate director when the History 

Branch of the CCC State Parks Division merged its professional staff with that of the rest of the NPS. 

After Verne Chatelain left in 1937, Lee’s position became the equivalent of the Chief Historian’s position 

today. Ronald F. Lee, Interview with Charles B. Hosmer, Jr., August 17, 1962, Oral History Collection, 

HFC. 30 Weig, “Report,” April 10, 1937. 
Development and Establishment 

47

A few weeks after submitting the boundary proposal in April of 1937, Weig and Jackson 

Kemper toured Roy Appleman around the Hopewell area. Appleman, Region I’s historian 

stationed in Richmond, Virginia, since the 1936 service reorganization,31 generally praised 

Weig’s boundary recommendations with some additional comments. As an additional buffer 

against outside infringements, Appleman had Weig push the boundary further north to include 

the area then occupied by CCC camp SP-7-PA as well as the site of a village orchard; these 

additions would expand Weig’s proposal to 160 acres.32

. 

Appleman further encouraged Weig to draw the boundary in such a way as to assure 

the site’s operational independence and used the East Headrace to support his evaluation. He 

was especially interested in restoring the ditch as a way to illustrate the engineering skills of the 

colonial ironmasters. Once surveyed, the East Headrace would give a clearer indication of the 

engineering and topography involved in bringing water to the furnace wheel. He even 

encouraged the inclusion of the Baptism Creek Picnic Site and the entire course of the 

headrace within the boundary line.33 The original boundary recommendation included two 

additional house site ruins and would have provided access to the lake for water rights to 

operate the furnace waterwheel, but Appleman’s proposal to restore the East Headrace 

eliminated the need to take water through the West Headrace. He recognized that eliminating 

the portion of land surrounding the head of the lake would improve “administrative relations 

between the recreational area and the historic site, should they be separately controlled, as has 

been assumed would be the case.” As far as the house ruins near the lake, he dismissed their 

historical relevance due to their distance from the village. Soon afterwards, he recommended 

an addition of two easements to the boundary lines—one for the perpetual right to design, 

construct, and repair an aqueduct to ensure the flow of water through the East Headrace, and 

another easement to access water from spillway of Hopewell Dam.34

 

31 The Southeast Region was established August 7, 1937, as Region I with Headquarters in 

Richmond, Virginia and covered the eastern United States except National Capital Parks, but including 

Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. In 1938, Appleman officially became Region I’s historian. Hillory 

Tolson, Historic Listings of NPS Officials, at 

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/tolson/histlist.htm. 32 Appleman, May 24, 1937, Hopewell Village National Historic Site, File through 1940, NERO-P. 

33 Landscape Architect R.A. Tapscott conceded that Baptism Creek would return no revenue to 

the state and could be retained by the Hopewell project. R. A. Tapscott, May 24, 1937, H14 Research and 

Survey, Central Files, HOFU. 34 Appleman memo to Carl P. Russell, April 12, 1938, General File, Hopewell Furnace through 

September 1940, NERO-P; Appleman, April 16, 1938, “H14 Research and Survey,” Central Files, HOFU. 
Development and Establishment 

48

The final boundary line determined for the future Hopewell Furnace National Historic 

Site did not necessarily follow the historic setting of the original Hopewell Furnace, but did 

ensure its independent operation upon designation.35 Excluding the old tenant homes, several 

charcoal pit sites, quarries, and Hopewell Lake (the waterwheel’s water source), it did 

encompass some farms that were operated in historic times and woodlands. The original 

southern boundary of the Hopewell Furnace lands stopped at the property of former caretaker 

Nathan Care, but Weig proposed to include it as part of the historic site.36 In the name of 

protection, many officials also advocated the elimination or closing of all roads in and near the 

village. In addition, the CCC’s construction of a bow-shaped bypass road between 1937 and 

1938 provided a natural border, cutting the Hopewell site off from adjacent fields and the very 

transportation system that had provided for so much of the original village’s success. While 

the Birdsboro-Warwick Road that ran through the village, between the Barn and Office-Store, 

remained open until 1955, the state and county’s adoption of the bypass protected the village, 

but at the same time increasingly isolated the constructed resources of the village from their 

surrounding natural environment.37

The Designation and Administration of Hopewell Village NHS 

Most park officials supported the separation of Hopewell Furnace from French Creek 

RDA and its designation as a national historic site, and it certainly helped that Ronald Lee was 

now Chief of the Branch of Historic Sites and that his protégé Roy Appleman was the site’s 

primary advocate. Even the most senior officials in the Department of the Interior were aware 

of the immense amount of research, meetings, and Park Service personnel already invested in 

the site’s development. The Office of the Solicitor approved the boundary recommendations 

by the summer of 1938. On August 3 Acting Secretary of the Interior E.K. Burlew designated 

213.696 acres, and the accompanying structures within those lands, as Hopewell Village 

 

35 CLR, 104. 

36 Ibid.; 61, 78, 93; John P. Cowan, “Notes on Interview with Mr. Harker Long, of Birdsboro,” 

April 5, 1938. Hopewell Village File to September 1940, NERO-P. 37 Regional Historian Melvin Borgeson, April 20, 1937, “H14 Research Survey,” Central Files, 

HOFU; CLR, 61; Acting Regional Director Fred Johnston to Drury, October 12, 1942, “File 601-03 Camp 

Sites,” National Historic Sites-Hopewell, Central Classified Files 1933-49, RG 79, NACP. 
Development and Establishment 

49

National Historic Site for “reasons of their relationship to the colonial history of the United 

States.” The Hopewell Village National Historic Site now existed as its own entity.38

Although independent entities, the proximity of Hopewell’s remains to the RDA 

continued to raise several questions. While Hopewell’s supporters philosophically saw only 

harmony when they envisioned the “machine in the garden,” the administration of an NPS 

area geared toward both historic preservation and recreation was bound to cause discord. The 

French Creek Long-Range Development Plan and a developing Master Plan for Hopewell 

Village would reveal redundant and conflicting projects. The goals of the historic park became 

increasingly distanced from those of the recreational area. The name “village” emphasized the 

desire to preserve and interpret the community and built environment over the furnace itself 

or its natural environment. Debates ensued about how to treat a historic site located within the 

boundaries of an RDA. 

The disagreements of dual administration first arose in a 1939 memo that revealed a 

$9,845 allotment for Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site in the 1940 budget, but not a 

separate one for the adjacent French Creek RDA. Coordinating Superintendent Elbert Cox 

pointed out that the allotted money could barely cover the needs of the historic site alone, not 

nearly enough to administrate both Hopewell and French Creek, and he strenuously objected 

to combining the areas on any sort of permanent basis. Cox further recommended assigning a 

superintendent at Hopewell Village NHS, but only one that could supervise research and 

planning of the historic site in absence of trained personnel as opposed to someone who 

would also oversee recreational development in the RDA. In response, Associate Regional 

Director Ewell M. Lisle argued that a superintendent should be appointed to oversee the 

historic site as well as the recreational area until the state of Pennsylvania could manage it.39

 

He contended the lands had been acquired together, developed by the CCC and RDA 

together, and needed to continue to operate as one unit as long as it all remained the property 

 

38 E. K. Burlew, Acting Secretary of the Interior, Order of Designation, August 3, 1938, 3 F.R. 

2039; Minutes to Seventh Advisory Board Meeting, May 2-5, 1938 at Santa Fe, New Mexico, WASO. 39 The decision was likely precipitated by legislation introduced in July of that year regarding the 

disposal of other RDAs to their host states, as had been the original intent. A presidential veto objecting 

to the extent of the government’s legal and moral commitments to the process delayed the legislation 

until 1942. Senate Committee on Public Lands and Surveys, Disposition of Recreational Demonstration 

Projects, 76th Congress, 1st session, S. Report 909; Elbert Cox, February 3, 1939, Ewell M. Lisle, February 8, 

1939, Roy Appleman, February 7, 1939, General Correspondence, September 12, 1938 to December 30, 

1939, National Historic Sites-Hopewell, Central Classified Files 1933-49, RG 79, NACP. 
Development and Establishment 

50

of the National Park Service. He pushed to form a policy guiding the “interrelationship 

between the Recreation Area and Hopewell Village.”40

However, according to the original and unrevised French Creek Long-Range 

Development Plan, the state of Pennsylvania would eventually manage both the village and the 

camps under a single control group. Many officials agreed that both sites could function under 

one administration. Chief of Planning Eric Von Hausswolff voiced the majority opinion. He 

felt that it seemed “much simpler for either the federal government or the state to assume full 

responsibility” and preferred the state of Pennsylvania as the ultimate caretaker of the 

property per the original intent. However, Von Hausswolff seemed willing to hand it all over 

to the federal government if the state was unable to assume the responsibility.41

 

It was primarily the NPS historians who objected to a single management for both sites 

and proposed alternative traffic scenarios in order to separate the needs of the visitors from 

the administration even further. “Hopewell is intrinsically distinct from the forest park 

recreation area with its organized camps and picnic grounds, and this salient fact should be 

recognized in any planning of road systems or area administrative controls,” stated Melvin 

Weig.42 Thus Weig gave precedence to the protection and purpose of each of the properties 

over their historical association with one another. He had support from Roy Appleman who 

agreed with Coordinating Superintendent Cox that funds designated for the restoration at 

Hopewell could not be shared with the French Creek RDA.43

 

In August 1939 Assistant Director Conrad Wirth and Matt Huppuch, who ran the RDA 

program, issued a memo suggesting yet another administrative option. Rather than be returned 

to the state, the French Creek RDA should become a national monument that would include 

the Hopewell Village National Historic Site. Their reasons for retaining the area under federal 

jurisdiction would be primarily administrative, but historical as well. If the state took over the 

 

40 Lisle to Heinrich, July 26, 1939, “French Creek General Development,” in Central Classified 

Files, Bally Building, HOFU; R. O. Jennings to Lisle, June 27, 1941, E. M. Lisle to R. O. Jennings, October 

2, 1941, “NMP-CCC Hopewell Village, April 1, 1941 to December 1941,” Hopewell Village, Region 5, 

General Correspondence 1939-1952, RG 79, NARA-P. 41 Supervisor of Historic Sites Ronald Lee to Supervisor of Land Planning Conrad Wirth, 

December 11, 1939, October 25, 1939, “File 207-Hopewell Village Reports,” National Historic SitesHopewell, Central Classified Files 1933-49, RG 79, NACP. 42 Weig, “Report,” April 10, 1937. 

43 Senate Committee on Public Lands and Surveys, Disposition of Recreational Demonstration 

Projects, 76th Congress, 1st session, 1939, S. Report. 909; Elbert Cox, February 3, 1939, Lisle, February 8, 

1939, Roy Appleman, February 7, 1939, General Correspondence, September 12, 1938 to December 30, 

1939, National Historic Sites-Hopewell, Central Classified Files 1933-49, RG 79, NACP.
Development and Establishment 

51

French Creek State Park, the water rights needed to operate the furnace would be at risk. In 

addition, the monument would be more representative of the historic Hopewell, which 

extended past the structures and included surrounding forests and farms.44 

Roy Appleman voiced a vehement objection to the national monument idea citing that 

Weig’s determination of Hopewell’s boundaries had been geared towards its existence as a 

separate entity, including only the land and areas necessary for its protection. Converting the 

historic dam site into a recreational lake proved that there was a danger in confusing recreation 

functions with preservation needs. Furthermore, he did not consider the forestland, while 

used to make the furnace’s charcoal, “important for the purposes of Hopewell Village Historic 

Site. It would be unnecessary and impracticable to obtain thousands of acres of land simply to 

show the extent of the area involved in the operation of a charcoal-burning, ironmaking 

establishment.” With the support of regional and national offices, Appleman further warned 

that conflicting goals and purposes would be “incompatible for purposes of unified 

administration.”45 Supervisor of Historic Sites Ronald Lee feared establishing a precedent for 

other historic sites by expanding boundaries, believing that the current ones sufficiently 

protected the site and he could not justify a boundary expansion based on historic issues. “No 

important historic sites intimately connected with the history of the village lie outside the 

present boundaries,” he declared. The site’s informational booklet supported this notion, 

granting the recreation area only cursory treatment.46 Still, Appleman and Lee agreed that both 

areas should work toward a closer coordination of the recreational and historical programs. 

This process might include altering policy to extend the group camping sites for use by “school 

groups, historical organizations, and similar groups interested in the historical and educational 

phases of Hopewell as much as the recreational facilities.”47

 

44 Lee, December 11, 1939, with handwritten notes by Conrad Wirth, Matt C. Huppuch, 

Memorandum for the files, General Correspondence, September 12, 1938 to December 30, 1939, National 

Historic Sites-Hopewell, Central Classified Files 1933-49, RG 79, NACP. 45 Appleman, “Memo,” (1939); Appleman, August 1, 1939 in “French Creek-General 

Development,” Central Classified Files, Bally Building, HOFU; Herbert Kahler, Coordinating 

Superintendent, November 10, 1939, General Correspondence, September 12, 1938 to December 30, 1939, 

National Historic Sites-Hopewell, Central Classified Files 1933-49, RG 79, NACP. 

46 H. K. Roberts to Coordinating Superindendent Francis Ronalds,, February 3, 1940, “Hopewell 

Village [2], 1936-1952,” Hopewell Village, Region 1, Central Classified Files, 1936-1952, RG 79, NARA-P. 47 Lee to Wirth, December 11, 1939, October 25, 1939, “H14 Research and Survey,” Central Files, 

HOFU; Matthew C. Huppuch, Memorandum for the Files December 7, 1939, General Correspondence, 

“September 12, 1938 to December 30, 1939,” National Historic Sites-Hopewell, Central Classified Files 

1933-49, RG 79, NACP. 
Development and Establishment 

52

Matt Huppuch responded angrily and defensively to many of Appleman’s assertions 

that the French Creek State Park and the Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site could never 

work together, and was offended by Appleman’s implication that the CCC’s lack of sensitivity 

to Hopewell’s remains reflected that of the RDA administrators. The definition of a park, he 

argued, extended beyond recreational purposes and into areas of human welfare. According 

to Huppuch, “Mr. Appleman’s view that a recreational area is not compatible with the 

preservation of history is certainly a narrow point of view, as historic remains possess 

considerable recreational value and there are many examples of fine coordination of history 

and other recreational values.” The French Creek area even buffered the historic remains, 

protecting them from further intrusions, decay, or vandalism.48 The dispute resolved itself in a 

compromise. The historians succeeded in keeping the parks distinct entities, at least for a few 

years. However, one NPS superintendent would oversee both the RDA and the historic site. 

Planning and Development Policy, 1938-1941 

The question of administration delayed approval of a master plan for Hopewell’s 

development, and the ongoing restoration activities created tension between those anxious to 

move forward quickly, and those wanting “to do it right.” Proper restoration required 

professional evaluation and a comprehensive architectural and photographic survey of 

structures to precede all work.49 A painstaking regional review process would accompany the 

restoration of each structure in Hopewell Village. Questions about Hopewell’s development 

and complex restoration issues involving buildings with multiple periods of construction like 

the Ironmaster’s House, Boarding House, Bake Oven, and Springhouse filled memos in both 

the regional and national offices. With few on-site professionals and no on-site superintendent 

before the fall of 1939, every decision in Hopewell’s development required the review, opinion, 

and comment of architects, historians, archeologists, and construction supervisors. These 

professionals discussed consistency between the interior and exterior of buildings, the use of 

new materials in the restoration process and the issue of “antique-ing” to retain the 

“authentic” look of an aged structure. Site Historian Jackson Kemper and others stressed the 

 

48 Kahler, November 10, 1939, Huppuch, December 7, 1939, General Correspondence, September 

12, 1938 to December 30, 1939, National Historic Sites-Hopewell, Central Classified Files 1933-49, RG 79, 

NACP. 49 Kurtz, “History of Archeology,” 7. 
Development and Establishment 

53

coordination of archeological research and engineering expertise in order not to destroy the 

structure when removing undesirable elements. When the Washington office issued its 

personnel proposal for 1940 and failed to include a research technician, a distressed Roy 

Appleman wrote, “I believe that this position is absolutely essential for the efficient and proper 

planning and development of this area. More than most historical areas in Region I perhaps, 

Hopewell needs this type of service.”50

 

As the furnace ruins awaited the attention of park staff, the idea that Hopewell’s official 

significance was tied to the colonial era (according to the order of designation) emerged as a 

key point of contention. Observers argued that because buildings had been altered so much 

over the years, returning them to their original forms would prove extremely difficult. In 

addition, many of the site’s remaining structures, or what remained of them, were postRevolutionary. Almost all of the buildings at Hopewell had been altered at some point, and a 

detailed architectural survey that met HABS standards would be needed to date the 

construction and additions.51

While the Region I officials debated these restoration issues, CCC Foreman Chris Eben 

continued to expand the scope of his projects to include the excavation of the East Headrace 

into 1939.52 Assistant Research Technician and military historian Thor Borresen arrived 

temporarily to supervise part of the work for the region and relieve an overworked Eben. 

Borresen had worked on or advised the successful restoration of Old Fort Niagara for the state 

of New York and Yorktown and Morristown Battlefield in New Jersey.53 The crew constructed 

a diversion dam at Baptism Creek and continued to clear the headrace of debris to allow water 

to flow from Baptism Creek into Spout Run. However, they awaited Borresen’s additional 

archeological research to restore a dam at Spout Run and the portion of the East Headrace 

from Spout Run to the furnace. Assistant Research Technician Manning C. Voorhis 

supplemented the excavation with local interviews to determine the course of the East 

 

50 Appleman memo, August 4, 1939, as quoted in Kurtz, “History of Archeology”. 51 Orin Bullock, August 31, 1939; Stuart Barnette, August 30, 1939, “Part 2,” Hopewell Village, 

Federal Park Use Study Reports 1940-1941, RG 79, NARA-P. 52 Jones, “Restoration,” 31. 

53 Roger Pearson, “Part I-East Headrace: Historical Data Section, Hopewell Village National 

Historic Site, Historic Structure Report, December 1966,” NERO-P, 2-3; Hosmer, Preservation Comes of 

Age, 616. 
Development and Establishment 

54

Headrace and conducted other research regarding the furnace in June of 1939. 54 Roy 

Appleman reviewed the CCC’s work, and while offering mostly compliments, he criticized the 

workers for doing their job too well–they had rebuilt the retaining wall “a bit too regular and a 

bit too high in some places.”55

 

With regard to the remaining structures, the issue of proceeding with restoration 

activities without securing adequate research or expertise continued to resonate. Some felt 

they should await a master plan while others felt work should go forward on single buildings.56

Melvin Weig believed that drafting a master plan without further documentary and 

archeological character was premature, especially concerning the restoration program. “It may 

be the better part of wisdom,” he believed,” to forego any attempt to formulate a master plan 

for the site this year and to leave the work to the superintendent expected to take over 

administration of the area later in the year.”57 Appleman, however, contended Hopewell at 

least needed a starting point. “...There must be a beginning for such a plan and the present 

effort was intended to serve that purpose and to provide a basis for study, criticism, and the 

further evolution of an acceptable plan,” he retorted.58

 

Several meetings ensued in order to settle the many planning related questions. A 

conference in March of 1939 discussed various elements of the projects relating to Hopewell 

and its master plan. For the first time, Chief of the Archeological Sites Division Dr. Arthur 

Kelly, toured the site and advised the group. He stressed the retrieval of the equipment to 

complete the furnace restoration from the Franklin Institute, the excavation of the furnace’s 

retaining walls, the stabilization of the Blacksmith Shop, the completion of the East Headrace 

restoration, and photographic documentation for all the activities. Among other things, they 

again emphasized the need to secure a qualified archeologist and a research technician before 

 

54 Pearson, “Part I-East Headrace,” 2; Relative of Hopewell’s caretaker, Hunter and Charles 

Care, Hopewell, Collier Lafayette Houck, Henry Johnson, and Charles Painter. Manning Voorhies, 

June 30, 1939, Box 99; Melvin Weig to Regional Director, July 2, 1940, “General Correspondence 00,” 

Hopewell Village, Region 5, General Correspondence 1939-1952, RG 79, NARA-P; Cowan, “Report of 

John P. Cowan,” June 1938. 55 Cowan, “Report of John P. Cowan,” June 1938; Appleman, March 18, 1939, Hopewell Village, 

Federal Park Use Study Reports 1940-1941, RG 79, NARA-P. 

56 Appleman to Evison, August 1, 1936, Monthly Reports, Melvin Weig, in ECW reports, 1936-37, 

W File, Central Files, HOFU. 57 Weig to Kahler, May 7, 1939, Hopewell Village, Central Classified Files 1936-1952, Region 1, RG 

79, NARA-P. 

58 Appleman, June 29, 1939, Hopewell Village, Central Classified Files 1936-1952, Region 1, RG 79, 

NARA-P. 
Development and Establishment 

55

conducting any more work. A few months later, Kelly determined that the CCC had gone far 

beyond the authorized excavation of the East Headrace, removing far more soil than intended. 

He blamed the mistake on “vague” instructions, “misinterpretation of the job application,” and 

“inadequately trained personnel,” then called for all future archeological work to be 

suspended until Hopewell obtained a full-time archeologist.59

Other regional NPS officials also began to take managerial control of Hopewell. In 

May 1939 Acting Coordinating Superintendent Herbert Kahler organized a meeting with 

Landscape Architect Walter Sheffield, Historian Melvin Weig, and Engineer Waring Mikell. 

The men set forth several suggestions for the park including construction of an entrance road, 

a picnic area, establishment of a superintendent’s residence, and the installation of utilities. 

They again recommended that an archeologist be appointed to head the ECW project to 

excavate the East Headrace as well as lands surrounding the furnace. They proposed 

demolishing the modern barn and using the salvaged material for the utility building and 

superintendent’s residence, the restoration60 of the Ironmaster’s House, and the removal of 

modern intrusions like an iron fence.61 In order to allay the concerns of Regional Director 

Lisle, who protested that all restoration work should await adequate research and qualified 

personnel, Kahler promised him, “You can rest assured that this sacred soil will not be touched 

until the archeologist has carefully spaded, screened, and if needs be, washed this earth to 

squeeze out every ounce of historical evidence.”62 By 1941, only the “Introduction,” “General 

Information,” “General Development,” and “Buildings” sections of the Master Plan were 

completed.63 (Maps 3.1-3.3) 

 

59 In addition to administrative personnel and ranger service, appropriation requests for 1940 

included a position for archeological assistance as well as restoration and maintenance funds. 

Appleman, March 18, 1939, Hopewell Village, Federal Park Use Study Reports 1940-1941, NARA-P; 

Appleman to Regional Director, March 18, 1939, A. E. Kelly, December 5, 1939, Papers of Charles 

Hosmer, NTL; Kurtz, “History of Archeology,” 11; Memo for the Director, April 11, 1939, Tabular 

Statement, Justification Estimates of Appropriations, Department of the Interior, Fiscal Year Ending 

June 30, 1940, “Hopewell Village [1],” Hopewell Village, Region 1, Central Classified Files 1936-1952, RG 

79, NARA-P. 60 Appleman pointed out that Kahler had originally used the word “renovate,” a process to 

which he strongly objected. 61 Kahler, May 8, 1939, General Correspondence, National Historic Sites-Hopewell, Central 

Classified Files 1933-49, RG 79, NACP. 62 Lisle to Kahler, August 22, 1939, Kahler to Lisle, August 28, 1939, General Correspondence, 

National Historic Sites-Hopewell, Central Classified Files 1933-49, RG 79, NACP. 

63 John Milner Associates, “Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site Archeological Overview 

and Assessment,” Working draft, (December 2002), 38, HOFU. 
Development and Establishment 

56

Administrative Facilities 

In addition to prioritizing the furnace’s restoration, the proposed master plan entailed a 

discussion about park administrative facilities, or control headquarters, that could centralize 

and coordinate development activities. It would limit the traffic on St. Peter’s Road to the 

guests of the organized camps. Likely, weekend guests at the camp would be tempted to visit 

the historic village since they could view it from the road. Parking and access to the historic 

site would also be arranged.64 Architectural Foreman Paul Koch presented the original design. 

Regional Architect Orin M. Bullock objected to discussing a building purely for administrative 

purposes before determining the questions of dual administration and the need for a museum 

or interpretive center. Roy Appleman felt a museum at Hopewell should serve only to 

introduce a context, but he agreed that the idea of an administration building required further 

study.65

As indicated by the extended discussions about the location of the parking area, the 

visitor’s experience upon entering the site supplemented logistical concerns in the planning of 

such facilities. The proposed parking area would not intrude on the historic picture, but still be 

a short walking distance from the resources since “many ardent students of history are elderly 

people.” For this experience, Walter Sheffield and Roy Appleman favored the hill behind the 

Ironmaster’s House, atop of which the administrative structure and parking area could not be 

visible from the village and where “the visitor coming to Hopewell for the first time can 

appreciate the charm of seeing this picturesque little community in the hollow below him.” At 

this location, the park entrance would extend from the east and cross the East Headrace.66 

Other options included Weig and Borgeson’s preference for the view from the southern end of 

village near the Nathan Care (former caretaker) House, but there, some argued, it would be 

difficult to screen visitors once summer foliage grew in and the parking lot would break into 

already cultivated fields.67

 

64 Frederic H. Fairweather, Associate Architect, April 19, 1937, W file, HOFU; Lattimore, Annual 

Report, 1942, Central Classified Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 

65 Orin M. Bullock, Regional Architect, Technical Review, July 15, 1941, Appleman, Technical 

Review, File 600-03.2 Park Headquarters, Central Classified Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 66 Garrison to Regional Director Cammerer, August 22, 1940, Appleman, June 29, 1939, File 600-

01, Hopewell Village, Region 5, General Correspondence 1939-1952, RG 79, NARA-P. 

67 Appleman, March 18, 1941, “600-01 Master Plan,” General Correspondence, National Historic 

Sites-Hopewell, Central Classified Files 1933-49, RG 79, NACP; Weig to Kahler, May 7, 1939; Walter 
Development and Establishment 

57

The argument for the northern entrance actually supported another contention of 

Weig’s concerning the site of a superintendent’s residence, which he and others believed 

should not only be close to the resources for administrative reasons, but would ward off future 

vandalism. Sheffield and Coordinating Superintendent Kahler proposed the Houck (aka

Church) House, located north of the Hopewell tract and, at the time, used as a control station, 

for restoration as a temporary superintendent’s residence and administrative center. (Map 3.4). 

By 1940 workers added a kitchen and bathroom to prepare the structure for residence.68

The Restoration Program under Superintendent Lemuel Garrison 

Many of Hopewell’s restoration and interpretive plans began to take on more cohesive 

direction with the long-awaited arrival of the Hopewell Furnace’s first superintendent, Lemuel 

“Lon” Garrison at the end of November 1939 and archeologist John Christopher Fisher 

“Chris” Motz in April 1940. The two men adopted the same passion for the site as Appleman 

and began an archeological program full force.69 As the park’s small staff, Garrison and Motz 

would now assume the responsibility for making key development decisions, but under the 

watchful eyes of regional and Department of the Interior staff and in accordance with the 

Advisory Board’s 1937 policy. 

This would be Garrison’s first superintendency, and it came under controversial 

circumstances. Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes, seemingly out of spite for a local 

Pennsylvania politician, Daniel K. Hoch, plucked the western ranger from Yosemite National 

Park in California to take over Hopewell Village rather than allow the politician to appoint 

someone based on patronage. Garrison not only knew very little about the Hopewell site, but 

little about historic sites in general. Still, Garrison enthusiastically embraced his new and 

demanding position.70 Years later, Melvin Weig attested, “...Lon Garrison, although not a 

professional historian by training, took an intense interest in the historical aspects of all this 

 

Sheffield, Architect, August 7, 1939, Hopewell Village, Region 1, Central Classified Files 1936-1952, RG 79, 

NARA-P. 68 Weig to Kahler, May 7, 1939; Sheffield, August 7, 1939, NARA-P; Elizabeth Disrude, Statement 

for Management, Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, 1981. 

69 See Kurtz, “History of Archeology,” 11-24, for details of the archeological program conducted 

during Garrison’s tenure. 70 Garrison, Making of a Ranger, 140-147. 
Development and Establishment 

58

work and during his tenure as first Superintendent contributed a great deal to advancing the 

whole restoration project.”71

 

3.3 Superintendent Lemuel Garrison, 1940. HOFU Photographic Archives. 

Garrison would report to Herb Kahler, his coordinating superintendent at Morristown 

National Historical Park (the third of the original historical areas of the National Park Service 

pre-dating the Historic Sites Act), and consult with the CCC State Park Inspector Emil 

Heinrich (who replaced John Diggs in 1939) in Harrisburg and Historian Melvin Weig, now 

also stationed at Morristown.72 NPS Chief Archeologist Arthur Kelly and Chief Historian 

Ronald Lee further advised that Garrison initiate close consultation with the Colonial National 

Historical Park in Virginia to compare related issues and problems.73

In the absence of a staff, the superintendent was essentially in charge of public 

relations, research, and planning for the development of a historic park as well as that of the 

Recreational Demonstration Area, despite the earlier protests of dual administration. Garrison 

found that confusion between the recreation and historic areas by the local population had 

generated considerable hostility without “strong leadership or continuity of policy.”74 Between 

January and July 1940, he began facilitating community relations with thirty-seven public 

lectures about the National Park Service and the special place of Hopewell within it. 75

 

 

71 Weig, Interview with Hosmer, August 1974, AAA. 

72 Ibid. 

73 Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age, 536; Lee to Garrison, May 14, 1940, “File 10-06 Exhibits,” 

Central Classified Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 74 Garrison, Annual Report, July 17, 1941, Superintendent’s Annual Report July 1941-June 1951, 

Central Classified Files, HOFU. 75 Garrison, Making of a Ranger, 149-151. 
Development and Establishment 

59

Garrison’s most important colleague would, however, prove to be Harvard-educated, 

Pittsburgh native Chris Motz. Son-in-law to Pittsburgh mayor Cornelius Scully, Motz brought 

his wife and daughter to Hopewell.76 The two men filled an extraordinarily active year with 

research and artifact collection for the park. After years of requesting a qualified archeologist 

to oversee excavations, and after Dr. Kelly stopped work on the East Headrace, Lee urged “the 

appointment of an archeologist so that work held so long in abeyance at Hopewell may go 

forward.” Chris Motz was finally appointed to Hopewell on a temporary basis (April through 

June of 1940).77 Hopewell Village NHS had been waiting for someone with Motz’s credentials, 

conscientiousness, and talents “plus a serenity and competence which were a delight.” 78

Following Motz’s appointment, he and Garrison met with Historians Thor Borresen 

and Melvin Weig to discuss various issues including coming up with some kind of restoration 

statement and plan in the near future. They recommended clearing all of the modern debris 

from the area, and prioritized a work program beginning with CCC- or WPA-aided 

excavations of the Bake Ovens, Blacksmith Shop, Office, Tenant Barn, East Headrace, and 

furnace retaining walls for excavation as prioritized by Motz. Excavations moved forward on 

the Blacksmith Shop, but after its examination, archeological work was suspended until 

October. While the springtime’s moist soil delayed some of the work, Motz suspended work 

on already approved archeological projects for the furnace until he could educate himself 

more about the site and establish a records and artifact keeping system. 79 Garrison soon 

secured WPA guides and a WPA draftsman named Robert Hehr to assist Motz in designing the 

waterwheel and blast machinery as close as possible to the existing parts and drawings.80

Garrison also lobbied to hire a WPA historical technician to release Motz from 

research duties, finally securing Charles Montgomery from the local historical society. 

However, Hopewell’s staff remained so limited that in addition to everything else, Motz’s 

restoration responsibilities included site maintenance, and both he and Garrison kept too busy 

with serving visitors. All the while they waited to see if Motz’s contract would be renewed as 

 

76 Jay LeVan, Taped interview by Leah S. Glaser, July 24, 2003. 77 Kurtz, “History of Archeology,” 11; Lee, March 13, 1940, Papers of Charles Hosmer, NTL. 

78 Garrison, Making of a Ranger, 149-151. 79 Monthly Report by Motz, May 2, 1940; Melvin Weig to Ronalds, April 18, 1940, “Hopewell 

Village 1936-1952,” Hopewell Village, Region 1, CCF 1936-1952, RG 79, NARA-P; Thor Borresen, October 

15-17, 1940, Papers of Charles Hosmer, NTL. 80 Motz, Monthly Report, February 4, 1941, Charles Hosmer Papers, NTL. 
Development and Establishment 

60

Thor Borresen undermined Motz’s decisions to suspend archeological work contending that 

more information would yield better decisions about a restoration policy.81

When and How? Formulating a Restoration Plan for Hopewell Village 

In spite of their growing tensions, both the park (Garrison and Motz) and the NPS 

regional officers (Borresen and Weig) collaborated on developing the initial restoration plans 

for Hopewell Village. As Garrison and Motz worked to organize a program, Borresen 

produced a lengthy overview addressing the restoration at the park where he articulated and 

summarized many of the issues discussed in recent years and followed with recommendations. 

Borresen’s document was in some ways the heir to Appleman’s restoration report in 

that it aimed to serve as a guide for determining Hopewell’s development program and master 

plan. Borresen’s report elaborated upon Appleman’s ambitious and romantic plans for a 

“inhabited, thriving, commercial village,”

 and again like Appleman, he allowed his imagination 

to run wild with the possibilities of visitors stepping into the past to escape modern 

distractions. Craftsmen would exhibit trades in each of the buildings like the Wheelwright 

Shop (torn down in the 1920s for a highway relocation), the Blacksmith Shop, the Greenhouse, 

and the fields. Clerks would man the Office-Store and sell the items of yesteryear. Weig 

questioned Borresen’s statements that the village “should appear as an actual inhabited 

thriving community.” He claimed that the level of restoration in Borresen’s descriptions and 

the amount of personnel required would be too expensive. The “wear and tear” of continual 

habitation and use would harm all of the resources and the expense of hiring the village 

“inhabitants” would be too exorbitant. Weig asserted that as in Williamsburg, fees would have 

to be charged that would exclude “the average man.” Rather, he suggested a more scaled back 

scenario of Borresen’s vision for the purposes of planning and development.82

 

Regional Director Ewell Lisle instructed Superintendent Garrison to use Borresen’s 

report to revise the as yet unfinished and unapproved Master Plan for 1941, one exclusively for 

 

81 Monthly Report by Motz, May 2, 1940; Melvin Weig to Ronalds, April 18, 1940, “Hopewell 

Village 1936-1952,” Hopewell Village, Region 1, CCF 1936-1952, RG 79, NARA-P; Thor Borresen, October 

15-17, 1940, Papers of Charles Hosmer, NTL. 82 Orin Bullock, September 4, 1940, Melvin Wieg, June 19, 1940, Hopewell Village, Region 5, 

General Correspondence 1939-1952, RG 79, NARA-P; Thor Borresen, “Hopewell Village,” June 5, 1940, 

HOFU; Garrison to C. M. Wishler, May 9, 1941, “NMP-CCC Hopewell Village April 1, 1941-December 

1941,” Hopewell Village, Region 5, General Correspondence 1939-1952, RG 79, NARA-P. 
Development and Establishment 

61

the historic site, but flexible enough to consider a possible consolidation of Hopewell with 

French Creek State Park in the future.83 The staff searched for a way to accurately restore the 

buildings in a cost-effective way and to reflect the most current research on the site, while 

maintaining a dynamic feeling and integrity. In addition to securing adequate personnel, the 

greatest challenge in forming Hopewell’s restoration policy proved to be choosing a single 

restoration period that reflected Hopewell’s significance and its perpetual and ever changing 

social and industrial community. As Borresen had emphasized in his report, most of the 

buildings had been altered after the American Revolution. It was therefore difficult to take 

even one of them back to a specific year especially one in colonial times as the designation 

order indicated. At other sites, where a particularly extraordinary event occurred, the date of 

restoration would likely be obvious. Furthermore, furnishings from the nineteenth century 

were more affordable than those from the colonial era and, according to expert Alfred 

Hopkins, easier to obtain.84

 

Garrison, Motz, Weig, and Borresen established a set of “guiding principles” with 

which to direct the plans for Hopewell’s restoration and revitalization in April of 1940. Similar 

to Appleman’s proposal,85 the four agreed that all existing features included in the village up 

until 1880 (when Hopewell Furnace neared closure) would be restored. Rather than to this 

specific year, the restoration would reflect the accumulation of structures in the area over time. 

This was a necessary and convenient strategy because an earlier date, particularly in the 

colonial “period of significance,” would necessitate the elimination of existing remains. Their 

final memo on the matter explained, “This means that while the chief historical significance of 

the area falls in the eighteenth century, the restoration-reconstruction program must be broad 

enough to permit use in that program of features which portray the continuing operation of 

the Hopewell Furnace into the late nineteenth century.” 86 In other words, the restoration 

would not coincide with the colonial associations originally cited as the site’s significance. The 

principles continued with each preempting or reconciling various restoration controversies: 

 

83 Kenneth Simmons, March 24, 1941, Garrison to Fred Johnston, September 27, 1940, Acting 

Regional Director Ewell M. Lisle to Garrison, October 16, 1940, General File, NERO-P. 

84 Secretary of the Interior, E. K. Burlew, Order Designating the Hopewell Village National 

Historic Site, Pennsylvania, August 3, 1938; Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age, 1035. 

85 Recall Appleman had suggested two dates: 1883, the date of the last blast, and then an earlier 

era, 1785-1800, based on available evidence as well as targeting the first decade of the new nation. 86 Weig, Borresen, Motz, Garrison, April 11, 1940, Hopewell Village NHS, Federal Park Use Study 

Reports, RG 79, NARA-P. 
Development and Establishment 

62

(2) non-existing structures should be reconstructed “to the period of their earliest known 

existence;” (3) the interior restoration and furnishings should be kept within historical period 

represented in that structure; (4) a thorough archeological, historical, architectural, and 

antiquarian research program should precede all restoration or reconstruction work.87 After a 

short time, Motz and Garrison realized that while the principles should serve as a general 

policy, the park’s interpretation might include additional issues no one had yet thought about. 

In August 1940 Garrison sent a memo emphasizing the flexibility of these principles since much 

of the restoration, and limited reconstruction work to ensure a functioning and complete 

exhibit, would appropriately be subject to intense review and scrutiny.88 Less than a year later, 

the superintendent changed his mind. He decided that rather than represent Hopewell over 

several years, the site, like others across the Park Service, should celebrate the “golden age” of 

the furnace’s operations. 

For Garrison, Hopewell’s “golden age,” the period of its greatest success, offered an 

opportunity to make history really come alive, to literally resurrect the past. Both Garrison and 

his wife, Inger, voraciously read about the site with which he admitted to having “a love affair.” 

He clearly dreamed of Hopewell Village as outstanding from any other historic site or museum 

in the country and shared Appleman’s ambitions for it.89 Battlefields could never host 

reenactments at full scale or their landscape returned to exactly what it looked like the day of 

the battle, but “not so however with the “village” type of restoration,” asserted Garrison. 

At Hopewell we plan to portray our restoration to the period of greatest importance; 

with the buildings in repair, the craft shops in place and furnished, the furnace in 

useable condition, and the lands set off in historically accurately defined fields. But this 

is not enough. It is like an old style museum showcase exhibit. It lacks sparkle and life. 

It has no more vitality than a dead fish, and needs intensive and extensive interpretive 

augmentation if it is to mean anything to visitors. Rather in these “village” historic sites 

a unique opportunity offers to present a living, breathing, moving, functioning sector of 

community life. To return to the simile of a dead fish, it is like seeing the same fish 

living, swimming free, feeding, and battling the currents instead of stuffed and hung on 

the wall to be explained by its captor...With well trained older generations artisans and 

craftsmen operating the shops and making these public contacts, with the fields again in 

tilth, apples in the orchard, herbs in the garden, and with the village hustling with 

activity as it did years ago, visitors will take away the impression that while life in the old 

days was hard it was not impossible, and they will have gained a new and deepened 

appreciation of the culture of our forefathers. At Hopewell we feel quite strongly that 

 

87 Ibid. 

88 Weig to Ronalds, August 28, 1940, Hopewell Village NHS, Federal Park Use Study Reports, 

RG 79, NARA-P. 

89 Garrison, Making of a Ranger, 156-157. 
Development and Establishment 

63

some such program is vital if Hopewell is to give the optimum return to the Service and 

to the visitor.90

In 1941 Garrison and Motz moved the date given in their “guiding principles” back from 

1880 and proposed to “stop the clock at 1870,” a date Garrison considered to be within the 

“golden age” of operation. The specificity of the date would not mean Hopewell Village would 

become a static ghost town frozen in time.91 Rather, they argued that up until that date, 

Hopewell Furnace had operated as a colonial industry. “In the 1870 status can be traced 

evidence of earlier patterns and the way they changed, grew, influenced later developments, 

and flowed onwards.” More than any others, this date “presents the optimum opportunity for 

showing Hopewell as an ever-changing, growing community. For Hopewell is not a ghost 

town, but rather a footprint left behind in a century of the slow steady progress of a nation.”92

 

New Coordinating Superintendent Francis “Fran” Ronalds, Acting Regional Director 

Fred Johnston, and Regional Chief of Planning V. R. Ludgate agreed with the superintendent’s 

revision of restoration policy, but suggested illustrating the furnace’s changes through 

photographs and dioramas, rather than to restore earlier structures to earlier dates. The 1870 

date would represent the culmination of furnace operation and take advantage of a large 

majority of surviving structures, which would otherwise have to be destroyed due to their later 

nineteenth-century construction. Individual features constructed after the date, but which did 

not detract from 1870 life and industry, would also be preserved.93 The Washington office 

concurred with the policy that Hopewell should only represent its most outstanding “golden 

age” era. They ordered the removal of all structures after 1870 and the Park not to restore any 

structure that existed prior to that date.94 

In response, Roy Appleman again weighed in on Hopewell Village NHS. Per his 

original proposal, he insisted that the structures “should go as far back in each instance as 

available evidence and information will permit.” By restoring to the earliest possible date, circa 

1800, the village would better reflect “a colonial period industrial village group and 

 

90 Superintendent, May 13, 1941, “File 600-01,” Hopewell Village, Region 5, General 

Correspondence 1939-1952, RG 79, NARA-P. 91 Ronalds to Lee, May 21, 1941, File “H2215-Date Restoration,” CCF, HOFU. 92 Jones, “Restoration,” 29; Ronalds to Lee, May 21, 1941, “File 600-01, Hopewell Village, Region 

5, General Correspondence 1939-1952, RG 79, NARA-P. 93 Acting Chief, EODC, Harvey H. Cornell to Regional Director George Palmer, September 26, 

1958, Correspondence 1958-1960, Hopewell NHS, Historical Files, WASO. 94 V.R. Ludgate, Landscape Architect, June 13, 1941, Papers of Charles Hosmer, NTL. 
Development and Establishment 

64

environment,” what he considered the furnace’s “golden age.”95 However as work began, 

Garrison’s date of 1870 continued to serve as a target, rather than a strict rule for all the 

resources and Garrison, Appleman, and Weig tended to agree on most matters when assessing 

structure on an individual basis. By the time of these discussions, much work had already been 

done on the furnace, the East Headrace, and several other structures as well. 

Restoring Hopewell Village 

As the local and regional staff developed a restoration policy, Motz continued to work 

on individual resources, giving much of his attention to the Bake Ovens, a pet project of Thor 

Borresen’s. The project tested Garrison’s “golden age” restoration policy and in doing so, 

clarified just who was in charge of making decisions about Hopewell’s development. As 

Garrison reported to Coordinating Superintendent Kahler, “This job in itself is of enough 

interest that it will be available for exhibit purposes. It will demonstrate both a way of early 

American life and the method and standards of restoration.”96 

When Borresen was at the village to inspect the progress on the East Headrace back in 

1938, he noticed bake ovens behind the Ironmaster’s House badly in need of some kind of 

preservation work. Soon after his arrival, Garrison received word that Borresen would write 

up a restoration proposal and supervise an archeological investigation on the Bake Ovens.97 In 

line with the restoration policies of the Advisory Board, Borresen’s report indicated the Bake 

Ovens would not be restored to a particular date, since no research had revealed the date of 

construction,but that the remains should merely be preserved.98 In the summer of 1940, 

Borresen had visited the site and initially praised new archeologist Motz’s progress on the 

excavation of the Blacksmith Shop and the Bake Ovens, and even he requested more work on 

other resources in the site, which would require more personnel. Unfortunately, Motz was 

 

95 Acting Regional Director Fred Johnston to Director, June 20, 1941, General File, NERO-P; 

Motz, Monthly Report, June 1, 1940, “Archeological Reports,” Historical Central Files, HOFU; 

Appleman, June 19, 1941, “NMP-CCC Hopewell Village April 1, 1941- December 1941,” Hopewell Village, 

Region 5, General Correspondence 1939-1952, RG 79, NARA-P. 

96 Garrison to Kahler, June 39, 1940, W File, Central Files, HOFU. 97 Motz, “Report on Hopewell Village Bake Ovens, June 1941, Bally Building, HOFU.; Thor 

Borresen, “Report on Proposed Restoration of Bake Oven, Hopewell Village” May 7, 1940, Bally 

Building, HOFU. 

98 Thor Borresen, “Report on Proposed Restoration of Bake Oven, Hopewell Village” May 7, 

1940, Bally Building, HOFU. 
Development and Establishment 

65

temporarily transferred to Raccoon Creek Recreational Demonstration Area.99 Upon his 

return in September of 1940, Motz began work on the Bake Ovens based on Borresen’s report, 

but disagreed with Borresen on many points. Discoveries of certain features raised doubts in 

Motz’s mind about the accuracy of the restoration plans. 

The change caused considerable tension between the park and regional staff. Motz’s 

slow and deliberate research strategy clashed with the regional archeologist frequently on site, 

Thor Borresen. Rather than performing purely technical research, Motz emphasized the need 

to interpret archeological data with contextual information. The more construction-focused 

Borresen locked horns with Motz and Garrison over the pace of archeological investigation. 

When disputes arose, Garrison, not surprisingly, sided with Motz. 

Chris [Motz] and I got so riled over in his [Borresen’s] attempts to rebuild “our” oven in 

“typical” style, thereby destroying the original handwork that the expert went home in a 

great rage. We never got our oven rebuilt. In fact, it was difficult to get any of the 

historical technicians to do any work for us at all. But for us a “typical” bake oven would 

have been a travesty, when we actually had the real one, requiring only cleaning to be 

operable.100

 

Indignant, Garrison reportedly commented further, “Apparently Mr. Borresen feels 

that historical archeology is a slap-dab sort of proposition, mainly designed to get a report in, 

and that work done by Mr. Motz is too comprehensive and complete.”101 When the two 

solicited advice from the Washington office, Chief of the Archeological Division Dr. Arthur 

Kelly returned to Hopewell to assess the restoration program. When he arrived he stressed 

that although the regional and national offices oversaw their activities, the development of 

Hopewell rested on Garrison and Motz, the local staff.102

In response, Motz halted work on the Ovens until he could further study and compare 

them to others in the area. He submitted a revised restoration plan, based on extensive 

research, to restore them to 1879 (as close to the 1870 “golden era” date as he could achieve 

while still working with the existing structures). Unfortunately, delays in the review process 

held the project up for several years. 

Other resources did not receive nearly the same restoration attention due to lack of 

research. The Ironmaster’s House was somewhat of an anomaly among the other furnace 

 

99 Borresen, June 21, 1940, Lattimore, October 30, 1941, Borresen, June 21, 1940, HOFU. 100 Garrison, Making of a Ranger, (as quoted in Kurtz, “History of Archeology,” 24). 101 Garrison memo, n.d., as quoted in Kurtz, “History of Archeology,” 20. 

102 John Milner Associates, “Overview and Assessment,” 22. 
Development and Establishment 

66

remains. Although it was probably the most familiar type of historic resources to them, visitors 

had little interest in the “Big House,” complaining its eclectic elegance, front porch, and 

cornice decoration did not fit in with the rest of the site.103 The first, unapproved Master Plan 

drafted in 1939 called for the CCC to examine and “renovate,” but Regional Historian 

Appleman objected to using the CCC unless skilled labor and supervision became available not 

for renovation, but adequate restoration.

104 Over the next few years, the park only used the 

building to store artifacts.105

The old barn proved to be one of the more controversial items in the restoration plans. 

While a key component in the village, the original barn that coincided with the “golden era’ 

restoration period had been razed and a new, more modern one now stood in place of the 

original. Historian John Cowan had researched the original barn and proposed an eventual 

demolition of the new barn and the essential reconstruction of the old one based on research 

from similar barns in the area.106 The Master Plan discussions of 1939 addressed the demolition 

of the post-colonial barn; however, Roy Appleman felt such plans premature and that the 

present barn needed to serve as protection for what was left of the original’s stone walls, which 

they planned to reconstruct.107 

Even more than the other structures, Garrison and Motz continued the furnace 

restoration with a greater historical consciousness than the CCC’s management. Motz 

continually scoured furnace records for information. In response to an inquiry by 

Coordinating Superintendent Ronalds, the American Iron and Steel Institute in New York City 

provided several specific details about Hopewell’s furnace. A few months later, Garrsion sent 

Motz and Chris Eben to research additional information about furnace construction at the 

American Iron and Steel Institute. The trip supported the plans already in place.108 Two WPA 

workers, Research Assistant Howard Gale and a guide, Mr. Keppley, interviewed local 

community survivors about other site details to identify ruins and standing structures. 

Unfortunately, Motz lost Draftsman Robert Hehr, who had just begun working on drawings 

 

103 See Cowan, “Report of John P. Cowan,” June 1938. 

104 Appleman, June 29, 1939, NARA-P. 

105 Garrison to Kahler, June 39, 1040, W Box, Central Files, HOFU. 106 C. A. Shearer by John P. Cowan, May 18, 1938, NERO-P. 

107 Appleman, June 29, 1939, NARA-P. 

108 Walter S. Tower, American Iron and Steel Institute, to Coordinating Superindent Francis 

Ronalds, September 23, 1940, W File, Central Files, CRM, HOFU; Garrison to Regional Director, 

December 17, 1940, NERO-P; Motz, February 4, 1941, Papers of Charles Hosmer, NTL. 
Development and Establishment 

67

for the reconstruction of the blast machinery, to private employment. Garrison tapped the 

local high school in Reading for a replacement. With four years of mechanical drawing classes, 

Jay LeVan arrived in January 20,1941but he needed time to adjust to his new job. Motz 

explained that LeVan was “an intelligent but inexperienced young man. The blast machinery 

presents too complex a problem for him at the moment, and that important job has therefore 

been laid aside for the present. It is hoped that, after a month or two, Mr. LeVan will have 

progressed sufficiently to take it up where Mr. Hehr left off.” Eventually, LeVan began to draw 

plans for the blast machinery from his office in the bottom floor of the barn. He based the 

plans on the parts of the furnace that the Franklin Institute dismantled back in the 1930s.109 

3.4 CCC Cleaning Debris from Furnace, 1936, HOFU Photographic Archives. 

Obtaining ownership of the equipment from the Franklin Institute was in many ways 

more important than moving forward with the furnace restoration. As Appleman indicated in 

his initial reports, the proper restoration of the Hopewell Furnace completely depended upon 

the retrieval of the original machinery as well as the plans and other data that accompanied 

them. Appleman had begun efforts toward this end while writing up his restoration proposal 

in 1935. He wrote to the director of the Franklin Institute to discuss the matter, but the 

financially strapped organization was concerned about its $500 investment in dismantling the 

equipment and obligations to the Brooke estate.110 After a struggle to secure funds from the 

 

109 Motz, February 4, 1941, Papers of Charles Hosmer, NTL. 

110 Appleman, March 18, 1939, “Hopewell Village,” Federal Park Use Study Reports, General 

Records of the National Park Service, RG 79, NARA-P; Weig to Appleman, “Report (with photographs) 

on trip to Hopewell Village National Historic Site,” May 9-13, 1939, HOFU; Garrison to Herbert Kahler, 

July 25, 1940, W Box, Central Files, HOFU. 
Development and Establishment 

68

ECW, Garrison began inquiring about the equipment at the end of 1940 and ended his tenure 

as Hopewell Village’s superintendent in the summer of 1941 with a substantial victory. He 

continued to press the issue of obtaining the waterwheel machinery. On June 24, 1941, a press 

release announced a reversal on the previous policy regarding use of ECW funding, and that 

the old waterwheel and blowing engine were now the property of the National Park Service.111

 

CCC Project Superintendent Charles Shearer proceeded with the restoration work based on 

Motz’s directions and LeVan’s drawings. The CCC newsletter, The Hopewell Iron Master, 

proudly reported that, “Each minutest detail is copied in this huge construction. Material used 

is well-seasoned huge oak timber.”112 

Winning Community Support 

By May 1940 Hopewell’s future was in trouble when Congress threatened to drop the 

park’s maintenance funds. The National Park Service began to heavily promote the new park 

and give it a distinct role in the lives of the public. Garrison invited community leaders from 

across the east to inspect Hopewell and sing its praises to reporters. Conrad Wirth, now 

Assistant Director, joined the group and argued that Hopewell’s importance extended beyond 

its historical significance and toward issues of a healthy society. 

The time of work is decreasing and the time of leisure is increasing. It is this leisure time 

that must be developed, for with it, we can make ourselves or destroy ourselves. The 

plan of the national recreation department divides leisure time into three main 

branches: daily time, weekends, and vacations. We think that the daily time should be 

taken care of by small county parks, the weekends in nearby state parks, and the longer 

vacation time in national parks. Thus, establishing places like Hopewell Furnace, 

attracting the vacation people by historical and recreational importance, we of the 

National Park Service can improve the happiness of the people of Pennsylvania and 

cement the union of the nation.113

At the end of the year, Park Service literature promoted Hopewell Village with the 

following headline: “Hopewell Springs Eternal: Reborn Village to be Life-Size Exhibit of 

Pioneer American Iron-Making Community.” The Hopewell booklet, produced that year, 

described the extent of the Rehabilitation Plan. 

 

111 Press Memorandum, June 24, 1941, General File, NERO-P; Lemuel Garrison to Mrs. Horace 

Beale, June 20, 1941, W file, Central Files, HOFU; Garrison to Bahlman, December 5, 1940, Papers of 

Charles Hosmer, NTL. 112 “Iron Furnace Restoration,” Hopewell Iron Master (November 1941), 10. 113 Conrad Wirth to Lemuel Garrison, October 17. 1940, W File, Central Files, HOFU. 
Development and Establishment 

69

Gradual stabilization of Hopewell Village is contemplated by the National Park Service 

although much historical, architectural, and archeological research remains to be done 

before all details are determined. It is hoped, however, that water will eventually run 

through the races again, turn the furnace wheel, and thus operate the reproduced blast 

machinery. Reconstruction of other present and once existing buildings is planned to 

follow. Old fashioned flowers and vegetables may be cultivated once more in the village 

gardens; and the blacksmith shop, where much of the original equipment is in place, will 

ring anew with the activities of hearth and anvil.114

The site had hardly reached the potential described. Hopewell Village was rarely a destination 

for travelers in search of French Creek’s recreational options, but together, Hopewell and 

French Creek formed part of a “peaceful sanctuary for men and wildlife.”115 Superintendent 

Garrison introduced public nature hikes and campfires out of the Baptism Creek Picnic Area 

to complement the other recreational opportunities at French Creek.116

However, Garrison still had to contend with the recreational issues associated with 

neighboring French Creek. He struggled with public relations over French Creek and its 

restriction to group camping. In July 1940 Garrison’s extension of invitations to camp groups 

to use the park met with such success that he had to refuse prospective leasers the following 

summer. Day visitors complained bitterly about restricted use of the lake to organized camps 

as “un-American” and “un-democratic.” Much of the tax-paying public complained bitterly 

about opening Hopewell Lake to only the group campers as evidenced by a front-page article 

of the Reading Times.

117 In response, the CCC began constructing a day use swimming lake in 

the Six Penny area.118

 

Visitors sought outdoor recreation and rarely showed interest in the historical area 

even though Garrison opened Hopewell Village all week long to conduct tours (usually by 

Motz). Motz and Garrison increasingly placed more emphasis on interpretative work in order 

to maintain public support for Hopewell’s restoration.119 Weekday visitors and amateur 

photographers took advantage of the educational efforts of the site more often than those did 

 

114 Booklet, 1940, 14. 

115 “Hopewell National Historic Site is Now Peaceful Sanctuary for Men, Wildlife,” Reading Eagle

(May 17, 1941). 116 Press Release, ca. 1940, “General Correspondence 00,” Hopewell Village, Region 5, General 

Correspondence 1939-1952, RG 79, NARA-P. 117 Cowan, “Report of John P. Cowan,” June 1938; General Correspondence, September 12, 1938, 

to December 30, 1939, National Historic Sites-Hopewell, Central Classified Files 1933-49, RG 79, NACP. 118 Garrison to Chester Potter, General Correspondence 1939-1952, Hopewell Village, RG 79, 

NARA-P. 119 Motz, Monthly Reports, May 1941, Early Archeology Reports, Bally Building, HOFU. 
Development and Establishment 

70

on the weekend. On June 23,1940, they prepared a museum display in the Office-Store for an 

open house entitled “A Community-Leaders Day-An Open House at Hopewell Village.” It 

coincided with “Hopewell Day,” part of the Birdsboro bicentennial on June 29th. The open 

house invited local citizens to come and see the park’s recreational and historical development 

and served to soothe tension and hard feelings about Garrison’s “carpetbagger” appointment 

over a local politician. There, Garrison spoke about Hopewell’s significance and the process of 

archeological excavation and restoration. CCC Captain William Cooper arranged for a turkey 

dinner in the mess hall, music, and a campfire with Conrad Wirth as speaker. Out of 500 

invitations to local politicians, businessmen, teachers, and scholars, 200 took advantage of the 

invitation. An accompanying brochure featured a history of the site and a map depicting 

several of the industrial and domestic resources.120

By the fall of 1941, Hopewell Village was one of a handful of National Historic Sites in 

the National Park System.121 Until then, Hopewell’s caretakers struggled to maintain adequate 

staff and conduct appropriate research and planning to carry forth the ambitious dreams for a 

vital and restored Hopewell furnace and village. Lon Garrison and Chris Motz were 

extraordinarily dedicated to the 250-acre historic site and worked with regional officers and 

historians to establish viable policies and plans to preserve the ruins. While administrators 

wrestled with management decisions, local park staff conducted extensive research, and 

curious visitors occasionally stopped by to take tours from veterans of the first World War, 

hostilities in Europe began to brew yet again. The park had felt some of the government’s war 

preparation in its shrinking CCC crews and WPA manpower, but increasingly the political 

climate at Hopewell seemed to indicate a new role for the park beyond recreation, work relief, 

and restoration. 

On the eve of Pearl Harbor, when it seemed that pending legislation would absorb the 

RDA into the historic site, the Washington office’s Dr. Arthur Kelly urged Hopewell’s research 

agenda forward. Development would no longer be under the guise of building a recreation 

area, and should shift away from its focus on construction and towards historical research as it 

continued to search for a definitive restoration policy. Kelly also proposed a new, political role 

 

120 Cowan, “Report of John P. Cowan,” June 1938; General Correspondence, September 12, 1938 

to December 30, 1939, National Historic Sites-Hopewell, CCF 1933-49, RG 79, NACP; Garrison, Annual 

Report, July 17, 1941, File 207-01.4 Superintendent’s Annual Report July 1941-June 1951, Central Classified 

Files, Bally Building, HOFU; Kurtz, “History of Archeology,” 15; Garrison, Making of a Ranger, 151. 121 “National Historic Site Added,” The Regional Review 6 (March-April 1941). 
Development and Establishment 

71

for the restored village community: “In these troubled times of social upheaval, there will be 

more and more people having a need for, and turning toward places like Hopewell in search of 

an un-propagandized basis for an evaluation of our way of life.”122 By the end of the decade, 

Hopewell’s development would continue, but World War II temporarily derailed the plans 

and activities for reviving the old machinery. 

 

122 Motz to Garrison, March 4, 1941, “Park Establishment,” Historical Central Files, Bally 

Building, HOFU. 
 

72

IV. WWII Occupation and the Administration of 

a Multi-use Park, 1942-1947 

As in the rest of the country, World War II profoundly disrupted the activities at the 

three and a half year-old park. When America entered the war in December of 1941, the 

attention, activity, and growth that the National Park Service enjoyed through New Deal 

programs came to a screeching halt nationwide. The demand for servicemen depleted the 

youthful work force available during the Depression, and the government soon ended the CCC 

program leaving parks virtually void of labor. Every citizen and industry joined the war effort, 

and the government suspended most projects that did not directly relate to issues of defense. 

Visitation to the National Parks plummeted from 21 million in 1941 to six million in 1942. 

Congress also drastically cut funding (over 75 percent) and personnel (43 percent) across the 

board, leaving parks like Hopewell staffed with, at most, only a superintendent, a clerk, and two 

laborers to tend to all issues of development and maintenance. However, unlike many parks 

during the war years, Hopewell Village NHS received considerable attention due to its location 

and setting, but little of it had anything to do with historic preservation and restoration. 

Wartime exigencies, including the military leave taken by advocates like Roy Appleman, 

contributed to the suspension of preservation work at Hopewell. Recreational, historical, and 

even military goals clashed as local groups and state agencies challenged the National Park 

Service, contesting the use of and access to the natural resources of the former RDA.1

Lon Garrison’s departure a few months before America entered the war marked an end 

to a period of strong leadership, aggressive planning, and development activity. The local staff 

had been so ambitious that Chris Motz and Jay LeVan had to work without pay through the 

fourth of July to complete the projects Garrison had promised for the fiscal year.2

 When 

Garrison accepted a promotion to the Washington Office as Assistant Chief of Information, 

Ralston Lattimore, an Associate Historical Technician for Region I, arrived to replace him on 

September 23, 1941.3

 Under the constraints of wartime, the new superintendent faced several 

challenges when trying to continue Garrison’s momentum. 

 

1

 Barry Mackintosh, The National Parks: Shaping the System, (ParkNet: The National Park Service 

Online Books, 2000), http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/mackintosh1/stst.htm (accessed 

December 19, 2002); Paige, Civilian Conservation Corps. 2

 Jay LeVan, Taped interview by Leah S. Glaser, July 24, 2003. 3

 James Kurtz, “History of Archeology, 25. 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

73

Development Policy under Superintendent Lattimore, 1941-42 

While the site lost a persistent and enthusiastic leader, Ralston Lattimore seemed 

perfectly suited for the job. He was not only a historian by training, but he had served as acting 

superintendent at Fort Pulaski National Monument in Georgia in the 1930s. Having overseen 

the development and restoration of the fort, he brought with him the conservative philosophy 

executed there: “to protect the structure from further deterioration by making essential repairs 

and to restore only where necessary.” However, unlike the extensive research and complex 

interpretive decisions required to restore anything at Hopewell Village, the War Department 

housed original files of all of the Fort’s plans and specifications.4

 During Lattimore’s first few 

months at Hopewell, he attempted to continue Garrison’s pace of preservation by securing 

additional work crews, manipulating the procedures and paperwork of WPA construction, and 

accommodating activities such as archeological investigation, historical research, making master 

files, and cleaning artifacts. Unfortunately, weather and a dwindling labor supply hindered 

development progress.5

Perhaps this difficulty in launching new projects convinced the new superintendent and 

his colleagues in the Washington and the regional offices to pursue a different and less 

ambitious road for Hopewell Village’s development. The November after Lattimore’s arrival, 

he held a meeting with Motz, Chief of the Archeological Sites Division Arthur Kelly, and 

Regional Archeologist/Historian Thor Borresen to solicit advice about Hopewell’s restoration 

program (or lack thereof). Kelly suggested hiring an archeological assistant for Motz through 

the WPA in order to free him from ground supervision and allow him to complete long overdue 

research and completion reports. All agreed to prioritize the excavation and stabilization of the 

furnace, but they determined it would be difficult to determine a method of treatment 

(stabilization, restoration, or rehabilitation) for the structures without a construction policy. 

Borresen argued that the structures at Hopewell should be maintained in their extant form and 

therefore would only require rehabilitation (mainly just maintenance, repair, and removing and 

replacing deteriorating material), rather than restoration, which allowed the removal of 

 

4

 Ralston B. Lattimore, Fort Pulaski National Monument, Georgia, Historic Handbook Series No. 

18 (Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1961), http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/hh/18/, 

(accessed January 14, 2003); Armstrong Atlantic State University History Department, “Camp History,” 

www.hist.armstrong.edu/newdeal/history.htm, (accessed January 14, 2003). 5

 Lattimore, Annual Report, 1942, Superintendent’s Reports, Historic Central Files, Bally Building, 

HOFU. 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

74

materials that are deteriorating or outside the target date of the restoration. Each structure 

could be physically dated between the years 1771 and 1883, and thus rehabilitation would simplify 

the development of and illustrate a “progressive” program that would retain all of the 

improvements in each structure until 1883. Reconstructing or restoring structures that existed at 

the site prior to 1771 would entail much more research and archeological investigation.6

 

Aside from being the most simple and practical solution, Borresen’s suggestion to allow 

the structures to represent a time span rather than a specific date shifted Hopewell’s “golden 

age” development policy under Garrison. He wrote, “The furnace represents years of use, hence 

the village should represent the same.” A “strict stabilization program” would “lose the 

flexibility necessary to carry out the desired features of a busy and thriving industrial 

village...History is progressive and evolutionary and village should reflect this.”7

 Kelly then 

observed that Hopewell’s preservation issues and problems very much resembled those of the 

Appomattox Court House. He also advised that Senior Engineer Edmund Preece at Wupatki 

National Monument in Arizona and his Ruins Stabilization Committee should come to survey 

Hopewell Village.8

Meanwhile, Chris Motz continued his archeological investigation of the furnace walls 

and Wheel Pit until Dr. Paul Gebhard, his WPA assistant, arrived and took over the direction of 

the latter project. Unfortunately, cold winter weather further postponed the already slow-going 

excavations.9

 The frigid temperatures during the months of December and January kept visitors 

to the village away, but Hopewell Lake froze to such a degree that about 400 skaters took 

advantage of the ideal conditions. 10 The weather did not halt all work on the furnace. WPA 

workers continued to reproduce component parts of the waterwheel and the Service hired a 

 

6

 Borresen defines these terms whereby stabilization ensures the maintenance of original 

workmanship and materials and made secure from further deterioration, restoration implied removal of 

materials outside of the date of restoration or those that may be deteriorating, and rehabilitaion implied 

maintenance and repair. Thor Borresen, “Report on a Visit to Hopewell Village National Historic Site,” 

Hopewell Village: November 17-19, 1941, General Files, NERO-P 7

 Ibid. 

8

 Ibid.; Arthur Kelly to Ronald Lee, November 24, 1941, Hopewell National Historic Site, Box 7, 

Series 5, Papers of Charles Hosmer, NTL; Regional Director Thomas Allen to Director, December 11, 1941, 

H2615 Date Restoration, Historical Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 9

 Lattimore to Regional Director Thomas Allen, November 12, 1941, Hopewell Village, File 207-26 

Reports, Historic Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 10 Ralston B. Lattimore, “Superintendent’s Narrative Report of the Month of January, 1942,” File 

207-02.8, Superintendent’s Monthly Reports, April 1944-June 1949, Central Classified Files 1933-49, 

National Historic Sites-Hopewell RG 79, NACP; “Ice Skating Carnival at Hopewell Park,” Reading Eagle, 

“Newspaper Clippings,” Historic Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

75

skilled stone mason restore the brick bosh on the inside of the furnace.11 The WPA also began 

work on a new utility area for Hopewell Village. Meanwhile, the CCC veterans continued to 

progress in cosmetic areas such as painting.12

 

4.1 General View of the Wheel Pit Excavations from Furnace Bank, 1941. 

HOFU Photographic Archives. 

During these slow winter months, appointed and enrolled NPS, WPA, and CCC 

personnel reacted to the bombing of Pearl Harbor by volunteering for defense activities around 

the Reading area. Senior Foreman Chris Eben, Project Superintendent and Engineer Charles 

Shearer, and George Clouser worked as airplane spotters, while many of the CCC workers took 

defense classes in mechanical drawing, welding, and machine working.13 Just as the weather 

finally turned warm, the park began to lose valuable senior personnel to military service and 

home front war efforts and was unable to complete a topographical survey in the absence of a 

trained engineer. CCC workers managed to excavate and grade the entrance road, but the 

excavations in and around the foundation walls of the furnace faltered when Archeological 

Assistant Gebhard left in March of 1942 to continue studies at Harvard University. The most 

significant threat came with the loss of the CCC and WPA manpower. By the summer, funds 

had shrunk and supervisors outnumbered available laborers forcing the remaining WPA 

projects to close on June 30, 1942. The waterwheel, among other projects, remained 

unfinished.14

 

11 The “bosh” is the lower part of the blast furnace shaft, where the walls begin to slope. 12 Lattimore, “Superintendent’s Narrative Report of the Month of January, 1942,” RG 79, NACP. 13 Ibid. 

14 Lattimore, Superintendent’s Narrative Report of the Month of January, 1942,” Lattimore to 

Pennsylvania WPA State Director, April 15, 1942, File 207-26 Superintendent’s Reports, Historic Central 

Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

76

The personnel shortage and administrative load was especially burdensome since earlier 

that year congressional legislation incorporated all of the French Creek Recreational 

Demonstration Area into the Hopewell National Historic Site. This put nearly 6, 200 acres of 

forest, recreational facilities, and historic resources in the hands of a tiny park staff, already 

insufficient for the demands of the 215-acre site. The addition complicated planning issues even 

further by ballooning the site with no accompanying increase in budget, personnel, or change in 

purpose. NPS officials had discussed combining the RDA and historic site under one 

administration for years. However, this particular action stemmed from legislation Congress 

approved in June of 1942 that would rid the National Park Service of responsibility for the 

Recreational Demonstration Area program. With the CCC program cancelled, the new law 

provided procedures for the government to turn RDA lands over to their respective states. If the 

Secretary of the Interior felt the former was not prepared to administrate, operate, and maintain 

the specific site, responsibilities would fall to a federal agency. When the Pennsylvania State 

Legislature dragged its feet in developing an appropriate procedure for the conveyance, NPS 

officials worried that the land in the French Creek RDA might fall into hands of someone who 

would not develop it for recreational or conservation purposes. To ensure a protective 

perimeter around the historic resources at Hopewell Village, the Bureau of Historic Sites 

attempted to assign a National Recreational Area designation to the French Creek RDA, a 

proposal rejected by the Bureau of the Budget. Instead, Supervisor of Historic Sites Ronald Lee 

recommended that final legislation stipulate the National Park Service continue ownership of 

French Creek. Rather than maintain it as a RDA, both properties would combine into one unit 

of the National Park System with a single administration, a result some Park Service officials like 

Conrad Wirth, now Supervisor of Land Planning, had been urging since 1939.15

 

Others in and outside of NPS would question the compatibility of recreation use and 

preservation throughout the duration of the war. Furthermore, wartime priorities shifted the 

primary use and emphasis of Hopewell Village National Historic Site to recreation over 

preservation. When the government turned over evacuated CCC facilities to the Secretary of 

 

15 Supervisor of Historic Sites Ronald Lee to Chief Counsel, August 16, 1940, File 600 Land, 

Hopewell Village, Region 5, General Correspondence 1939-1952, NARA-P; An Act “To authorize the 

disposition of recreational demonstration projects, and for other purposes,” Public Law 594-77th Cong., 

Chapter 380, 2nd sess., June 6, 1942; Press Release, January 2, 1947, Hopewell NHS, “Correspondence 1943-

57,” Historical Files, WASO; Senate Committee on Public Lands and Surveys, Authorizing Revisions in the 

Boundary of the Hopewell Village National Historic Site, Pennsylvania, 79th Cong., 2nd sess., 1946, S. Report 

No. 1498. 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

77

War, Henry Stimson, Secretary of the Interior Ickes requested that five of the camps in 

Pennsylvania’s Recreational Demonstration Areas, including one in Hopewell, be converted to 

organized group campsites under the auspices of the National Park Service. Thus, in addition to 

the enormous new land responsibilities, the Hopewell Village National Historic Site now 

contained over 100 recreational structures, four swimming beaches, a half dozen sewer and 

water systems, 27 miles of trails, three parking areas, two overlooks, several miles of road, two 

large day-use picnic areas, two group camps, and one tent camp area.16 With the park already 

low on personnel and resources, Hopewell Village NHS would welcome the occupation of 

civilian and military groups who not only found refuge and relaxation in the tranquil woods of 

Berks County, but offered manpower in maintenance and natural resource protection. 

Hopewell’s Home Front 

Over the next several years, the enlarged historical park hosted several regular camping 

groups during the summer months. Furthermore, the facilities at Hopewell Lake were not 

adequate for public protection, so groups provided their own lifeguards and tended to their own 

maintenance needs. To the dismay of the general public, policies adhered to those of other 

RDAs and allowed only “properly qualified public, semi-public, or private non-profit 

organizations” to enjoy the facilities. A locally based advisory committee recommended groups 

for campsites based on their “ability and willingness to meet the minimum standards of the 

National Park Service for organized camps.”17 The Daniel Boone Council, Boy Scouts of America 

and the Reading-Berks County Council of Camp Fire Girls, each just under 200 campers, 

regularly occupied long term group sites. Camp Greentop, operated by the Maryland League 

for Crippled Children, occupied Camp No. 4, the former site of CCC Company 3301 (SP-17).18

Camp Greentop specialized in physiotherapy, sun treatment, and special diets for 108 campers, 

 

16 Allen to Lattimore, May 20, 1942, W File, Central Files, Office of the Cultural Resource 

Manager, HOFU; Lattimore, Annual Report, 1942, Historic Central Files, HOFU. 17 Acting Director Hillory Tolson to Richard Morton, February 1, 1945, Thomas Allen to Robert 

Matthews, Robert Matthews to Harold Ickes, Allen, September 28, 1945, Mrs. Robert Matthews to 

Thomas Allen, November 3, 1945, Thomas Allen to Mrs. Robert Matthews, November 8, 1945, Heinrich to 

Regional Director, November 8, 1945, NMP-CCC Hopewell Village, 5/1/40-9/30/42, General 

Correspondence 1954-66, Eastern Office of Design and Construction, RG 79, NARA-P. 18 Since the beginning of the war, President Roosevelt used Camp Greentop’s regular site at the 

Catoctin RDA in Maryland as a retreat, (later renamed “Camp David”). National Park Service, Catoctin 

Mountain Park, “Cultural History: Presidential Retreat,” http://www.nps.gov/cato/culthist/retreat.htm, 

(accessed May 3, 2003). 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

78

but primarily hoped to “develop the crippled child to take his place in the normal social 

scheme.” Camp Greentop’s directors cited the children’s fondness for the historic site and 

praised the former CCC accommodations, which included an infirmary, recreation lodge, 

dining room, kitchen, central shower house, and barracks with four bedrooms each. Each of 

these groups performed their own maintenance duties to supplement the small on-site staff. 19

 

While seemingly insulated from the events of the outside world, even Hopewell Village 

could not escape the realities of the home front. That first summer, Ralston Lattimore 

requested permission to purchase signal bombs to replace ineffective telephones as a way to 

notify the residing campers at the park of blackouts or air raid alarms.20 Local military groups 

hoped to use the rural property to camp and perform maneuvers. At first the NPS was reluctant 

to allow any activity beyond camping without specific approval. Lattimore was even 

reprimanded for offering to extend a permit to the Pennsylvania Reserve Defense Corps without 

going through the proper channels. “Perhaps we are a little too eager at French Creek 

Recreational Demonstration Area to render assistance to our armed forces. If this is so, please 

forgive us. We fully realize that park values must be protected and we are ever watchful of these 

efforts,” he apologized to his superiors. In later years, the 33rd Fighter Control Squadron, the 

National Guard, and the Valley Forge Military Academy requested campsites to stage 

maneuvers.21

The British and French sailors were the most memorable group to occupy Hopewell 

during the war. The camping and CCC facilities at Hopewell Village NHS became a Naval Rest 

Camp for allied sailors while their ships were refitted at the Philadelphia Navy Yard. Such use 

was part of a Service-wide effort. The National Park System as a whole contributed to the war 

effort in many ways. The diversity of park landscapes offered ideal sites for warfare training 

(such as Joshua Tree and Mount Rainier for desert and mountain terrain respectively).22 Almost 

 

19 “Camp Greentop-Report of 1944,” “Report of Camp Greentop, 1943,” Oliver Taylor, Regional 

Director to Director Newton Drury, November 16, 1943, “Camp Appraisal Report,” August 17, 1944, File 

601-03 Camp Sites, Central Classified Files 1933-49, National Historic Sites-Hopewell, RG 79, NACP. 20 Lattimore to Allen, August 6, 1942, Historic Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 21 Ewell M. Lisle to Heinrich, June 17, 1943, Lattimore to Allen, May 5, 1942, Lattimore to Genter, 

May 16, 1942, Lattimore to Allen, May 18, 1942, Heinrich to Drury, January 27, 1943, Lattimore to Allen, 

August 6, 1942, Assistant Regional Director W. A. Bahler to Lattimore, August 4, 1942, Allen to Lattimore, 

July 30, 1942, File 601.03.2 War Time Use of Area, Historic Central Files, Box 3, Bally Building, HOFU. 22 Barry Mackintosh, The National Parks: Shaping the System, (ParkNet: The National Park Service 

Online Books, 2000), http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/mackintosh1/stst.htm (accessed 

December 19, 2002); Paige, Civilian Conservation Corps. 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

79

six months before the attack on Pearl Harbor, Secretary Ickes and the Secretary Stimson agreed 

to grant a permit to the U.S. Navy to offer the organized camping facilities of several RDAs to 

British and French sailors on leave. These would include the Catoctin RDA in Maryland and the 

Crabtree Creek RDA in North Carolina. Since the last of the CCC camps at French Creek 

RDA/Hopewell Village NHS, Company 3304 (SP-7), was slated to disband by April of 1942, 

Lattimore notified the regional director that Hopewell would have room for the sailors.23

The 75 remaining CCC veterans of Company 3304 (SP-7) retained for supply detail acted 

as hosts to the men of the battleship HMS Nelson.

24 When the British sailors arrived in May of 

1942, Superintendent Lattimore observed that, “It was an inspiring sight to see the old veterans 

and the youngsters get together in the evening in the canteen, spin yarns, and have them sing the 

songs of two wars.” 25 The CCC provided a recreational advisor who screened outdoor movies 

three nights a week, but the sailors especially enjoyed a hot dog roast with hosted by thirty-five 

women from the City of Reading’s USO chapter. By special arrangement with the group 

campers, the sailors could also take full advantage of recreational park facilities. Many swam 

daily in Hopewell Lake despite of its chilly temperatures. Sometimes the group campers 

extended the sailors invitations to participate in activities. 

Superintendent Lattimore arranged for boy scouts to lend the British sailors their canoes 

and even provide lessons. Several sailors expressed an interest in Camp Greentop’s children and 

“and spent hours entertaining them including rowing them around Hopewell Lake.” Park 

personnel often joined the sailors for lunch or an afternoon game of cricket or soccer.26 The stay 

of the HMS Nelson crewman was so successful that Lattimore worked to continue the 

arrangement. Housing summertime tenants at the park, especially responsible military men, 

seemed like a wonderful solution to maintenance and security concerns considering Hopewell’s 

recent budget cutbacks and the impending loss of the CCC.27

 

 

23 Acting Assistant Regional Director A. P. Bursley to Superintendent, March 13, 1942, Virginia 

Ayres to Lattimore, June 10, 1942, W File, Central Files, HOFU. 24 Lattimore to Drury, April 21, 1942, W file, Central Files, HOFU. 

25 Lattimore, May 2, 1942, File 207-27 British Encampment, French Creek RDA, Historic Central 

Files, Box 3, Bally Building, HOFU. 26 Ibid., Lattimore, “Report of Encampment of British Sailors at Hopewell Village National 

Historic Site,” June 30, 1942, July 3, 1942, July 19, 1942, File 207-27 British Encampment, French Creek 

RDA, A. F. Matheson, Captain, Royal Navy to Admiral Draemel, October 2, 1944, File 202-a Comments 

on Hopewell Village NHS by the Commanders of the US Navy’s Rest Camp, 1944, Historic Central Files, 

Bally Building, HOFU; Heinrich to Lt. Eberle, July 18, 1944, W File, Central Files, HOFU. 27 Lattimore to Drury, April 21, 1942, W File, Central Files, HOFU. 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

80

4.2 British Sailors Looking at Anthracite Furnace, 1944. 

Photo Book, French Creek RDA, HOFU Photographic Archives. 

The superintendent discouraged other uses for the recreation area, such as one request 

to use it as a reception center for receiving and discharging CCC enrollees. He worried that the 

wandering of idle CCC juniors would be an “embarrassment” in a recreation and historical park 

used by young girls and boys, would place historic resources in danger of vandalism, and 

interfere with the park’s current use as a naval rest camp. It was wartime, he implored, and the 

Navy should get priority in terms of occupation.28

 

The local community shared Lattimore’s fondness for the British sailors. The Reading 

Eagle ran several stories about the rest camp.29 On August 27, 1942, the CCC office in 

Washington, DC received orders to transfer the buildings of Camp Greentop’s Camp No. 4 to 

the War Department as part of the war effort. Soon afterward, the Navy requested the site for 

its immediate and continued occupation and the War Department waived its priority claim. By 

October 1942, the Fourth Naval District officially obtained the title and a special permit to the 

former CCC site “For the purpose of creating, establishing, and maintaining a rest camp for 

sailors of the US Navy and sailors from navies of the United Nations.” It would last the 

remainder of the war plus six months.30

 

28 Ibid. 

29 “Sailors Get Role of Sea out of Their Legs,” April 30, 1942, “Rest Camp,” January 17, 1943, 

“Newspaper Clippings,” Historic Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 30 Heinrich to Drury, January 27, 1943, File 601.03.2 War Time Use of Area, Historic Central Files, 

Box 3, Bally Building, HOFU; Lattimore to Drury, June 22, 1942, Lattimore to John Franklin, June 16, 1942, 

Lattimore to Drury, August 1, 1942, Drury to Chief of Naval Personnel, September 9, 1942, Fred Johnston 

to Drury, September 24, 1942, W File, Central Files, HOFU. 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

81

4.3 Naval District, CCC Building, 1943. Photo Book, French Creek RDA, HOFU Photographic Archives. 

4.4 Naval Rest Camp, 1943. Photo Book, French Creek RDA, HOFU Photographic Archives. 

Restoration Wars 

The success of the group campsites and the Navy’s rest camps exacerbated development 

problems for historic Hopewell Village. In addition to the issue of incompatible priorities, the 

park’s now dual responsibility of historical and recreational development was especially 

problematic given the limited park personnel, reduced to only three during wartime. In August 

1942 the Washington office moved to declare Hopewell a National Monument. Assistant 

Director of Land Planning Conrad Wirth wrote Associate Director Demaray. “I have somewhat 

regretted the use of the area for group camping ever since we really began to realize the 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

82

historical importance of the old buildings and the foundry,” he admitted. “Hopewell Village 

was acquired as the French Creek RDA prior to the discovery of its historical significance and 

the group camp development was started before the historical report was obtained.”31

Coordinating Superintendent Francis Ronalds and Acting Regional Director Fred Johnston also 

proposed the gradual elimination of group camping and the need for a new construction plan to 

accommodate the enlarged park. Johnston pointed out that Hopewell offered plenty of 

opportunities exclusive of recreation. “The area around Hopewell remains one of the few 

regions in the U[nited] S[states] that has a distinctive period architecture and visible cultural 

atmosphere [of handicrafts and antiques] belonging to a distant past.”32

 

Unfortunately, between the activities of the Naval Rest Camp, consolidation with French 

Creek, and the flurry over the boundary discussion, the restoration of Hopewell Village moved 

quickly down the list of administrative priorities. The development policy begun in 1939, and 

rewritten in 1941, never realized completion or approval. The loss of the WPA and the CCC 

robbed the park of a valuable workforce and funding for construction projects. By the summer 

of 1942, the entire working staff of Hopewell had been reduced to three: Superintendent 

Lattimore, Maintenance Foreman Frank Lucas (a former Brooke tenant), and Office Assistant 

Catherine Fritz. When NPS tapped Archeologist Chris Motz to take over temporary 

management of the Raccoon Creek RDA, Lattimore suspended the stabilization of the furnace, 

specifically the walls of the Wheel Pit. Motz briefly returned to Hopewell for four or five days in 

the summer to assist an overwhelmed Lattimore with administrating the park.33 When outside 

NPS help did arrive, it threatened to halt restoration plans altogether. 

In the spring of 1942, Senior NPS Engineer Edmund Preece arrived at Hopewell with his 

consulting group, Preece, Borresen (Thor), Guscio, and Higgins, to prepare development plans 

for the village core as requested by Chief Archeologist Kelly the previous fall. Superintendent 

Lattimore had hoped they might produce a detailed statement of work specifications for each 

 

31 Supervisor of Land Planning Conrad Wirth to Associate Director A. E. Demaray, August 14, 

1942, Hopewell Village, File 601 Hopewell Village re Land Transfer, 1946, Central Classified Files 1933-49, 

National Historic Sites-Hopewell, RG 79, NACP. 32 Acting Regional Director Fred Johnston to Drury, October 12, 1942, Johnston to Drury, March 1, 

1943, File 600-03 Development Outline, Central Classified Files 1933-49, National Historic SitesHopewell, RG 79, NACP. 33 Lattimore, July 31, 1942, W file, Central Files, HOFU; Johnston to Lattimore, June 4, 1942, Allen 

to Lattimore, File 201-06 Hopewell Administration, Central Classified Files 1933-49, National Historic 

Sites-Hopewell, RG 79, NACP. 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

83

structure and determine whether or not to try to save them all or simply the least sound.34

 

Unfortunately, he found the resulting report disappointing.35

 

We had very much hoped to receive, as a result of Messrs. Preece, Guscio [Associate 

Engineer], Higgins [Associate Architect], and Borresen [Assistant Historian], a 

comprehensive statement of policy with regard to restoration of Hopewell together with 

definite recommendations for work immediately necessary for the preservation of the 

historic buildings during the war. In the past so many similar conferences held at Hopewell 

have apparently come to naught and we shall be most disappointed if this more recent 

conference does not bring better results.”36 

Instead, Preece complained that while there had been discussion of target dates, Hopewell still 

needed a final development policy. Preece’s report only evaluated one building, and indicated 

he could really not make any further suggestions about temporary or comprehensive 

stabilization plans until Hopewell Village NHS came up with definitive guidelines for its future. 

Roy Appleman took exception to Preece’s suggestions that Hopewell had no 

development policy, maintaining the site interpretation in his original report. The Region I 

Historian contended that while it might not be detailed, Hopewell Village’s designation order 

articulated its development policy: to illustrate the “relationship to the colonial history of the 

United States.” Certain buildings would be reconstructed when funding became available 

“because their reconstruction would be essential for the development of the village as a life scale 

model and picture of a colonial ironmaking establishment.”37 One could not offer 

recommendations about other reconstruction dates without taking into account the reason for 

the site in the first place. Changes to the village since the colonial period would have reflected 

the slow evolution of the iron industry. This was especially “true for the small ironmaking 

village, nestled away in the forest on the mountainside in Pennsylvania, which adhered to the 

ancient ways of iron ore production.” Fearing that the realization of Hopewell’s living village 

would be further delayed with the end of the CCC, he urged comprehensive stabilization, 

restoration of the races to functioning condition, and continued archeological work.38

 

34 Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age, 1036; Allen to Drury, December 11, 1941, File H2619 Date 

Restoration, Central Files, HOFU. 35 Preece, Borresen, Guscio, and Higgins, “Special Report on Stabilization of Historic Structures at 

Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site,” April 7, 1942, H2619 Date Restoration, Central Files, HOFU. 

36 Lattimore to Allen, April 28, 1942, Hopewell Village, General Correspondence 1939-1952, RG 79, 

NARA-P. 37 Appleman to Allen, May 4, 1942, File H2619 Date Restoration, Central Files, HOFU. 

38 Ibid. 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

84

In response, Preece pointed out that restoring to the colonial period for interpretive 

reasons would unavoidably sacrifice “originality of workmanship.”39 Hopewell’s developmental 

policy, therefore, had to balance interpretation and preservation and list various classifications 

of sites to correspond accordingly. Stabilization activities eroded the furnace’s romantic patina 

and “now it looks polished.” Preece qualified Appleman’s assumptions about Hopewell claiming 

it was not a particularly extraordinary example, but “because of its ownership and location it can 

be made an outstanding example even though it is not now.”40

The engineer continued criticizing the management of Hopewell Village for its 

haphazard and unofficial method of policy-making. He saw contradictions in Garrison’s guiding 

principles which aimed to preserve as many surviving resources at possible with an 1870 date, 

and Appleman’s desire to reflect a particular time period. 

I do not believe that the mere fact that a policy is recommended in a report and submitted 

without adverse criticism can be considered as establishing policy.... So far as I am able to 

learn different policies have been recommended for Hopewell Village at different times 

by different persons and in some cases funds have actually been furnished to carry out 

some of the provisions. If such a procedure can be considered the establishment of a 

policy then it must be taken as establishment by indirection and the variety of opinion, 

which accompanies such procedure [sic] is completely understandable...Hopewell policy 

has ranged from scrupulous preservation of original workmanship to complete 

reconstructions for the purpose of operation. Frankly, I do not know of any policy that 

has been followed consistently. 41

 

Excusing his own group as unqualified to make decisions regarding historical integrity, he 

described “a major difference of opinion between the historical authorities with whom we are 

dealing.”42 Furthermore, even comprehensive reports like those written by Motz and Borresen 

did not provide enough detail to plan appropriate restorations. 

Preece’s comments found an audience with Regional Director Thomas Allen and the 

increasingly conservative sentiment of National Park Service Director Newton Drury in 

Washington regarding issues of restoration and reconstruction. “Our recommendation is that 

the report in general be accepted,” Allen wrote to Drury, “the Park Service follow a policy of 

stabilization rather than restoration or reconstruction at Hopewell Village...”43 Director Drury 

agreed that this decision best reflected existing NPS policy: “It is better to preserve than repair, 

 

39 Preece to Lee, May 7, 1942, Preece , May 15, 1942, Papers of Charles Hosmer, NTL. 40 Ibid. 

41 Ibid. 

42 Ibid. 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

85

better to repair than restore, and better to restore than reconstruct.”44 In accordance with these 

instructions, Supervisor of Historic Sites Ronald Lee submitted a revised development policy for 

Hopewell Village that he intended to incorporate into a revised General Development Plan. His 

first principle advised that each structure should only be stabilized to its last major form, rather 

than restoring it “to some arbitrarily selected earlier form.”45 Rather than emphasizing the idea 

of a “living village” frozen to a particular time and place, Lee’s goals merely hoped “... to create a 

pictorial exhibit of the industrial activities.”46

Regional Director Allen did begrudgingly admit that little else in the Preece report was 

useful to the park staff especially amidst recent wartime budget constraints. “The adoption of 

limited measures even on the most critical cases undoubtedly will strain the resources of the 

Superintendent.” He hoped to encourage Chris Motz, still the site archeologist, to continue 

research so stabilization could commence as soon as funding became available.47 Meanwhile, 

Roy Appleman, impatient with the “scattered” efforts of work on the village throughout the 

summer, visited Lattimore on site to make suggestions about ongoing development activities, 

and to encourage the completion of longtime unfinished construction reports and research 

projects.48 Soon afterwards, Appleman’s advocacy ended when he temporarily left NPS to join 

the army.49 For the remainder of WWII, low funding provided no pressure to pursue the matter 

of Hopewell’s development policy, and the village structures received attention only when the 

situation demanded it. 

 43 Allen to Drury, June 8, 1942, File 611-01 Postwar Repair and Rehabilitation, Historic Central 

Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 44 Drury to Allen, May 1, 1942, “Bake Oven,” Historic Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 

45 Lee to Thomas Vint, Chief Landscape Architect, NMP-CCC Hopewell Village, May 28, 1942, 

May 1, 1940-Sept. 30, 1942, Hopewell Village, General Correspondence 1939-1952, Region 5, RG 79, 

NARA-P. 

46 Ibid. 

47 Allen to Director Newton Drury, July 1, 1942, File 204, Inspections and Investigations, 1939-50, 

Historic Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 

48 Appleman to Allen, June 5, 1942, General Correspondence 1939-52, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

86

A Change in Leadership 

Hopewell’s disappointing rate of development could not solely be blamed on a lack of 

plans. A series of violent summer storms reaped considerable damage to trees and camping 

facilities and endangered the fragile historic structures, severely taxing the limited resources of 

Hopewell’s two laborers. In July 1942 Superintendent Lattimore reported that a “miniature 

tornado dipped into Hopewell Village and felled one of the large trees which formerly stood 

directly next to the front entrance of the great mansion.” The tree crashed against the house 

and demolished the south chimney and part of the south wall. Photographs and measurements 

taken by the Preece group provided some information to restore the damage.50 In order to focus 

on priorities consistent with the historic site, Lattimore began to promote a plan to relieve the 

NPS of the burden of administrating the campsites. He hoped to offer the management of all of 

the recreational facilities to private parties under concession agreements.51

 

Pennsylvania Field Supervisor Emil Heinrich blamed the lack of progress at Hopewell on 

Lattimore’s manic personality and incompetence, rather than on low personnel or divided 

priorities. In Heinrich’s opinion, “Mr. Lattimore is a good historian but not the administrator or 

executive to get things done.”52 Herb Evison from the national office seemed to agree, but he 

struggled with the issue. Writing to his supervisor, Conrad Wirth, he maintained that the dual 

responsibilities of recreation and preservation were more to blame than the administration, but 

remarked that “Lattimore has had more than the usual amount of trouble”53 However, he 

concluded that abandoning the recreational responsibilities would be extremely harmful to 

public relations, especially to those groups like the Maryland League for Crippled Children 

where campsites proved of social benefit.54

 49 William H. Sontag, ed. “Roy Appleman,” in National Park Service: The First 75 Years

(Washington, DC: Eastern National Park and Monument Association, 1990), www.cr.nps.gov/history/ 

online_books/sontag/appleman.htm (accessed May 3, 2003). 50 Lattimore to Allen, July 6, 1942, Regional Engineer W. E. O’Neil to Johnston, September 12, 1942, 

General Correspondence 1939-52, Region 5, HOFU. 51 Herb Evison to Wirth, August 7, 1942, File 901 Concessions, Central Classified Files 1933-49, 

National Historic Sites-Hopewell, RG 79, NACP. 52 Emil Heinrich, Field Supervisor to Allen, June 2, 1942, General Correspondence 1939-52, Region 

5, NARA-P. 53 Evison to Wirth, August 7, 1942, RG 79, NACP 

54 Ibid. 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

87

A change in leadership would disrupt Hopewell’s administration and development even 

further. When the draft board called Lattimore, Acting Associate Director Hillory Tolson 

recommended Chris Motz for the superintendent position as a temporary replacement, but 

Coordinating Superintendent Francis Ronalds protested, claiming that while he was a good 

man, “Motz just doesn’t have sufficient experience and he is too soft spoken and retiring.” 

Instead, Ronalds pushed Pennsylvania Inspector Emil C. Heinrich, a national guardsman who 

would not be called up for service due to a hernia condition, for the position. Heinrich’s overt 

criticism of Hopewell’s management, his diplomatic skills, and his ability to speak five 

languages–English, French, Italian, German, Latin–likely influenced his appointment at the site 

of the Naval Rest Camp.55 When Regional Director Thomas Allen agreed, Ronalds was elated. 

Heinrich is so familiar with Hopewell affairs that I do not think he will need more than a 

day or two with Lattimore before the latter’s departure... I have every confidence in 

Heinrich’s ability to straighten things out at Hopewell.56

And so when Lattimore left for Lowry Field in Denver in September of 1942, his most severe 

critic, Emil Heinrich, took over the job of acting superintendent in addition to his duties as field 

supervisor. He moved into the Houck House at Hopewell with his wife, Johanna (Jo-Jo), and 

children, Hans and Helen. 57

 

55 Hans C. Heinrich to Superintendent Derrick Cook, February 16, 1991, April 12, 1991, “WWII 

Activities in Area,” Vertical Files, HOFU. 

56 Ronalds to Regional Director Allen, August 21, 1942, Confidential, Coordinating Superintendent 

Francis Ronalds to Regional Director Allen, August 21, 1942, File 201-06 Hopewell Administration, Central 

Classified Files 1933-49, National Historic Sites-Hopewell, RG 79, NACP. 57 Allen to Heinrich, August 24, 1942, Allen to Lattimore, Drury to Lattimore, December 4, 1942, 

File 201-06 Hopewell Administration, Central Classified Files 1933-49, National Historic Sites-Hopewell, 

RG 79, NACP; Hans C. Heinrich to Cook, February 16, 1991, April 12, 1991, “WWII Activities in Area,” 

Vertical Files, HOFU. 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

88

4.5 Emil Heinrich (back right), Catherine Fritz and Part-time Staff, 1943. 

HOFU Photographic Archives. 

Trained as a civil engineer and in charge of CCC facilities in the Great Lakes region, 

Maryland, Indiana, and New Jersey, Heinrich had considerable more experience in, and hence 

more concern for, issues of administration than with historical development. He promised to 

“devote our fullest time and efforts towards systemization, centralization, unification, 

coordination, and simplification of all operations of all employees working at Hopewell.”58

Indeed, Heinrich proved himself a skilled administrator. With a staff of only one archeologist, 

one clerk, and one full-time handyman, he oversaw the park through a period when multiple 

uses, budget cuts, and local conflicts severely challenged Hopewell’s purpose and existence. In 

May of 1944, when Congress cut over $27,000 from the park’s historical areas budget, many in 

Washington praised the orderliness of Hopewell despite its personnel and budget constraints.59

Heinrich used the additional maintenance burdens of the rest camp to appeal for more 

administrative money. 

While only [the rest camp] did, and does, contribute consistently and apparently effectively 

to war use, it is appropriate to state that this war use unavoidably increases to some extent 

maintenance tasks and fortunately contributes to attendance records, lectures and guide 

service during the present winter months. This war also contributes to park and village 

visitation by civilians and undoubtedly will have a bearing on park visitation by members of 

the armed forces and civilians after the present inclement weather recedes. We plead that 

 

58 Emil Heinrich to Regional Director, September 10, 1942, General Correspondence, Region 5, RG 

79, NARA-P. 59 “Staff Meeting Minutes,” May 3, 1944, W File, Central Files, HOFU; Hans C. Heinrich to Cook, 

February 16, 1991, “WWII Activities in Area,” Vertical Files, HOFU. 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

89

this circumstance be given consideration in possible budget discussions for a park of this 

size.60

Rather than risk losing the utility and administrative buildings from the CCC, new 

Superintendent Heinrich requested permission to continue their use. In return, the Navy would 

assume responsibility for the area’s maintenance, policing, waste disposal, and utility bills to 

relieve the short-handed Hopewell staff. He also used the park’s “certified” status as a defense 

agency to secure WPA workers for handiwork. Heinrich recommended Leroy Sanders for the 

“resident custodian” position. A former mechanic, Sanders had worked under Heinrich at 

several area CCC camps as maintenance superintendent, including Hopewell. In this position, 

he already resided within the park in a government-owned house.61

 

While using the sailors as an excuse to access additional funding, Heinrich, like 

Lattimore, enjoyed the presence of the British sailors at the park immensely. The resting, but 

rarely idle, sailors contributed to the park’s maintenance to make-up for personnel deficiencies. 

They followed daily flag-raising and religious services by felling diseased trees, clearing 

boundary wire, cleaning the historic carriages in the Village Barn, and estimating the status of 

the wildlife for the superintendent’s annual reports. Each crew contingent stayed at Hopewell 

Village NHS for an average of seven days, a vacation that included a tour of Hopewell Village 

and a lecture on early American industry. In a letter to the camp commander, Heinrich wrote, 

The National Park Service, through the writer, would like to express its admiration and 

sincere satisfaction regarding exemplary deportment, the spirit and helpfulness and 

cooperation and the general good will towards the park and its environs, shown 

constantly and without solicitation by all members of your command.62

Heinrich heaped further praise upon the sailors after several sailors jumped on the park’s 

fire truck to fight three local forest fires during the first weekend in May when the procedures 

set up through a cooperative agreement with Pennsylvania’s Department of Forest and Waters 

 

60 Heinrich to Drury, October 15, 1942, NMP-CCC May 1, 1940-September 30, 1942, Hopewell 

Village, General Correspondence 1939-1952, NARA-P; Heinrich to Drury, January 27, 1943, War Time Use 

of Area, File 601.03.2, Historic Central Files, Box 3, Bally Building, HOFU. 61 F. L. Olsen, CCC, to Allen, September 8, 1942, Johnston to Heinrich, September 11, 1942, 

Heinrich to F. A. Gaylord, CCC, September 14, 1942, Heinrich to Lt. Rehler, Navy, September 17, 1942, 

Heinrich to Allen, September 18, 1942, Johnston to Drury, September 24, 1942, September 24, 1942, 

Heinrich to Commandant, Navy, October 29, 1942, W File, Central Files, HOFU; Lattimore to Captain 

Irving E. Tier, June 6, 1942, File 601 Lands, Historic Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 62 Hans C. Heinrich to Cook, February 16, 1991, WWII Activities in Area, Vertical Files, HOFU; 

Emil Heinrich to Director, October 6, 1943, Photo File, Bally Building, HOFU; Heinrich to Baynes, US 

Navy Rest Camp, December 10, 1942, W File, Central Files, HOFU. 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

90

failed to secure immediate aid. “Without this described cooperative attitude, speed and action, 

the park undoubtedly would have today several hundred acres of badly scarred timber land...” 

the superintendent observed as he gratefully praised the regular fire drills at the camp that 

prepared the sailors for such emergencies. The incident highlighted the desperate financial 

situation of the park, which could not afford to pay outside help to combat fires, and Heinrich 

solicited the state to financially compensate the sailors. In addition he requested that all park 

personnel, including himself, Motz, Frank Lucas, George Clouser, and Leroy Sanders all be 

granted state recognition as emergency forest fire wardens. He even solicited fire-fighting films 

to maintain the sailors’ interest and apprise them of modern methods and theories.63 In a letter 

to Director Drury, Heinrich admitted that the sailors’ service to the park had more than 

compensated for the administrative burden.64

 

The Royal Navy reciprocated Heinrich’s admiration with adulation for the 

superintendent and his wife for their hospitality and accommodations. At first sailors expressed 

reluctance to leave their “homes on board or the bright lights of Philadelphia and cast into the 

‘backwoods.’” But soon the sailors would be “singing its praises and officers were overwhelmed 

with requests to return.”65 In the hot summer months when living conditions on the ship proved 

unbearable, spending time at Hopewell greatly improved morale. Reading locals reportedly 

“rolled out” barrels of beer for the event. Heinrich also praised the effect the sailors had in 

cultivating good will between the park and the community for whom they occasionally served as 

temporary paid labor since the war effort had lured away local help as reflected in several local 

complimentary newspaper articles. Near the end of the war, the crew of the HMS Nelson

presented Heinrich with a plaque thanking him for his service to the Royal Navy.66 By the end of 

 

63 Heinrich to George Wirt, Department of Forests and Waters, May 3, 1943, Heinrich to Fred 

Brouse, Department of Forest and Waters, Heinrich to Regional Director Thomas Allen, May 7, 1943, 

Heinrich to Regional Forester, May 15, 1943, W File, Central Files, HOFU. 

64 Emil Heinrich to Director, September 27, 1944, File 601.03.2 War Time Use of Area, Historic 

Central Files, Box 3, Bally Building, HOFU. 

65 Heinrich to Regional Director, October 17, 1944, “Comments on Hopewell Village NHS by the 

Commanders of the US Navy’s Rest Camp, 1944, Historic Central Files, Box 3, Bally Building, HOFU. 66 C. F. Matheson, Captain, Royal Navy, to Admiral Draemmel, October 2, 1944, File 202-a 

Comments on Hopewell Village NHS by the Commanders of the US Navy’s Rest Camp 1944, Historic 

Central Files, Box 3, Bally Building, HOFU; Hans C. Heinrich to Cook, February 16, 1991, “WWII Activities 

in Area,” Vertical Files, HOFU. 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

91

the summer of 1944, the Navy Rest Camp at Hopewell Village National Historic Site had 

provided a refuge for 2,665 British sailors and almost 500 Free French sailors.67

 

Heinrich solicited positive publicity for the park by frequently boasting about 

Hopewell’s contribution to the war effort. Hopewell Village NHS granted America’s allies the 

opportunity to “relax in our hills and dales having, we hope, enjoyed an island of peace during 

these years of international turmoil.”68 Grateful sailors wrote numerous letters to Acting 

Director Hillory Tolson who planned to present the most impressive of them to the Bureau of 

the Budget and House and Senate Appropriations Committees.69

 

Disputes over Dual Administration 

Unfortunately, the local residents’ support for the Allied sailors and the peaceful good 

will of the rest camp did not extend to the park itself. While a World War loomed large outside 

park boundaries, a much smaller war brewed within them. A public relations crisis raged over 

who enjoyed the benefits of recreational facilities. Complaints had begun during 

Superintendent Lattimore’s tenure. The National Youth Administration in Reading vehemently 

protested the policy of restricting camping to groups when Lattimore asked them to leave after 

explaining to their supervisor that groups required a permit before swimming at Hopewell Lake, 

and that such permits were not transferable to a third party. Regrettably, allowing day use to 

individuals would require far more oversight and maintenance than the park’s personnel could 

provide, and war exigencies delayed the construction of a swimming area for day use in the Six 

Penny Creek area.70 Explanations about group permits and personnel issues rarely satisfied such 

inquiries. By the end of the war Heinrich and other NPS officials were still fielding complaints 

over access to the park. One individual’s question summarized public misconceptions and 

frustrations. “Will you please inform me if this park was improved (at the expense of all of us) 

 

67 Emil Heinrich to Chief of Lands Conrad Wirth, July 5, 1944; Emil Heinrich to Director, 

September 27, 1944, Heinrich to Director, September 27, 1944, War Time Use of Area, File 601.03.2, 

Historic Central Files, Box 3, Bally Building, HOFU. 68 Emil Heinrich to Captain A. F. Matheson, September 27, 1944, Comments on Hopewell Village 

NHS by the Commanders of the US Navy’s Rest Camp 1944, Historic Central Files, Box 3, Bally Building, 

HOFU. 

69 Acting Director Hillory Tolson to Commander Peter Skelton, July 24, 1943, Skelton to Tolson, 

July 19, 1943, Tolson to Allen, November 4, 1943, Heinrich to Allen, November 12, 1943, W File, Central 

Files, HOFU. 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

92

just for the use of Berks County residents as they seem to be the only groups permitted access to 

the lake, or if it is a National Park?”71

 

While the public and the Allied sailors viewed the Hopewell area as a recreational area, 

NPS officials worried about any use at all of the park’s land base unrelated to historical issues. 

With the wartime focus on recreational activities, Acting Regional Director Fred Thompson and 

Coordinating Superintendent Francis Ronalds met in October of 1942 to consider revising the 

Project Construction Program (PCP), much of which had remained status quo for the past year. 

Thompson and Ronalds agreed to support many of the plans discussed in earlier months. 

Workers had stabilized several structures in accordance with their level of deterioration, 

including the furnace and begun its restoration. A restored East Headrace ran about a quarter of 

a mile from the village where it crossed Spout Run. The furnace, with water flowing in and out 

of the machinery, would remain the centerpiece of the historic site. Certain structures should be 

restored inside and out for use as historic house displays and functioning workshops. For 

example, the Office-Store could act as a concession sales point for these handcrafted objects, 

and the Ironmaster’s House as an historic home exhibit. Other structures, such as the Boarding 

and Tenant Houses, would serve as residences for personnel.72

The Hopewell Village preservation program continued to suffer considerably and both 

the park and the region blamed the boundary situation. Irregular boundaries caused problems 

with land tenure, as park administration discovered at least two cases where the government 

assumed it had ownership and did not.73 Furthermore, in spite of their criticisms during his 

administration, Superintendent Heinrich and his Coordinating Superintendent Francis Ronalds 

echoed Lattimore’s complaints that the additional RDA acreage forced the staff to neglect 

 70 Harry F. Gracey, July 19, 1942, Lattimore to Drury, July 24, 1942, NMP-CCC May 1, 1940-

September 30, 1942, Hopewell Village, General Correspondence 1939-1952, NARA-P. 71 Tolson to Richard Morton, February 1, 1945, Allen to Robert Matthews, Matthews to Harold 

Ickes, Allen, September 28, 1945, Mrs. Robert Matthews to Allen, November 3, 1945, Allen to Mrs. Robert 

Matthews, November 8, 1945, Heinrich to Allen, November 8, 1945, NMP-CCC Hopewell Village 5/1/40-

9/30/42, General Correspondence 1954-56, Eastern Office of Design and Construction, RG 79, NARA-P. 72 Johnston, October 12, 1942, File 601-03 Camp Sites, CCF 1933-49, National Historic SitesHopewell, RG 79, NACP; Regional Director Oliver Taylor to Ronalds, October 29, 1943, NMP-CCC (3) 

Hopewell Village, December 1, 1939-April 30, 1940, Hopewell Village, Region 1, Central Classified Files 

1926-1952, RG 79, NARA-P. 73 Emil Heinrich to Regional Director, December 21, 1944, Heinrich to Regional Director, August 

2, 1945, File 601 Lands, Bally Building, HOFU. 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

93

historical development in order to attend to the immediate needs of group camping.74 After a 

year and a half of debates, new Regional Director Oliver Taylor concluded that the park had an 

obligation to continue group camping or risk inviting intense public criticism. At the same time, 

Taylor expressed his frustration with the situation. 

Basically, I believe that our main difficulty at Hopewell Village in determining questions 

relating to active recreation, including group camping, stems from the inclusion in the site 

of a vastly greater acreage than can be justified on historical grounds; and then insisting 

on the application of restrictions, soundly applicable to genuinely historic ground and its 

immediate environs, to the entire area regardless of whether it is actually better suited to 

these and other uses or not.75

The Service needed to propose legislation to restore 90 percent the current historic site 

back to RDA status in order to relieve NPS of its management and development.76 No one 

making decisions seemed clear about the reasons for the consolidation in the first place. Taylor, 

who worked as a Park Service engineer prior to becoming an administrator, was clearly unaware 

of Hopewell’s history. He blamed the situation on “land-grabbing” historians who he accused 

of insisting on including the vast forestland of charcoal production and thus expanding the 

boundary. Taylor agreed that charcoal production was an interesting aspect of the site’s history, 

but he asserted that it was irrelevant to current daily needs. Taylor had supported the 

employment of historians for needed historic research in the past, but proposed that “a group 

besides historians” needed to reexamine the Hopewell boundaries.77 Outraged that his 

profession had been scapegoated for the current administration problems, Historian Melvin 

Weig fired off a memo to Ronalds denying that any historian ever proposed or supported the 

consolidation. “Some other persons, not historians, may have seized on this historical fact as an 

excuse for the enlargement,” he added.78

 

Acknowledging his rush to judgment, Taylor remained indignant that a consolidated 

park impeded planning issues. While he did not feel it appropriate to change the situation 

during wartime, decisions about the area’s historical preservation should wait until “a more 

 

74 Coordinating Superintendent Francis Ronalds to Regional Director, December 6, 1943, File 600 

Land, Central Classified Files, General Correspondence 1939-1952, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 75 Regional Director Oliver Taylor to Drury, November 16, 1943, File 600 Land, Central Classified 

Files, General Correspondence 1939-1952, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 

76 Ibid. 

77 Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age, 503. 

78 Taylor to Drury, November 16, 1943; Assistant Historical Technician Melvin J. Weig, to Francis 

Ronalds, November 20, 1943, File 601-03 Camp Sites, Central Classified Files 1933-49, National Historic 

Sites-Hopewell, RG 79, NACP. 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

94

appropriate status of recreation be returned to the bulk of the formerly French Creek 

property.”79 Coordinating Superintendent Francis Ronalds agreed, “We cannot possibly make 

sound plans for the future development of Hopewell until we know what the eventual acreage 

will be. The plain fact is that until we get rid of the recreational area, together with its group 

camping and overnight use, means of developing the place as an historic site will always be 

hampered...”80

 

Meanwhile, Acting Director Demaray was alarmed to discover that the park had still not 

submitted a revised PCP since its consolidation and refocused concerns on the issues of 

boundaries and land use. In a subsequent conference at the Regional Office, all those present 

agreed that the problems of an enlarged park, combined with a small budget, seriously 

jeopardized any progress on achieving the dream of restoring and interpreting the ironmaking 

activities of Hopewell Village. Logically, because historical significance led to the area’s 

designation as a national park in the first place, the development of an enlarged park needed to 

focus upon the historic preservation of village remains and “the trend of development should be 

directed to effect the elimination of recreational facilities.”81

 

Hopewell’s development inertia caught the attention of Pennsylvania Congressman 

Daniel Knabb Hoch, who sat on the Congressional Committee on Public Lands. Lemuel 

Garrison had begun cultivating Hoch’s friendship since the latter’s days in local politics and had 

written Heinrich to advise he do the same even prior to the Congressman’s election. A member 

of the Berks County Historical Society, Hoch loved antiques and history and hoped to become 

familiar with Hopewell’s activities and needs. Furthermore, he regarded the park as “the only 

large peacetime permanent establishment in his district.”82 The seventy-seven year-old Hoch 

visited Hopewell in April of 1943 and promised to address the matter of the “ragged boundary.” 

 

79 Supervisor of Historic Sites Lee, to Chief Counsel, August 16, 1940, Taylor to Drury, December 

4, 1943, File 600 Land, “Hopewell Village,” General Correspondence 1939-1952, NARA-P; Regional 

Director Oliver Taylor to Director, December 16, 1943, File 601-03 Camp Sites, Central Classified Files 

1933-49, National Historic Sites-Hopewell, RG 79, NACP. 80 Coordinating Superintendent Ronalds to Regional Director, April 12, 1944, File 601-03 Camp 

Sites, Central Classified Files 1933-49, National Historic Sites-Hopewell, RG 79, NACP. 81 Taylor to Ronalds, October 29, 1943, NMP-CCC (3) Hopewell Village, NARA-P. 82 Superintendent’s Narrative Report for the Month of April, 1943, Hopewell Village, File 207-02.3 

Part 1 Hopewell Village NHS Administration and Personnel, Superintendents, Central Classified Files 

1933-49, National Historic Sites-Hopewell, RG 79, NACP; Superintendent Emil Heinrich to Regional 

Director, October 16, 1943, File 600 Land, Hopewell Village, Region 5, General Correspondence 1939-1952, 

NARA-P; Ronalds to Taylor, October 25, 1943, Hopewell Village File 204-01 Inspection and Investigations, 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

95

The following October, the congressman scheduled a hearing on Hopewell Village grounds. 

However, both Heinrich and Ronalds characterized the meeting as a friendly “fact finding” one 

which addressed the park’s financial issues more than its land use problems.83

During Heinrich’s administration, the National Park Service reaffirmed its preference 

for stabilization of structures to their last major form over options of restoration or 

reconstruction. If studies determined that restoration was necessary, the activity should be 

limited only to missing elements of architecture.84 Those closer to Hopewell’s history continued 

to disagree with the conservative policy. Historian Melvin Weig, based out of Morristown, 

agreed that “Reconstruction should be confined to the replacement of missing elements or 

structures, a key portion of which still stands,” but that limiting the restoration and 

reconstruction of Hopewell Village NHS to a specific date or time period would prevent the 

reconstruction of those structures that lay outside those parameters (i.e. Wheelwright Shop, 

Casting and Molding House, and the Schoolhouse). He stressed the need for more than one 

example of working conditions and living quarters to convey village life. “What about colliers, 

moulders, woodchoppers, etc.?” he asked. Weig cautioned against moving too quickly, and 

encouraged the park to cautiously move forward with plans. Once Tenant Houses were 

converted into quarters, for example, their use would be irreversible. Lastly, he reminded his 

superiors about the need to maintain access to the lake before releasing it for management or 

ownership to a non-federal third party. Water through the East Headrace would not be a 

sufficient supply for all seasons.85

 

In the 1940s the lack of distinction between recreational and historical goals constituted 

the essence of what many Service administrators referred to as the “Hopewell problem.” Local 

 

Congressional Committee Central Classified Files 1933-49, National Historic Sites-Hopewell, RG 79, 

NACP. 

83 In addition to Hoch and his daughter, attendants included Congressmen J. Hardin Peterson of 

Florida, Edgar J. Chenoworth of Colorado, Mrs. Hattie Mae Cooke, Secretary to the Committee, and Mr. 

J. Woodrow Savage, Field Representative of Congressman Hoch. Emil Heinrich to Regional Director, 

October 25, 1943, Hopewell Village File 204-01 Inspection and Investigations, Congressional Committee, 

Central Classified Files 1933-49, National Historic Sites-Hopewell, RG 79, NACP; Ronalds to Taylor, 

October 16, 1943, Heinrich to Taylor, October 25, 1943, Ronalds to Associate Director Demaray, October 

25, 1943, File 600 Land, Hopewell Village, Region 5, General Correspondence 1939-1952, NARA-P. 

84 Heinrich to Ronalds, November 11, 1943, NMP-CCC Hopewell Village, PA-NARA 5/1/40-

9/30/42, General Correspondence 1954-56, Eastern Office, Division of Design and Construction 1954-1956, 

RG 79, NARA-P; Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age, 606. 

85 Weig to Ronalds, November 9, 1943, File 600-03 Development Outline, Central Classified Files 

1933-49, National Historic Sites-Hopewell, RG 79, NACP. 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

96

park staff disagreed with the Regional Office’s assessments about the problems of a consolidated 

park. They wondered why history and recreation could not support each other like at Spring 

Mill Park in Indiana, and thereby make Hopewell “attractive and successful.” The Regional 

Office responded that such a dual purpose would only work where both the recreational and 

historical facilities have local authority.86 Meanwhile, the overwhelming amount of 

responsibilities on the small staff and a consistently shrinking budget further supported the 

Region’s philosophical position to unload the recreational facilities and resources. For 1944-45, 

the House appropriations committee reduced the overall budget for the National Park Service 

by almost $100,000, with historical areas suffering the most severe cuts.87 There was “just about a 

sufficiently large appropriation to operate the Village itself, do justice to visitors, barely maintain 

the 19 buildings, but no funds to maintain and operate the inherited 6,000 acres, RDA,” Heinrich 

complained. “The public does not distinguish between the sites and visits the recreational part 

more...We therefore have to slight our primary obligations for the sake of the entire area.” The 

three permanent employees hardly found enough time to complete all the administrative work, 

oversee and promote village visitation, and ensure protection and maintenance of resources and 

equipment. No one, they claimed, had a chance to prepare group camping facilities, work with 

at least five different state agencies, or to work on a 148-job PCP.88 If that was not enough, 

Heinrich also oversaw Hickory Run RDA, duties he largely left to a ranger stationed at the site 

(who sent him informal updates). On top of all of that, “our camp utilities are getting older and 

worn out and if it isn’t one thing breaking one day, there certainly are two things breaking the 

next day.”89 Summarizing morale in his 1946 annual report, he wrote that he and his staff had 

“used ingenuity and baling wire to keep over-aged equipment in running condition and used all 

of our physical energies to maintain and protect this little island of peace during such 

international savagery.”90 As a result, by 1942, Hopewell Village National Historic Site still had 

no approved or revised Master Plan or Priority Construction Plan. The NPS issued a map 

outlining part of the Master Plan in 1943, but after 18 months, no up-to-date land acquisition 

 

86 “Points of Discussion,” April 20-21, 1944, NMP-CCC May 1, 1940-September 30, 1944, Hopewell 

Village, Region 5, General Correspondence 1939-1952, NARA-P. 

87 Taylor, “Staff Meeting Minutes,” May 3, 1944, W File, Central Files, HOFU. 

88 “Points of Discussion,” April 20-21, 1944, NARA-P. 

89 Heinrich to Ranger Brady, August 16, 1944, Gypsey Prince, Historic Central Files, Bally Building, 

HOFU. 90 Heinrich, Annual Report, 1946, Annual Reports 1941-1951, Historic Central Files, Bally Building, 

HOFU. 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

97

data were obtained to establish current ownership of 6,000 plus acres of park lands (see Map 4.1, 

see Map 4.2 for park boundary line from 1942-1946). 

The Hoopla over Hunting 

Nowhere was the conflict between recreational use and historic preservation more 

profound than in the issue of hunting. The rumblings of a powerful local lobbying group 

brought the attention of Congress to Hopewell. During the last years of the war, the issue of 

hunting could have easily become the park’s worst public relations nightmare. Instead, the 

publicly aired schism between the hunters and the NPS settled the conflicting land use issues 

associated with the property since the discovery of historic resources within a site targeted for 

recreational development. The group provided an excuse to correct what many within the 

regional and national offices of the NPS had already come to believe was an unwise decision in 

combining French Creek with Hopewell and force some kind of reconciliation over the 

“Hopewell problem” of dual recreational and historical functions. Soon after the first hunting 

season of the enlarged Hopewell Village National Historic Site, locals joined those NPS officials 

in protesting the hunting restriction that accompanied a national park designation. 

As early as January of 1942, Superintendent Lattimore addressed the hunting issue by 

impounding stray dogs he suspected belonged to illegal deer hunters hoping to frighten game 

animals from protected lands. Soon afterwards, he offered the use of two outlying tracts of then 

French Creek RDA land with no historical association or recreational value, to the Pennsylvania 

Game Commission for the purposes of hunting. Lattimore’s proposal did not prove practical. 

First, the state would likely only accept land ownership rather than administrative control, and 

secondly, Acting Director of Recreation and Planning Herbert Evison claimed that the NPS had 

no authority to lease lands. While the parcels may have seemed useless to the superintendent, 

they were the remnants of a development plan that the NPS hoped to complete once they 

received adequate funding. They constituted part of the watershed that would form a second 

recreational lake located further away from the historic properties at Six Penny.91

 

91 Lisle to Lattimore, January 28, 1942, Lattimore to Allen, February 19, 1942; W. Gard Conklin, 

Pennsylvania Game Commission, to Lattimore, February, 17, 1942, Wirth to Demaray, August 14, 1942, 

Acting Supervisor of Land Planning Evison, to Allen, April 1, 1942, “Hopewell Village,” File 601 Land, 

Central Classified Files 1933-49, National Historic Sites-Hopewell, RG 79, NACP. 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

98

Superintendent Heinrich, who admitted a love for animals, would prove less willing to 

accommodate the hunters. A couple of months into his job, two hunters complained to 

Heinrich’s superiors about his abusive treatment toward them while they were crossing through 

the park on the way home from a hunting trip on adjacent lands. An investigation revealed no 

fault on the superintendent’s part, but the incident set the tone for a tense relationship with the 

local hunting population.92

Other actions showed Heinrich’s willingness to maintain a positive relationship with the 

local community regarding the park’s other recreational opportunities. In April 1943 his 

monthly report cited eleven permits for farmland near the park boundaries, which served to 

extend neighborly good will. He reviewed the park’s cooperation with several other 

government agencies including the Navy (for the Rest Camp), the Pennsylvania Department of 

Forests and Waters, and particularly the Game and Fish Commissions. He had even discussed 

stocking Hopewell Lake to allow fishing with the Fish Warden.93

 

Tensions over how Heinrich and NPS regional staff managed natural resources began to 

heat up just after the start of 1943. Pennsylvania Landscape Architect Harry Hostetter claimed 

that the segregation of game in refuges like the national park separated out predators and caused 

a worrisome decline of grouse, pheasants, quail, and rabbits in lands adjacent to Hopewell, all 

species that ensured insect control. Hostetter further criticized the NPS for allowing too much 

tree growth, which inhibited ground cover. Citing the 1916 legislation that created the National 

Park Service, Hostetter maintained that if the objective of Hopewell was “to foster wildlife for 

the enjoyment and benefit of those who use the park or are adjacent to it,” the park should 

establish a cooperative relationship with the Pennsylvania Game Commission. In response, 

Heinrich denied any predator problem, claiming he had heard similar accusations about all of 

the RDAs during his tenure as field inspector. Besides, the game commission visited the park 

frequently. The state did not open its lands adjacent to Hopewell for hunting either due to so 

many “nooks and goosenecks” in Hopewell’s irregular boundaries. In terms of allowing too 

much tree growth, he noted that, “We are renting to farmers several hundred acres of open land 

for re-cultivating and perpetuating open areas, and clearing the food producing bushes planted 

 

92 Drury to Director of Personnel, February 15, 1943. File 201-06 Hopewell Superintendent, Central 

Classified Files 1933-49, National Historic Sites-Hopewell, RG 79, NACP. 93 Superintendent’s Narrative Report for the Month of April, 1943, File 207-01.4, Annual Reports, 

1941-1951, Historic Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

99

by CCC and WPA.”94 For additional support, NPS Wildlife Director Victor Cahalane further 

criticized the validity of Hostetter’s statements and agreed that birds and small animals were 

plentiful at Hopewell. 

However despite its historic site status, even the NPS considered the Hopewell Village 

National Historic Site to be “one of the outstanding wildlife areas in the National Park 

System.”95 By November 1943, evidence of illegal hunting activity on Hopewell’s 6,000 acre 

reservation prompted Heinrich to request help in patrolling and apprehending “detestable 

hunting law violators.” The park would offer cash prizes of $5, $3, and $2. Heinrich maintained 

that while they had conducted no official census, wildlife at Hopewell Village “seems to be well 

balanced” based upon his own observations and those of other employees and the Allied sailors. 

That October, he reported that the site served as shelter for about fifty deer, gray and red fox, 

raccoon, opossum, four kinds of squirrels, cotton-tailed rabbits, muskrats, migrating fowl, 

pheasant, grouse, and quail. The Philadelphia Ornithological Society estimated that about 78 

species of birds spent time in the park during summer months. The park staff could handle any 

threats to the wildlife. Employees had “disposed of” three non-tagged semi-wild dogs and the 

British sailors had helped catch or shoot about 27 cats (likely offspring of abandoned CCC pets). 

Heinrich promised that the U.S. Marshal from Philadelphia and the Pennsylvania Game 

Commission could patrol the park for additional problems.96

While confident that Hopewell’s wildlife was under control, Heinrich’s disdain for the 

entire matter began to reveal itself in memos to his superiors. He warned that within a few days 

he would issue “our thoughts and unbiased attitude regarding a whispering campaign by a few 

‘sportsmen’ to open up most of Hopewell Village as a paradise for a few aging sportsmen who 

like to ‘hunt’ after supper and before it is time to sit down to a pinochle game and who have not 

the gasoline or vitality to drive 50 miles north to the Blue Mountains where large tracts abound 

 

94 Landscape Architect and Town Planner Harry Hostetter to Coordinating Superintendent 

Francis Ronalds, January 24, 1944, Heinrich to Ronalds, January 28, 1944; Victor H. Cahalane to Ronalds, 

January 29, 1944, NMP-CCC, Hopewell Village, Region 5, General Correspondence 1939-1952, NARA-P; 

Heinrich to Coordinating Superintendent Francis Ronalds, For Service Information Only, February 24, 

1944, “Wildlife,” Historic Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 95 Cahalane to Heinrich, August 19, 1942, W File, Central Files, HOFU. 

96 Allen, Region I Circular, July 26, 1944; Heinrich to Lt. Patterson, HM Navy, November 18, 1942, 

W File, Heinrich, October 7, 1942, Heinrich, February 24, 1944, File 710 Wildlife, Historic Central Files, 

Bally, HOFU; Heinrich to Director, October 6, 1943, File 600 Lands, Hopewell Village, Region 5, General 

Correspondence 1939-1952, NARA-P. 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

100

in all kinds of game.”97 As the previous correspondence might indicate, the superintendent was, 

not surprisingly, hardly “unbiased” in his report to Coordinating Superintendent Francis 

Ronalds. He repeatedly mocked and discredited the hunters by referring to their use of the 

word sportsmen in quotes and recounted the situation in dramatic and sarcastic tones. “For the 

last three months, we heard, off and on, that a major attack by organized forces was in the 

brewing,” he reported. Heinrich emphasized the power and political professionalism of the 

hunting lobby in Pennsylvania who would “move heaven and earth” to reduce the no hunting 

zone. In other parts of the country, he maintained, outdoor enthusiasts organized into 

conservation clubs, but Pennsylvania’s Game Commission, Fish Commission, and Department 

of Forests and Waters each had their own policies and “fight for each other at the drop of a 

handkerchief or wink of an eye when it comes to gaining advantages through state legislation or 

when it comes to defend [sic]or enlarge [sic]their own individual kingdoms.” The game 

commission did little to suppress the agitation, and showed no interest in the national park’s 

recreation and conservationist goals. Heinrich implied that most of the area’s hunters were away 

in armed forces, and those that remained were just a bunch of disgruntled hobbyists. 

It seem to us that these remaining “sportsmen”, or hunters, owning expensive guns, good 

dogs, driving good cars and able to buy good whiskey, but getting on in years...They 

cherish the hopes and ideas to be young again, like until two years ago, to drive, before 

work commencement or in the evening, a few miles towards Hopewell, stop their cars, 

walk 100 yards off the highway, do their slaughtering with their cronnies [sic] there... 

These stubborn Pennsylvania “sportsmen” are plain poor sports; they like to have 

everything their own way and would prefer to do their shooting from the front porch or 

back yard. 98

He feared they next planned to put political pressure on “unsuspecting Congressman Hoch to 

attain their dream.”99 Sure enough, by April 1944, Assistant Director Hillory Tolson had 

received letters from W. F. Goddard of the Federated Sportsmen’s Clubs of Berks County, 

Pennsylvania, and Congressman Daniel K. Hoch.100

Heinrich reacted to the letters by firing off another tirade to the regional director. He 

disputed Goddard’s claim that deer did not belong in an agriculturally cultivated neighborhood. 

 

97 Heinrich to Taylor, February 22, 1944, File 710 Wildlife, Bally Building, HOFU. 

98 Heinrich to Ronalds, For Service Information Only, February 24, 1944, Wildlife, Historic 

Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 99 Heinrich to Ronalds, February 24, 1944, File 720 Wildlife, Historic Central Files, Bally Building, 

HOFU. 100 Taylor to Heinrich, File 720 Wildlife 1940-1945 April 11, 1944, Historic Central Files, Bally 

Building, HOFU. 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

101

Counting sixty deer including three matured bucks, Heinrich insisted, “They do have a place–a 

valuable one both from a recreational and historical standpoint. Deer were once here and are 

now welcomed by those who see them in the park and even by those on whose grounds they 

feed outside the park.” He further argued that unlike Goddard’s claim, recreation seekers did 

use the trails, lands and roads year round, even during hunting season. He cited the 4,300 

visitors in the fall of 1943 who would not have felt safe if hunting was allowed and predicted that 

after the war, the park expected 10,000. These people would be denied recreation because of the 

wishes of a few hunters (whom he estimated would only number about 180). Heinrich even 

claimed he had a confidant with the game commission who agreed that the overpopulation of 

fox and deer were not an issue due to the jagged boundary lines and deer forage outside the 

park. This state employee, insisted the superintendent, characterized the hunters as hardly 

concerned conservationists, but just “a few elderly men who are now running the affairs of the 

sportsmen’s clubs...backed by just a few old foggies [sic].”101

In a letter to Congressman Hoch, Assistant Director Conrad Wirth also denied any 

biological reason for hunting in Hopewell, an activity incompatible with the purpose of area and 

NPS policies. If surplus deer became a problem, NPS employees would exercise shooting 

controls.102 Hillory Tolson and Wirth repeated the message to Seth Gordon of the Pennsylvania 

Game Commission, who, prompted by some of his constituents, also contacted the NPS about 

controlling predators through hunting. While deer contributed to the recreational value of the 

park, Hopewell’s principal purpose was still historic preservation.103

In May 1944 Heinrich rather joyfully reported that state game officials arrested and fined 

the president of the Federated Sportsmen’s Clubs of Berks County for violating several hunting 

laws, an event the superintendent felt might quiet the hunters down.104 Regretfully, the incident 

failed to convince Hoch who decided to settle the matter by requesting a study of Hopewell 

 

101 Heinrich to Regional Director April 14, 1944, File 720-04 Wildlife, General Correspondence 

1939-52, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P 102 Wirth to Daniel K. Hoch, May 4, 1944, File 207-03 Part 1 Hopewell Village NHS Administration 

and Personnel, Superintendents Dec 1939-March 1944, Central Classified Files 1933-49, National Historic 

Sites-Hopewell, RG 79, NACP. 103 Executive Director Seth Gordon, Pennsylvania Game Commission, to Acting Director Wirth, 

Acting Director Tolson to Gordon, June 8, 1944, “Transfer of RDA Portion of NHS,” General 

Correspondence 1939-1952, Region 5, NARA-P. 104 Taylor to Drury, May 16, 1944, File 207-03 Part 1 Hopewell Village NHS Administration and 

Personnel Superintendents Dec 1939-March 1944, Central Classified Files 1933-49, National Historic SitesHopewell, RG 79, NACP. 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

102

which had had not regularly conducted wildlife census since 1935. The NPS recruited Regional 

Biologist Phil Goodrum of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with the cooperation of the 

Pennsylvania Game Commission over Heinrich’s protests that such a study was even 

necessary.105 

Meanwhile, the hunters continued to press their issue. In December, Charles Nehf, 

Chairman of the Southeast Division of Sportsmen’s Clubs, began to take over a letter-writing 

campaign. He wrote directly to Harold Ickes, the Secretary of the Interior, arguing that a federal 

agency should not close off a resource so close to an industrial area. Not only did he utilize this 

conservationist rhetoric, but he also invoked patriotism when he appointed the group advocates 

of returning servicemen. “Your proper attention in this matter will not only be a welcomed 

gesture to our present group of sportsmen, but also to the score of thousands now in the armed 

forces.”106 Goddard (representing the Berks County Sportsmen’s Clubs) echoed the same 

argument claiming that just as after WWI, hunting and fishing would increase 30 percent after 

the war. He assured Hoch that his efforts would not only be for the few hunters that Heinrich 

described, but for the rehabilitation of returning veterans. “We fully realize our responsibilities 

in this matter and are lending our efforts in a program to continually better hunting and fishing 

conditions and increase lands and fishing waters available to the public for this purpose.”107 Such 

claims had some validity. About that time, a returning Navy veteran and his wife were peppering 

senior park officials about gaining access to Hopewell Lake for boat fishing.108 The NPS argued 

that general recreation use would also increase after the war and hunting would risk visitor 

safety. The Service continued to assure Hoch of their plans for the study; they were just waiting 

until the appropriate season.109

 

105 Acting Director Tolson to Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, Tolson to Demaray, July 

31, 1944, Acting Regional Director Evison to Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, Evison to 

Ronalds and Heinrich, August 7, 1944, Ronalds to Allen, August 11, 1944, File 720-04 Wildlife, Central 

Classified Files 1933-49, National Historic Sites-Hopewell, RG 79, NACP. 106 Charles H. Nehf to Ickes, December 4, 1944, File 720-04 Wildlife, Central Classified Files 1933-

49, National Historic Sites-Hopewell, RG 79, NACP. 107 WF Goddard to Hoch, January 12, 1945, Goddard to Chairman Robertson, January 12, 1945, 

Central Classified Files 1933-49, National Historic Sites-Hopewell, RG 79, NACP. 108 Acting Director Tolson to Richard Morton, February 1, 1945, Allen to Robert Matthews, Robert 

Matthews to Harold Ickes, Allen, September 28, 1945, Mrs. Robert Matthews to Allen, November 3, 1945, 

Allen to Mrs. Robert Matthews, November 8, 1945, Heinrich to Allen, November 8, 1945, NMP-CCC 

Hopewell Village, General Correspondence 1954-56, RG 79, NARA-P. 109 Acting Director Tolson to Daniel K. Hoch, January 24, 1945; Philip Freeman, Back to Nature 

Hiking Club of Philadelphia to Ickes, Hoch to Drury, National Park Service, 720-04 Wildlife Society of 

Hopewell, Central Classified Files 1933-49, National Historic Sites-Hopewell, RG 79, NACP. 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

103

When springtime arrived, Nehf and his associates began to really pour on the pressure. 

In the April 1945 bulletin of the Southeastern Division Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s 

Clubs, Nehf wrote an article entitled “Hopewell Area: A Challenge to Post War Hunting.” The 

article included many arguments of the same ilk that had peppered the mailboxes of the 

National Park Service. First, they claimed that opening part of the 6,000-acre park was in line 

with the NPS mission “... to conserve the scenery and the national and historic objects and the 

wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such a manner and by such 

means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” However, at the 

same time Nehf, confusing state parks with state forests, argued that the national park should 

operate as the state parks and open up a portion to hunting.110 He lamented that an area so vast 

and so close to Philadelphia and Reading should be subject to the same regulations as other 

national parks. “It seems such a shame that the federal government which is so accustomed to 

administer large tracts of land out West where the populations are sparse should apply the same 

administrational policies here in Pennsylvania which ranks among the top industrial States in 

the Nation.” He acknowledged that more nature lovers, hikers, vacationers visited the park 

than hunters, but insisted they rarely frequented during hunting season of November and 

December. And, Nehf insisted, studies revealed the many deer, squirrels, grouse, rabbits, 

pheasants, and quail on Hopewell lands without proper wildlife management. Lastly, he took 

the patriotic argument even further. 

Opening up the Hopewell tract would merely be another safe outlet to a sport which has 

supplied many a table with added meat in these days of emergency and at the same time 

has also been a proving ground for millions of valiant men who are now bringing the 

World War II to Allied Victory. 

He called for each reader to write Acting Regional Director Herbert Evison to whom he sent a 

copy of the article and claimed that “as sportsmen we play the game according to the rules. We 

have no aces up our sleeve.” After cordially responding to Nehf about his shared conservation 

concerns, Evison passed letters from several gun and local hunting organizations on to Regional 

Director Thomas Allen.111 Most of the letters echoed the misunderstandings of Nehf and 

Goddard, especially a belief that hunting was permitted in some national parks and state parks, 

and that it was needed to control predators. Evison urged Allen to stand firm. 

 

110Hunting is now allowed in State Parks and State Forests in Pennsylvania. 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

104

On the Hopewell matter, I hope we can stick to our guns here. It is true that in these 

times, the general public use of the area during the hunting season is certain to be pretty 

slight; but I am convinced that in normal times there will still be a considerable visitation, 

when the weather is reasonably good, twelve months of the year, and that the two simply 

won’t mix safely. It is true that on a temporary basis, hunting might be permitted there, 

but once that foot is in the door, it would be darn hard to push it back out again—unless 

somebody hiking a trail there should happen to stop and catch a hunter’s bullet.112

Regional Director Allen informed the letter writers that it would be impossible to open 

the lands for hunting. He penned an editorial for the Little Lehigh where he explained the 

difference between Hopewell and other RDAs in Pennsylvania still run by the National Park 

Service. Since the 1942 legislation to dispose of RDAs, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and 

its agencies had been actively involved in the development of many RDA properties, but French 

Creek was distinguished from other RDAs through its the historical affiliation to the Hopewell 

Furnace. Furthermore, the popularity of the site as a destination for non-hunters and urban 

dwellers only supported the position that it should remain closed to hunting. Allen then wrote 

Congressman Hoch explaining that it would be extremely unwise to exempt Hopewell from the 

rules and regulations that governed the rest of the national parks.113

 

The dispute between the Pennsylvania hunters and the National Park Service caught the 

attention of the local press, who tried to take a fairly balanced view, printing two articles 

reflecting the views of both the hunters and the Park Service (Allen’s editorial). The newspaper 

spotlighted two primary arguments: the Sportsmen’s view that park operation violated basic 

principle of conservation and game management in an area where suburban growth was 

 111 Nehf to Evison, File 201 “Transfer of RDA Portion of National Historic Site,” Hopewell Village, 

Region 5, General Correspondence 1939-1952, RG 79, NARA-P. 112 Evison to Nehf, April 28, 1945, Evison to Allen, April 28, 1945, W. F. Goddard to Evison, April 27, 

1945, Leroy Manning to Evison, April 26, 1945, Goddard to Evison, April 27, 1945, File 201 Transfer of RDA 

Portion of National Historic Site, Hopewell Village, General Correspondence 1939-1952, Region 5, RG 79, 

NARA-P; Goddard, “Hopewell Village National Historic Site,” CIS Unpublished Reports, US House of 

Representatives Committee Hearings, Committee on Public Lands 1945-46 79 (PUI-T.7), HR 3533, 79th

Congress, 1st session; Nehf to Evison, May 3, 1945, Ira R. Dietrich, Lehartsville Fish and Game 

Association, to Evison May 4, 1945; Donald E. Baumer, Unami Fish and Game Protective Association, 

May 4, 1945, Harrison L. S. Deeter, Daniel Boone Rod and Gun Club, to Evison, May 5, 1945, File 201 

Transfer of RDA Portion of National Historic Site, Hopewell Village, General Correspondence 1939-1952, 

Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 113 Allen to Earl L. Brown, North Western Berks Rod and Gun Club, May 12, 1945, File 207-03 

Report History, Chief Clerk William Bahlman to Floyd J. Weitzel, Cushion Peak Rod and Gun Club, May 

16, 1945, File 207-03 Report History, Central Classified Files 1933-49, National Historic Sites-Hopewell, 

RG 79, NACP; Allen to Nehf, May 12, 1945, Allen to Hoch, May 12, 1945, Transfer of RDA Portion of NHS, 

Hopewell Village, General Correspondence 1939-1952, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

105

increasingly extinguishing old hunting lands, and the view of the government which supported a 

policy of the “greatest good for the greatest number.”114

At long last, Biologist Phil Goodrum arrived at Hopewell with a state college professor, 

P. F. English, on April 19 and 20 to conduct the wildlife study. The two spent the days searching 

for animal tracks (a task made more difficult due to lack of snow) and interviewing local 

farmers. Heinrich complained that M. J. Golden, Albert Bachman, and Harry Rickert of the 

Pennsylvania Game Commission biased the two, following them everywhere reminding them of 

the hunters’ arguments for opening up the park to hunters. In between their comments Heinrich 

managed to interject. “This area was not set aside just to please a small group of sportsmen, but 

that NPS policies had to create recreation for the majority of people...”115

Meanwhile, Goodrum and English completed their “Special Report on Foxes and Deer 

on the Hopewell National Historic Site” on May 12, 1945. Because Goodrum could not make it 

to the park before April to track animals in the snow, the report only estimated the population 

based upon field observations like scat. The findings reported anywhere from 5-30 foxes and 

very few deer. Interviews with farmers revealed less than half of them favored fox control or felt 

the deer population was too high. However, in spite of what seemed to be confirmation of the 

park’s position, Goodrum and English’s conclusions disregarded the NPS’s policies with the 

suggestion that hunting could control deer population.116 NPS Biologist Victor H. Cahalane and 

several others disputed the ultimate conclusion, but determined that, “The facts given in the 

report support earlier conclusions of this Service. There is no wildlife problem at Hopewell 

Village. There is an urgent public relations problem.”117

 

 

114 Allen to Drury, May 23, 1945, “Hopewell Hunting,” May 16, 1945, “Opposes Hopewell Hunting,” 

May 18, 1945, The Reading Times, File 207-03 Report History, Central Classified Files 1933-49, National 

Historic Sites-Hopewell, RG 79, NACP. 115 Heinrich to Allen, April 24, 1945, File 204 Inspections and Investigations 1939-50, Historic 

Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 116 Phil Goodrum and Dr. P.F. English, “Special Report: Foxes and Deer on the Hopewell National 

Historic Site, Birdsboro, PA,” May 12, 1945, File 204 Inspections and Investigations, 1939-50, Historic 

Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 117 Cahalane, May 29, 1945, File 297-03 Report History, Central Classified Files, 1933-49, National 

Historic Sites-Hopewell, RG 79, NACP. 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

106

Compromise: Hopewell’s Boundaries Shrink 

Before anyone had viewed the report, Congressman Hoch invited Associate Director 

Arthur E. Demaray to his office to request permission for Regional Director Allen to attend a 

meeting in Reading with the Sportsmen’s Club. Knowing the group had lobbied the 

Congressman relentlessly, Demaray revealed the NPS’s long held trump card regarding its 

solution to the “Hopewell problem.” He informed the Congressman that the NPS had been 

trying to convince the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to assume administration of its own 

RDAs per the 1942 land disposal legislation for months, but the state legislature had never 

responded. Hoping to urge along this process, the NPS would likely be willing to allow part of 

the historic site to revert to an RDA if the State would assume management authority. Such an 

action, Demaray advised, would require an act of Congress since the Secretary of Interior would 

probably not have the authority to eliminate something that had been added. Assistant Director 

Hillory Tolson agreed and even ordered a new boundary study that would ensure all areas 

necessary for interpretation, protection, and water rights reservations. The directors ultimately 

left the decision up to Allen, who reluctantly agreed to attend the Reading meeting, convinced 

he would be significantly outnumbered. He grew especially nervous about negotiating with the 

group when the Department of Fish and Wildlife mistakenly sent Hoch a copy of the Goodrum 

and English report before all Park Service authorities approved it.118 On instructions from 

Director Newton Drury, Demaray pleaded with Hoch not to publicize the Goodrum and 

English report before the meeting in Reading, scheduled for June 3, promising that the Service 

objected to hunting on park lands, but would support a bill transferring a portion of Hopewell 

back into RDA status.119 Still Allen feared the Park Service had lost leverage appeasing the 

hunters while at the same time achieving its objective of applying pressure to the Pennsylvania 

legislature to accept the other RDA lands. 

I expect now that my trip to Pennsylvania will be an anti climax and that the Park Service 

will be in poor favor on the basis that we are willing to cause transfer of part of Hopewell 

Village to a status permitting hunting only because the Fish and Wildlife Service has 

forced us to do so. That is a regrettable situation, which will take quite some time to live 

 

118 Demaray to Allen, May 19, 1945, Allen to Drury, May 23, 1945, Assistant Director Hillory A. 

Tolson to Allen, May 25, 1945, File 207-03 Report History, Central Classified Files 1933-49, National 

Historic Sites-Hopewell, RG 79, NACP. 119 Demaray to Daniel K. Hoch, May 31, 1945, File 208-06 Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Central 

Classified Files 1933-49, National Historic Sites-Hopewell, RG 79, NACP. 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

107

down, if we ever do. The Pennsylvania situation had a chance of turning out happily. 

Now I have my doubts.120

 

To everyone’s surprise, the Sunday meeting in June turned quite amiable. Hoch had 

suppressed the Goodrum and English report as requested, and the Sportsmen’s Club seemed 

quite agreeable to passing legislation that would remove part of the Hopewell lands to the state. 

It would be up to the state to then open the lands for hunting. Hoch offered to sponsor the bill 

after Everett Henderson, chairman of the Sportsmen’s Club, went to Harrisburg to gauge the 

legislators’ position on eventually opening up the lands in question to hunting. Allen reported to 

his superiors that “the meeting was quite satisfactory to the NPS representatives. We believe 

that our public relations, which had the possibility of going awry with this particular part of 

Pennsylvania, are now on a good footing and the people concerned feel that the Park Service 

will deal with them in a businesslike manner without prejudice.”121 Soon after, the 

commonwealth agreed to take ownership of the state’s other four Pennsylvania RDAs (Blue 

Knob, Hickory Run, Laurel Hill, and Raccoon Creek).122

 

Congressman Hoch wasted little time drafting House Bill 3533, which authorized the 

Secretary of the Interior to revise Hopewell’s boundaries and revert 5,350 acres not then 

included to the status of an RDA, and subsequently to the state per the 1942 disposal bill. The 

bill argued that the CCC had developed the land for local use and eventually local control. 

Unfortunately, Hoch also included in his argument the disputed issue that because of the 

hunting ban, fox and deer flourished and had become a nuisance to farmers.123

In addition to settling administrative and public relations problems, the compromise 

offered an opportunity to fix long-time boundary and land tenure issues. Heinrich submitted 

revised boundaries “necessary for historical and interpretive purposes” consistent with the 

plans for a living village, as well as buffer lands to adequately protect those resources. It included 

roughly 800 acres of the village, as well as “the watershed and slopes having furnished water for 

 

120 Allen to Demaray, June 1, 1945, File 207-03 Report History, Central Classified Files 1933-49, 

National Historic Sites-Hopewell, RG 79, NACP. 121 Goddard, “Hopewell Village National Historic Site;” Allen to Drury, June 9, 1945, Drury to 

Allen, June 13, 1945, File 208-06 Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife, Central Classified Files 1933-49, National 

Historic Sites-Hopewell, RG 79, NACP. 122 Ronalds to Allen, August 28, 1945, Allen to Ronalds, Allen to Heinrich, August 30, 1945, File 204, 

Inspections and Investigations, 1939-50, Historic Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 123 Drury to Secretary of the Interior J. A. Krug, September 16, 1946, “Hopewell Village,” Allen to 

Heinrich, June 21, 1945, File 601 Land, Central Classified Files 1933-49, National Historic Sites-Hopewell, 

RG 79, NACP; PL 532, 79th Congress, 2nd Session. 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

108

village operations, open lands, woods and slopes directly contingent to the original Village 

functions as well as containing tracts forming a logical and much condensed boundary line.”124

Through discussions with the Pennsylvania Department of Forests and Waters, both regional 

and national officials ensured that any deed describing a portion of Hopewell to be turned over 

to the state should include a water right to fill any streams, reservoirs, and mill races “existing or 

restored or which hereafter be reconstructed and restored for the purposes of operating a mill 

within the Hopewell Village Historic Site.” In addition, the deed would also stipulate the 

reservation of fissionable materials, a provision of the Atomic Energy Act.125

Following VJ day in August of 1945, Emil Heinrich was supposed to permanently leave 

Hopewell Village in order to allow war veteran Ralston Lattimore to return to his post at 

Hopewell. Fearing an administrative disruption during the time of the land transfer, the NPS 

offered Lattimore another job as information specialist, which he accepted. After a brief leave, 

Heinrich returned to Hopewell by the fall to oversee the separation of the recreational lands 

from the historic village site. His revised job description reflected the change in boundaries.126

Heinrich and his staff struggled with this transition. In December 1945 the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania permitted deer hunting throughout the southeastern part of 

the state for fifteen days. Superintendent Heinrich reported that despite the severe winter 

weather and the park’s warning sign, the event had “surpassed all fears.” All but about a dozen 

deer that spent time inside Hopewell’s boundary had been “slaughtered” by “ten trigger finger 

killers” and the park still lacked the personnel to enforce no hunting measures and keep the 

activity outside park boundaries. The hunters all seemed aware of HR 3533, and the state had not 

bothered dissuading their assumption that the land would eventually open to hunters. In the 

meantime, he complained that disciplining those caught within park boundaries out of their cars 

and in possession of a firearm (in accordance with NPS code) had been too overwhelming and 

offered little deterrence. “If this publicity could be worded favorably, it probably would have 

 

124 Heinrich, August 3, 1945, File 601Lands, Historic Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 125 Ronalds to Allen, July 6, 1945, Allen to Heinrich, July 3, 1945, Allen to Drury, June 12, 1945, File 

601 Land, Bally Building, HOFU; Acting Director Tolson to Allen, October 17, 1946, “Hopewell NHP, 

Correspondence 1943-57,” Historical Files, WASO; Assistant Regional Director Lisle to James A. Kell, 

Department of Forests and Waters, Pennsylvania, October 24, 1946, File 201 Transfer of Area Hopewell, 

Hopewell Village, Region 5, General Correspondence 1939-1952, RG 79, NARA-P. 126 Acting Director Tolson to Allen, August 22, 1945, Tolson to Allen, March 28, 1946, Tolson, May 

16, 1946, Acting Director Hugh Miller to Allen, August 22, 1946, File 201-06 Hopewell Administration, 

Central Classified Files 1933-49, National Historic Sites-Hopewell, RG 79, NACP; Allen to Heinrich, 

December 27, 1945, File 720-04 Wildlife, General Correspondence 1939-1952, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

109

been an asset, but the newspapers themselves and their staffs were so vaccinated with the deer 

killing spirit that nothing much favorable would have come to print.” The staff apprehended 68 

people in 23 cars and issued a “polite but firm warning, refreshed their minds as to the hundreds 

and hundreds of warning signs and told them to get out and stay out as long as they had hunting 

intentions.” Exhausted and frustrated, Heinrich claimed that “these two weeks were the 

toughest, meanest and most unpleasant ones I had spent for this Service during the last 12.5 

years.” However, he reported that all other animals “are holding their own” and that the 

stocking of catfish, large mouth bass, and sunfish in Hopewell Lake as well as trout in French 

Creek and Scotts Run had provided for much better fishing than in previous years.127

A few months later on July 24, 1946, Congress passed legislation authorizing the revision 

of the boundaries for Hopewell National Historic Site and the transfer of certain lands to the 

state per other RDA lands (see Map 4.2). Elwood Chapman of the Pennsylvania Parks 

Association praised the decision in a letter to the Secretary of the Interior, Julius A. Krug, who 

approved the transfer on November 25, 1946. President Truman signed off on it on December 

18. By the new year, the federal government transferred about 5,300 acres of formerly national 

park lands to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through a quit claim deed and a bill of sale for 

“public park, recreation, and conservation purposes” pursuant to the disposal act of June 6, 

1942. On January 1, 1947, the Reading Times blared the news across its New Year’s Day front 

page: “State Regains French Creek.” However, Milo F. Draemel of the Department of Forests 

and Waters and Governor James H. Duff did not approve the transaction until March 31.128 

Hopewell Village NHS was again reduced to a fraction (20 percent) of the original Hopewell 

Furnace property, but at 848.06 acres it was almost four times larger than its original size. The 

congressional committee reports for the boundary change expanded the significance of 

 

127 Heinrich to Acting Director Arno Cammerer, October 8, 1946, File 720-04 Wildlife 1943-1953, 

Historic Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU; Heinrich to Allen, April 26, 1946, November 6, 1945, Central 

Classified Files 1933-49, National Historic Sites-Hopewell, RG 79, NACP; Heinrich to Allen, December 19, 

1945, File 720-04 Wildlife, General Correspondence 1939-1952, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 128 An Act “ To authorize revisions in the boundary of the Hopewell Village National Historic Site, 

Pennsylvania, and for other purposes,” July 24, 1946, 16 U.S.C; “State Regains French Creek,” Philadelphia 

Record (January 1, 1947), “State to Get Hopewell,” Reading Times, Newsclippings, “Hopewell Village,” 

Vertical Files, Reading Public Library; Elwood B. Chapman to J. A. Krug, August 1, 1946, “Hopewell 

Village,” File 601 Land, Central Classified Files 1933-49, National Historic Sites-Hopewell, RG 79, NACP; 

Acting Secretary of the Interior Oscar L. Chapman to President Harry S. Truman, November 25, 1946, 

Truman to Chapman, December 18, 1946, “French Creek Transfer,” Historic Central Files, Bally Building, 

HOFU; Drury to Congressman Frederick A. Muhlenberg, May 2, 1947, File 600-03 Development Outline, 

Hopewell Village, Central Classified Files 1933-49, National Historic Sites-Hopewell, RG 79, NACP. 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

110

Hopewell Village, thereby expanding the possibilities for restoration and interpretation beyond 

the built environment. In addition to colonial significance, the park would reflect the plant in 

full operation and would “be a monument commemorating what many people look back to as 

the Golden Age of America.”129

In the Aftermath: Return to History 

Outside of hunting season, administrators could now focus almost exclusively on issues 

of administration relating to history. In order to establish a working relationship with the 

neighboring state lands, Heinrich requested several provisions. First, he wanted clear 

demarcation of boundaries between state and federal ownership by erecting wire along roads 

and through the forest. Permanent boundary markers would replace the oak ones. The state 

would remove all of its equipment from NPS administrative buildings, maintain a firebreak 

between Hopewell and French Creek, and re-sign a fire-fighting agreement.130

 

In a letter to Director Drury, Heinrich expressed his commitment to the exclusively 

historic site and willingly left the recreational responsibilities to the state. He explained that a 

third of the visitors to Hopewell during the war years expressed interest in the historic area, but 

that lack of time, priority, and adequate workforce led to neglect. 

Our trust is the maintenance and protection of the only one of this kind of National 

Historic Site which contains visible remainders and spiritual atmosphere of a once 

flourishing Village and business enterprise where during the struggling pioneer days of 

this country the now mighty United States steel and iron industry grew roots for its 

creation...While nothing could be or has been done during the last 4 years on research or 

re-creation of this industrial settlement, we endeavored to keep alive the interest of the 

people in this unique jewel, pledging this service’s statements, as contained in available 

pamphlets, that restoration and rehabilitation progressively and cautiously will take 

place.131

Heinrich’s last major project before transferring the French Creek area to the state 

involved the liquidation of the CCC Camp. This action was Hopewell’s part in a nation-wide 

effort following the war to reduce the maintenance burden of buildings no longer in use. 

Disposal of the numerous CCC facilities became an enormous production, and many civilians; 

 

129 Interpretive Prospectus: Hopewell Village National Historic Site, 1973, DSC/TIC. 130 Heinrich to Allen, July 24, 1946, File 201 Transfer of Hopewell Area, General Correspondence 

1939-1952, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 131 Heinrich to Drury, December 21, 1945, Interpretive Program, 1948 (Hopewell and its Meaning), 

Historic Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

111

in particular, those in southeastern Pennsylvania clamored to secure the structures for private 

use after years of war conservation policies had made it difficult for farmers and others to secure 

building materials. Each recipient received a structure free of charge, but assumed the 

responsibility for clearing the abandoned building sites, rather than the federal government. 

Unfortunately, most people were only interested in individual buildings. Fearing that the 

government would be left with the inhabitable structures, Heinrich suggested advertising the 

entire camp for sale.132 By the end of April, Heinrich breathed as sigh of relief when local pastor 

Reverend Levi Zerr, the District Superintendent of Methodist Churches, offered the services of 

the YMCA and the Boy Scouts to clear and allocate the CCC structures to the locals.133 Finally, 

the primary activities of Hopewell could again turn back toward the historic preservation of a 

small ironmaking village. 

In a time when Hopewell served several different audiences, its rural, isolated, and scenic 

setting met the needs of the home front far more directly than its historical significance. A 

strong administrator rather than a historian, Emil Heinrich’s attentions reflected these needs, 

and for those years practically ran Hopewell single-handedly with only the aid of Catherine 

Fritz and maintenance man Frank Lucas. Unlike Garrison and Lattimore, Heinrich had initiated 

very little communication with the coordinating superintendent regarding development and 

preservation issues and paid very little attention to them himself. When Ronalds and Weig 

requested the establishment of a position for an historical aide after the war, Heinrich became 

enraged that he was not informed. Heinrich requested an engineer and architect from the 

Regional Office visit the site to advise him further on restoration issues, not a historian. His 

actions were likely less due to his lack of interest in history, but rather his lack of understanding 

and appreciation for issues involved in the preservation of historic structures.134 It would take 

quite a bit of work to return the historic resources in Hopewell Village back to their pre-war 

status, but Appleman supported Heinrich as caretaker. 

I had the distinct impression that Superintendent Heinrich has done the very best he 

could during the lean war years, and that if the historical part of the park has been 

neglected, it was because immediate pressing needs for the recreational developments in 

 

132 Director of Liquidation, CCC, M. A. Stephens to Heinrich, February 26, 1946, Heinrich to 

Stephens, February 28, 1946, “Liquidation of Penn. NP-4,” Central Files, HOFU. 133 Stephens to Heinrich, April 3, 1946; Heinrich to Edward Rose, April 9, 1946, Rose to Heinrich, 

April l8, 1946, Heinrich to Stephens, April 25, 1946, “Liquidation of Penn. NP-4,” Central Files, HOFU. 134 Ronalds to Associate Regional Director Cox, October 25, 1946, General Correspondence 1939-

1952, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 
WWII Occupation and Administration 

112

the surrounding area consumed all the time of personnel and available funds. There is no 

question that Superintendent Heinrich appreciates the unique values of Hopewell 

Village. He has given particularly good care to the old carriages and harness which are 

displayed in the stone barn.135

After the war, Appleman met with Heinrich to discuss the neglected state of the village 

structures and offer advice for resuming preservation activities. The growth of trees, weeds, 

grass, and brush had spread across restored features like the furnace and the West Headrace, 

and they discussed using a flame-thrower to prevent deterioration. Appleman pointed out 

several other resources in need of immediate attention as well. He also requested that Heinrich 

turn the water back on from the West Headrace that they had shut off three years prior because 

“It constitutes about the only functional restoration feature that has been accomplished at 

Hopewell Village up to the present time.” By November 1946, the Hopewell staff at last 

continued development activities while at the same time accommodating the post-war spike in 

visitation. The NPS no longer had the recreational obligations of the French Creek RDA, but 

unfortunately visitors would hardly distinguish between the two for years to come.136

 

135 Appleman to Allen, November 8, 1946, General Files, NERO-P. 

136 “Old Ironworker’s Village Being Restored by US,” November 4, 1946, Newspaper Clipping, 

Reading Public Library; Appleman to Allen, November 8, 1946, General Files, NERO-P. 
 

113

V. “The Golden Age:” 

The Restoration of Hopewell Village in the Post-war Era, 1947-65 

In the aftermath of the war, Hopewell Superintendent Emil Heinrich observed that the 

park “looked like funeral processions were simultaneously coming from four different 

directions.” About 7,000 visitors arrived on July 1, 1946 alone. Cars and picnickers also 

crowded into the surroundings of the historical village and the lakefront. The Six Penny Picnic 

Site had no running water, but 1,000 people settled down to eat there anyway. With only the 

handyman and himself on site, Heinrich locked the doors of all the structures throughout the 

village in order to maintain control of the rest of the property, called the State Police to handle 

traffic, and turned away forty percent of the picnickers. The superintendent added, “With 

tired bodies and pleading minds we hope that HR-3533 soon enables this service to pass those 

mass neighborhood recreation seekers on to the commonwealth [sic] of Pennsylvania and that 

in the meantime the new budget permits the assignment of additional help so desperately 

needed.”1

 

Hopewell Village NHS was not alone in attracting overwhelming crowds after the war. 

National Park Service Director Newton Drury was certain that the unprecedented amount of 

travelers foreshadowed even higher numbers to the national parks in future years. “We must 

be ready to give them the experiences they seek and better [sic] prepared than ever to impress 

upon them the values of their properties, for which we are the trustee,” he announced, before 

requesting all superintendents to evaluate the national significance of their park and adjust 

their visitor services accordingly.2

The staff at Hopewell Village NHS, however, was less concerned about visitors and 

more concerned with transitioning the park from the CCC’s Recreational Development Area 

to a historical site. As most of the CCC buildings were gradually demolished, new 

administrative facilities and renewed historic structures reclaimed the park.3

 In a farewell to 

the CCC remains, Superintendent Joseph Prentice prophetically remarked in 1960, “I wonder 

how many years will pass before this era in American History will attract the attention of 

 

1

 Heinrich to Regional Director, July 8, 1946, Central Classified Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 2

 Newton Drury to Heinrich, November 21, 1945, “File 101-c Hopewell (Its Meaning),” 

Administrative History Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 3

 “Assessment of Artifact Storage Building Construction and Impact on CCC-Era Features,” 

Section 106 Files, Philadelphia Support Office, NERO-P. 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

114

historians, archeologists, and other researchers.”4

 While the CCC period has indeed attracted 

attention in recent years, questions about the site’s preservation, restoration, and 

interpretation in the years following World War II focused on restoring Hopewell Furnace to 

its “Golden Era.” Consequently, the period became a “golden era” of development activity for 

Hopewell Village NHS. 

Back to Business 

Over the next two decades following World War II, the administrators of Hopewell 

Village National Historic Site largely abandoned their expansionist and large-scale 

construction projects of the Depression era in favor of careful project-by-project planning. 

Monies funded site recovery, development, and preservation rather than addressing recent 

trends in tourism and transportation.5

 For example, Superintendent Emil Heinrich and his 

Regional Director Thomas Allen strongly discouraged the construction of landing fields near 

Hopewell arguing 

[W]e are not particularly seeking to perform new functions or assume new 

responsibilities after the war. We feel that there are great and continuing tasks ahead of 

us in dealing effectively and thoroughly with problems, which have always been with us 

and did not arise from the war. These problems relate to the striking of a delicate 

balance between protection and use of the park areas.6

 

On April 9, 1947, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at last accepted 5,350 acres of 

Hopewell Village NHS as French Creek State Park, leaving 848 acres to the historic site. Newly 

elected Pennsylvania Congressman Frederick A. Muhlenberg asked NPS Director Drury about 

NPS’s plans for Hopewell. Drury optimistically assured him that Hopewell’s plans included 

restoration, interpretative signage, and several new administrative facilities.7

 

However, Drury’s optimism was tempered by the changes in the audience, resources, 

and land base of Hopewell Village National Historic Site since the war. First, Drury and later 

 

4

 Joseph R. Prentice, July 1960, Monthly Reports, August 12, 1960, Hopewell Village NHS 1960-

61, General Correspondence 1953-63, Northeast Regional Office, Records of the National Park Service, 

RG 79, NARA-P. 5

 Thomas Allen, Regional Director, February 7, 1945, “File 611-01 Postwar Repair and 

Rehabilitation,” Central Classified Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 6

 Allen, August 5, 1944, May 21, 1947, Emil Heinrich to Allen, August 12, 1944, W File, Central 

Files, Office of the Cultural Resource Manager, HOFU. 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

115

Conrad Wirth faced a burdened park system severely taxed by the postwar travel boom, fueled 

by increasing personal incomes, leisure time, and automobile ownership. Visits to the national 

parklands mushroomed from six million in 1942, to 33 million in 1950, and to 72 million in 1960. 

The situation overwhelmed shrunken wartime personnel. Second, with few improvements 

since the CCC era, the deteriorating park roads, campgrounds, employee housing, sanitary 

systems, and other facilities were completely inadequate to meet the rising demands on visitor 

services. 

An NPS-wide Rehabilitation Program in 1948-49 aimed to reverse several years of 

wartime neglect, but appropriations remained low throughout the Korean War from 1950-53.8

 

National Park Service funding fell low enough to prompt calls to close the parks rather than 

forcing them to function on such limited budgets.9

 Still, the NPS reorganized its design and 

construction activities in 1954 by funneling all of the regional work into two centralized offices, 

the Eastern Office of Design and Construction (EODC) out of Philadelphia (overseen by 

Edward Zimmer) and its counterpoint in San Francisco.10 Then in 1956, NPS Director Wirth 

secured a decade of funding for a program known as Mission 66 to improve and modernize 

the conditions, facilities, and infrastructure of the National Park Service in time for the 

agency’s fiftieth anniversary (1966). 

All the while, Hopewell’s local and regional staff proceeded slowly but steadily with the 

historic work of the village. Development policy remained vague as the park struggled to 

balance its colonial or golden era “significance” with the conservative preservation policy of 

the NPS, which favored stabilization over restoration. In order to follow such a policy and 

proceed with a responsible restoration, planners would need to know as much information as 

possible, and research required adequate funding. When money did allow for substantive 

research, the results often threatened to undermine both NPS and park preservation policies 

 7

 Newton B. Drury, Director to Frederick A. Muhlenberg, Congressman, May 2, 1947, National 

Historic Sites-Hopewell, File 600-03 Development Outline, Central Classified Files 1933-49, RG 79, 

NACP. 8

 Barry Mackintosh, “Parks and People: Preserving Our Past for the Future,” in William H. 

Sontag, ed. National Park Service: The First 75 Years. (ParkNet: The National Park Service Online Books, 

1991) http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/sontag/index.htm (accessed May 8, 2003). 9

 See Bernard De Voto article, “Let’s Close the National Parks,” Harper’s Magazine, (October 

1953), W File, HOFU. 10 Sara Allaback, “Mission 66 Visitor Centers: The History of a Building Type” (ParkNet: The 

National Park Service Online Books, 2000) http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/

allaback/index.htm (accessed November 21, 2003). 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

116

by providing data that tempted the park’s staff to take resources back to the “golden era” or 

even earlier. 

A Staff All Their Own 

While the staff at Hopewell Village remained insufficient for its development demands, 

it did grow after the war. From 1942 to 1946, the number of permanent employees in charge of 

Hopewell Village NHS (which then included all the French Creek RDA) had dropped from 

five to only three. These three staff members administered 6,000 acres of recreational and 

historical land. By the next year, a larger staff of five or six oversaw only a fraction of that 

acreage. Yet rising visitation consequently increased maintenance problems, but Congress 

steadily reduced appropriations, full-time work hours, and seasonal labor (see appendices ). 

“More help and personnel trained in interpretive work is still the largest cry from here,” ClerkStenographer Catherine Fritz lamented in the 1946 annual report.11 Unfortunately, an unstable 

administration continued to prevent any consistency in planning.12

 

Wartime Superintendent Emil Heinrich planned to accept the position of Region I’s 

Park Planner in Richmond, but he returned as Hopewell’s temporary Custodian on June 11, 

1946,when the Budget Office cut the position. Perhaps dissatisfied by his choices for 

advancement in the National Park Service, Heinrich decided to resign less than a month later 

and left the newly-defined Hopewell Village National Historic Site’s development to four 

different park administrations over the next decade. With Heinrich’s abrupt departure, long 

time Clerk-Stenographer Catherine Fritz, took over as Acting Custodian for the summer. She 

would eventually direct an expanded staff of one full-time historian, one full-time laborer, one 

part-time laborer, and two part-time carpenters, but submitted further requests for an 

archeologist to aid with restoration and a guide to relieve the historian of renewed postwar 

visitor activity.13

Fritz’s pleading paid off. Hopewell Village never got its archeologist, but Dennis C. 

Kurjack, Hopewell’s first and long awaited full-time staff historian, arrived on June 25, 1947. 

Previously, Hopewell’s historians had either only temporary or part-time positions or like Roy 

 

11 Catherine Fritz, Annual Report, 1946, Superintendent’s Reports, Central Classified Files, Bally 

Building, HOFU. 12 Ibid., 1946, 1947. 

13 Ibid. 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

117

Appleman, held regional, not local positions devoted exclusively to Hopewell. Kurjack’s 

demanding job description charged him with the planning and development of the village, 

providing visitor guide and interpretive services, and producing historical reports. Fritz was 

thrilled with the energy that the young Kurjack brought to the park. 

We most thoroughly agree that Historical Aide Kurjack has shown imagination and 

initiative and both are backed by untiring energy. His arrival had filled a great need at 

this site and his enthusiasm and cooperation are making themselves felt. With the 

separation of the recreation acreages from the historical site and with a more complete 

staff who can now concentrate on historical features alone, we hope to make much 

progress during the 1948 fiscal year.14

 

While in the beginning, archeological excavations at the park took precedence over 

historical research, the employment of full-time historians de-emphasized archeology. 

The limited excavations performed throughout the 1950s would rely heavily on 

regional and other park expertise, rather than a regular staff archeologist. 

Completing the first park-sponsored research since 1942, Kurjack set about 

researching the physical history of Hopewell beginning with a study of the Nathan Care 

House and the Ironmaster’s House furnishings in preparation for restoration. The 

historian enthusiastically embraced the place of Hopewell Village NHS in the country’s 

heritage and its relevance to the recent international victory. 

Today as never before, a growing awareness of the place our nation holds in the world 

has stimulated an interest in all things of the past that have contributed to our progress. 

The ironmasters of Hopewell and eighteenth century furnaces and forges were 

industrial pioneers who laid the foundations for our present gigantic iron and steel 

industry. Like the founders of Williamsburg and the shipbuilders of the Old Port of 

Mystic, they believed in free enterprise and staked their energies and fortunes to make 

America a great and productive nation.15

Yet the deteriorated Hopewell Village structures hardly reflected these claims from the 

years of virtual managerial and financial abandonment. The pitiful physical condition of the 

site after the war even prompted an article in the New York Sun to label the park the 

government’s “orphan child.” As an example, the article described the filth of the Ironmaster’s 

House with its 1870-1890 black walnut pieces of furniture as clumsy-looking and out of place, 

“like bumptious upstarts who have usurped the home of a fine and gentle-mannered family.” 

 

14 Fritz to Acting Regional Director Ewell M. Lisle, August 20, 1947, Hopewell Village, General 

Correspondence 1939-1952, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

118

Embarrassed by the remark, Historian Kurjack regretfully agreed with the assessment 

contending that furniture should either reflect the 1860s (late empire) or the colonial period 

(the period of significance). However, he strongly disagreed with the suggestion of several 

NPS administrators to close the resource to visitors. “I am rapidly becoming aware of the fact 

that an historic site is not just the pastime of a few historically minded people,” he argued to 

Coordinating Superintendent Ronalds, “but the possession of all. We have an obligation to the 

public, and if they wish to see the interior of the Big House, we must have a stronger reason for 

keeping them out than the fact that it is not yet ‘presentable.’”16

A serious and ambitious historian fresh out of the University of Pittsburgh’s doctoral 

program, Kurjack blamed the previous superintendent for the sorrowful state of the historical 

resources.17 In contrast, Kurjack strongly approved of Russell A. Gibbs, a trained historian, who 

arrived on August 24, 1947, to relieve Fritz. 

He should have no difficulty in understanding our historical problems and giving us his 

sympathetic cooperation...Hopewell should no longer remain an orphan...Not that I 

have any complaint against the present or former members of the local staff considering 

the tremendous handicaps with which the skeleton staff here had to contend during all 

these years, the work accomplished is remarkable indeed. But perhaps our former 

superintendent, a thoroughly practical man and no doubt an expert on park matters, 

did not approach Hopewell Village with the same interest an historian or historically 

minded person would have...Hopewell presents the sort of challenge I relish.18

Together, Kurjack and Gibbs helped Hopewell Village with its recovery, launching an 

extended period of site development that set the tone for what park visitors see today. 

“I believe Hopewell will, from this point on, make progress in development, 

maintenance, and interpretation...,” predicted Roy Appleman.19

 15 Cass, Annual Report, 1951, Fritz, 1947, Superintendent’s Reports, Central Classified Files, Bally 

Building, HOFU. 16 Historical Aide Dennis C. Kurjack to Coordinating Superintendent Francis Ronalds, July 15, 

1947, Hopewell Village, General Correspondence 1939-1952, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 17 Ibid.; “Appointee Will Gather Data on Background of Berks Park,” Reading Eagle, July 16, 1947, 

Newspaper Clippings, Reading Public Library. 18 Kurjack to Ronalds, July 15, 1947, NARA-P. 

19 Regional Historian Appleman to Allen, October 9, 1947, Appleman, Historical Central Files, 

Bally Building, HOFU. 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

119

Preserving Hopewell Village 

Per Appleman’s hopes, preservation and archeological activities went into high gear 

under Superintendent Russell Gibbs (August 24, 1947-December 10, 1949). They continued 

with his successors, James Cass (December 11, 1949-May 31, 1955), Joseph R. Prentice (July 29, 

1955-December 2, 1961), and Benjamin J. Zerbey (January 21, 1962-March 20, 1965).20 Increased 

publicity would help fund the initial efforts. Archeological and repair work continued on the 

East Headrace and the regional and park staff seemed to make the decision to begin restoring 

structures on a piecemeal basis from 1947 to 1951, but as before the war, without a final 

development policy.21

 

In November 1949 Dennis Kurjack oversaw the archeological excavations of the 

furnace group.22 The discovery of additional furnace walls brought existing findings into 

question and prompted a re-evaluation of the park’s restoration policy. The Regional Office 

ordered work to stop until professionals could study and review the matter at a series of 

conferences, but the conferences failed to conclude the purpose of the walls. 23 Superintendent 

Gibbs transferred to New Orleans soon after. His replacement, James “Jim” Cass arrived to 

oversee a stalled project. 

Regional Archeologist J.C. “Pinky” Harrington disputed the professionalism of 

Historian Kurjack’s archeological investigations, and both obsessed about what they still did 

not know about the furnace’s structural history. Kurjack hoped to bring Archeologist Chris 

Motz back to Hopewell to oversee further excavations, but Motz reluctantly informed him he 

was unavailable. Determined to fully understand the history of its construction, Kurjack 

poured over old furnace records. “The physical history of the furnace group is certainly not 

complete,” he complained to the new superintendent, “and it may never be completed even 

with the combined resources of history and archeology.”24 

 

20 Appleman to Allen, October 9, 1947, Rogers W. Young, Public Use Branch, to Chief Historian, 

July 28, 1953, Hopewell NHP, Historical Files, Correspondence 1943-1957, Washington Area Support 

Office (WASO). 21 John Milner Associates, “Overview and Assessment,” 29-36. 22 James Kurtz, “History of Archeology,” 36. 

23 Dennis Kurjack, “Preliminary Report on Walls Adjoining Furnace Bank, Hopewell Village,” 

(February 25, 1950), Hopewell Village, 101 Restoration Hopewell beginning April 1950, General 

Correspondence, 1939-52, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 24 John Miner Associates, “Overview and Assessment,” 36; Kurjack to Cass, November 16, 1950, 

Hopewell Village, 101 Restoration Hopewell beginning April 1950, General Correspondence, 1939-52, 

Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

120

A frustrated Kurjack blamed the CCC and their NPS supervisors for wasting time and 

resources on the Bake Ovens and the East Headrace rather than the furnace group during their 

tenure. Now, chances for the park receiving a lump sum to restore the entire furnace group 

were slim. To make matters worse, more visitors arrived at the park every day to bare witness 

to the stagnant project that Hopewell Village NHS had become. “Besides, and here again I 

must agree with you, we have been marking time so long that a certain portion of the public is 

becoming skeptical as to our capacity or seriousness of purpose. We cannot ignore entirely the 

price angle, nor indefinitely the interpretive problem of trying to tell the unfamiliar story of 

early ironmaking with some of the most vital features missing,” he lamented.25 Upon the urging 

of Professor Arthur C. Bining at the University of Pennsylvania, Kurjack finally decided to 

continue to excavate and to plan the furnace’s restoration without reconciling the structure’s 

issues through further research. He wrote in his monthly report, “Accuracy and authenticity 

should remain our goals. But sometimes we tend to bog down in details which would not 

affect the accuracy of the interpretation or the authenticity of the exhibit.”26

Before Kurjack could test this statement, the NPS transferred him to Independence 

National Historical Park (INDE) in early 1951.27 NPS Director Drury so prioritized the progress 

of the work at Hopewell that he released Archeologist John Cotter from his assignment at the 

Natchez Trace Parkway to take on the furnace investigations. Using the money slotted for 

other projects, specifically the Bridge and Charcoal House, Cotter assumed oversight and 

pulled over 250 more artifacts from the site.28 In May 1951 Archeologist and University of 

Pennsylvania student Paul Schumacher, from Holland, came to Hopewell Village with a tenman crew to take over for Cotter. 

In spite of this commitment to the archeological program, restoration projects during 

this period continued to stall due to lack of funding and planning. An article in the local 

Saturday evening newspaper offered some positive publicity and the opportunity to solicit 

funds from private sources for restoration activity, an option permitted by the Historic Site 

 

25 Kurjack to Cass, November 16, 1950, Hopewell Village, 101 Restoration Hopewell beginning 

April 1950, General Correspondence, 1939-52, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 26 Prentice, March 1959 Monthly Report, April 9, 1959, “Hopewell Village NHS, 1959,” General 

Correspondence 1953-63, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 27 Kurtz, “History of Archeology,” 43-44. 28 Kurtz, “History of Archeology,” 40, 46; Kurjack, April 1950, Hopewell Village, General 

Correspondence 1939-1952, Region 5, NARA-P. 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

121

Act.29 The article’s author, Hamilton Cochran, was so interested in his subject that he began to 

pursue the American Iron and Steel Institute as a possible donor much to delight of 

Superintendent Gibbs and Regional Director Thomas Allen. Unfortunately, the organization 

decided to help fund the reconstruction of the first integrated iron works in Saugus, 

Massachusetts, instead. Disappointed, Gibbs still actively cultivated a positive relationship 

with the group’s President, Quincy Bent of the Bethlehem Steel Company, who saw the 

reconstruction of the Saugus site as a long cherished hobby.30

 

Historian Kurjack did manage to use local public funding to the advantage of the park. 

Having completed a road marker survey in 1948, he worked with state and county officials to 

erect directional signs. Two years later, the State Highway Department and the Pennsylvania 

Historical and Museum Commission furnished several directional and narrative markers at 

principal approaches.31 The new highway markers brought more positive publicity in 

prominent publications like Christian Science Monitor and Philadelphia Magazine in 1950. To 

encourage contributions, the latter featured a model of how the staff envisioned the completed 

Hopewell Village.32 However, Hopewell’s administrators continued to work on the 

development plan and restoration policy they had begun soon after the war. 

 

29 Acting Regional Director William Bahlman to Gibbs, Hopewell, October 6, 1948, W File, 

Central Files, HOFU. 30 Allen to Gibbs, December 14, 1948, Cochran to John W. Hill, December 30, 1948, Acting 

Regional Director Elbert Cox to Drury, Director, January 26, 1949, W File, Central Files, HOFU; Kurjack 

to Gibbs, February 1, 1949, Allen to Bent, February 1, 1949, Gibbs to Allen, February 14, 1949, Hopewell 

Village, General Files, NERO-P. 31 Kurjack, “A Report on the Road Marker Survey of the Hopewell Village Area, Birdsboro, PA,” 

(February 27, 1948), Allen to Custodian, April 6, 1948, Gibbs to H. J. Wolford, State Highways in Berks 

County, April 13, 1948, W File, Central Files, HOFU; Cass to Regional Director, January 24, 1950, W File, 

Central Files, HOFU. 32 Cass to Allen re Christian Science Monitor and Philadelphia Magazine, July 18, 1950, W File, 

Central Files, HOFU. 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

122

5.1 Ranger in Interior of Barn Displaying Model of Furnace and Waterwheel, 1951. 

Restoration Policy Revisited 

Anxious to take advantage of new monies, Melvin Weig had proposed a rather 

uninspired interpretive statement soon after the separation of French Creek State Park in 1947. 

In order to provide some direction and context, he pulled a passage from a book about 

Pennsylvania Iron Manufacture in the eighteenth century: 

In the Schuylkill Valley of Pennsylvania, down the wide Susquehanna Valley, along the 

beautiful blue Juniata, and on across the wooded Alleghenies may still be seen the ruins 

of many old iron forges and furnaces which in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries 

were bustling centers of American industrial life. Hopewell Village, tucked away in the 

rolling hills of Berks County, not far from Reading, contains an unusually complete and 

well-preserved group of houses, workshops, technical structures, and other physical 

features connected with a typical enterprise of this kind. As such it is an eloquent 

reminder of those once numerous iron ‘plantations’ which, with their large tracts of 

woodland and almost feudal economic organization, first exploited the readily available 

iron ore deposits along the eastern seaboard of the United States, converted them to the 

nation’s use in peace and in war, and otherwise served as a highly significant 

development in the growth of what has since become the gigantic iron and steel 

business of modern America.33

In September 1947 Regional Historian Roy Appleman, Regional Archeologist J.C. 

Harrington, Coordinating Superintendent Francis Ronalds, and Historian Melvin Weig met 

with Superintendent Gibbs and Historian Kurjack at Hopewell in the first of many 

conferences held every few months to plan and discuss Hopewell’s development. Their 

challenge was to balance existing NPS policy and philosophy with the specific needs and 

 

33 Acting Superintendent (Morristown) Paul Heaton to Allen, June 13, 1947, File 101-C Hopewell 

(Its Meaning), Central Classified Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

123

circumstances at Hopewell. As all of these projects proceeded, their plans technically followed 

an outdated interpretive and development policy, conceived under the first administration, 

that targeted restoration around 1870. At the same time, Hopewell staff remained cognizant of 

the broader NPS Advisory Board’s conservative preservation policy to stabilize historic 

structures located within its parks rather than restore them to any specific date. However, 

although the Board’s policy was conservative, it also ultimately left the decision up to “the men 

in charge,” and those men continued to contemplate returning Hopewell to a “living” state.34

 

All present at the meeting reaffirmed preservation as the most fundamental activity of the park. 

They praised the work already completed, including the stabilization of one of the Tenant 

Houses (No. 3), the repair of the Charcoal House, and the restoration of the steps outside the 

Ironmaster’s House. The Ironmaster’s House, all agreed, should close to the public until the 

interior was completely restored under a comprehensive, yet still unformed policy for 

Hopewell Village NHS.35

 

While no evidence indicates that Lemuel Garrison’s policy to restore the village and 

furnace group to 1870 was ever approved, this policy reflected the belief of Roy Appleman and 

others that Hopewell Furnace had changed little in appearance since its eighteenth-century 

colonial origins. However, CCC-era research activity, “although hurried and spotted,” had 

revealed that a number of repairs, additions, and reconstruction had been implemented in the 

nineteenth century. The number of changes and the amount of research required to track and 

assess those changes seemed too ambitious and overwhelming, especially with the disbanding 

of the CCC and the re-appropriation of construction funds toward the war effort.36 Kurjack’s 

subsequent research on the furnace group further challenged the specificity of the 1870 date. At 

the same time, this policy fell under the purview of the more conservative Service-wide policy 

that favored stabilization. Those making decisions at Hopewell interpreted “stabilization” 

loosely and often proposed ways to restore resources to whatever year archeological 

excavation and historical research could support. 

Once research revealed that the physical appearance of the furnace group changed 

materially since the colonial beginnings to which its historical significance had been formally 

connected, Historian Weig insisted on a firm restoration policy. A series of additional 

 

34 Mackintosh, “To Reconstruct or Not to Reconstruct,” CRM Bulletin 13, no.1 (1990). 35 Roger Pearson,,“Part I-East Headrace,”, 5, NERO-P. 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

124

conferences during the 1949-1950 NPS-wide Rehabilitation Program brought a variety of Park 

Service professionals, including engineers, architects, and historians to Hopewell Village to 

plan for an active decade to come. Unfortunately, the post-war rehabilitation monies, which 

included repairs to the waterwheel and the Blacksmith Shop roof merely helped bring the 

severely deteriorated structures back to their pre-war condition.37 Busy park and regional staff 

once again tackled the task of determining a specific restoration policy for Hopewell. A 

conference on June 6-7, 1950, determined that excavations suggested enough information to 

restore the village to the period of 1810 to 1845. Should the furnace try to reflect the colonial 

era, its “golden era” of 1840, Garrison’s “freeze date” of 1870, or 1883, the date of the last blast?38

(See Map 5.1) 

Harrington, Weig, Cass, and Historian Walter E. “Walt” Hugins (Kurjack’s 

replacement) again revisited the issue of a restoration date more intently at a conference on 

June 1-2, 1951. This group concluded that archeological and historical research had still not 

uncovered comparable details for an authentic restoration of the colonial period, nor the 

period of greatest prosperity. They examined the data in 1896 photographic records, which 

Historian Kurjack had found in the Bull Collection of Old Hopewell at Chester County 

Historical Society, as well as pictures Appleman shot of the site in the 1930s.39 Without any 

assurances that further research could uncover any useful information in the near future, more 

and more money would go to waste. Furthermore, most of the structures’ existing features 

only dated to the 1800s. All present agreed, “That of a detailed restoration of the Village in 

general, and for the furnace group in particular, the only period to which we can restore or 

reconstruct with reasonably certain authenticity on a maximum of details is that of 1883.”40 By 

restoring to 1883 (the year of the last blast), the Park Service could ensure accuracy as well as 

incorporate documented details of earlier dates that would continue to identify Hopewell as a 

colonial ironworks. At the same time, interpreters could include later technologies that did 

 36 Superintendent Joseph R. Prentice to Tobin, October 13, 1958, H30 Restoration Date, Central 

Files, HOFU. 37 Superintendent Russell Gibbs, Annual Report, 1948, Dennis Kurjack, Monthly Narrative 

Report, October 1, 1947, Hopewell National Historic Site, Box 7, Series 5, Papers of Charles Hosmer, 

NTL. 

38 Kurtz, “History of Archeology,” 46. 

39 Kurjack to Appleman, March 26, 1949, Appleman to Allen, April 4, 1949, Hopewell Village, 

General Files, NERO-P. 40 Ibid. 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

125

not fit in to the colonial period but exhibited technical progress, such as a steam boiler and the 

power gears that replaced the waterwheel. “Nothing nearly so satisfactory can be 

accomplished for an earlier period,” Weig continued, “—the applicable evidence is 

fragmentary...We ought to keep our feet on the ground, our eyes on the known evidence, 

remembering the phrase so often quoted in connection with basic Service restoration policy: 

Better to preserve than repair, better repair than restore, better restore than reconstruct.”41

Regional Director Thomas Allen quickly approved the conservative policy decision with the 

rationale that it would save the park a lot of time, money, and labor.42

 

No sooner had Allen approved the new policy statement than Historian Hugins had a 

change of heart and questioned its flexibility. The furnace was only producing pig iron near 

the end of its operations, he pointed out, rather than the intricate castings for which Hopewell 

Furnace was known in “the golden era.”43 Regional Archeologist Harrington also rejected the 

idea of restoring Hopewell to any specific era. “To all intents and purposes, the restoration will 

portray an iron furnace very much as it might have looked in 1840, but with more accumulation 

of operation refuse...I see no reason why there should not be reasonable mixture of periods 

provided the picture is not distorted.” Melvin Weig had little objection to this statement, 

believing his 1883 plan had already accommodated the inclusion of earlier details.44 Finally, all 

principals agreed that Hopewell’s restoration policy should not include a “freeze” date, but aim 

for a reasonably authentic version of the furnace at the height of operations and its subsequent 

evolution over several years. While the park’s rangers could indicate Hopewell Village was a 

colonial-style furnace, the new policy clearly emphasized a nineteenth-century iron village. 

However, as the following examples illustrate, restoration decisions at Hopewell ultimately 

only nodded at the “better to preserve, than repair...” policy of the Advisory Board. 

Documents of the time indicate that “the men in charge” often allowed funding and research 

 

41 Weig to Allen, June 12, 1951, File 101 Restoration 1951, Hopewell Village, General 

Correspondence 1939-1952, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P; Walter E. Hugins, Monthly Narrative Report, 

July 5, 1951, W File, Central Files, HOFU. 42 Allen to Cass, June 18, 1951, File 101 Restoration 1951, Hopewell Village, General 

Correspondence 1939-1952, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 43 Hugins, June 20, 1951, File 101 Restoration 1951, Hopewell Village, General Correspondence 

1939-1952, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 44 Regional Archeologist to Cass, June 22, 1951, Weig to Allen, June 27, 1951, File 101 Restoration 

1951, Hopewell Village, General Correspondence 1939-1952, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

126

discoveries to undermine this policy and restore structures to the late eighteenth century or 

earlier.45

 

Blacksmith Shop 

The Blacksmith Shop became the first major restoration of the post-war era. Back in 

1935, the decent structural condition of the Blacksmith Shop had contributed to Appleman’s 

assumption that it would be one of the most important features in the village. The CCC had 

occupied it for a year after replacing the dilapidated, but original shingle roofing with sheeting 

and tar paper and replacing the ridge ventilator with a shorter and lower one. After Chris 

Motz’s investigations in the summer of 1940, a modern blacksmith moved into the building to 

recreate hardware for furnishings in other village structures. Funding came through in 

October 1949 to repair the rafters and bring its original Old Pennsylvania German handmade 

tile back to the roof of the Blacksmith Shop (in accordance with research by Motz and Dennis 

Kurjack). Carpenter Harold (a.k.a. Alvin) Hoffman and Laborer-Assistant Charles Painter 

began removing a portion of the old roofing to replace it with hand-made roofing tiles.46

At two conferences in November 1954, regional and park staff determined that they 

should take the restoration even further and attempt to restore the entire Blacksmith Shop, 

even though research over the years had failed to provide all the details necessary for a truly 

authentic product. They could at least replicate a typical Blacksmith Shop of early American 

industrial life, essentially what existed at Hopewell prior to 1849. Already, it appeared, 

additional research proved too tempting and directed restoration of individual resources over 

the conservative restoration polices of both the park and the Service. Due to weather and 

funding, the workers finally completed the task in August 1955.47

The Waterwheel and Blast Machinery 

Conferences in the late 1940s continued discussions about how to bring “life” back to 

the furnace and village and encouraged the reconstruction of the waterwheel, Hopewell’s long 

 

45 Cass, Annual Report, 1951, Central Classified Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 

46 Cass to Allen, April 13, 1953, Cass to Allen, January 4, 1950, Acting Regional Director E. M. Lisle 

to Director, January 20, 1950, “Hopewell Furnace NHS, 1952-54,” General Correspondence 1952-60, 

Northeast Regional Office, James Cass, “Completion Report on the Restoration of the Blacksmith Shop, 

Hopewell Village National Historic Site,” December 28, 1950, Hopewell Village, General 

Correspondence 1939-1952, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 47 Cass, “Completion Report on the Restoration of the Blacksmith Shop,” December 28, 1950. 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

127

talked about centerpiece.48 The failure to store it in a place with enough moisture during the 

war caused extreme damage and rendered the CCC’s reconstructed shaft useless. The 

negligence meant the restoration would far exceed the original 1935 cost estimate. Fear of 

further deterioration ensured a job of at least $2300 in restoration and lumber treatment that 

needed to be completed quickly. “Delay will be fatal,” Roy Appleman warned engineers. 

Regional Director Elbert Cox authorized workers to erect the waterwheel without additional 

archeological or historical research. Around 1950 workers reportedly submerged the wheel 

hub in Hopewell Lake for three years to strengthen and season the timber. By October of 1950, 

the reconstruction of the waterwheel and blast machinery was 28 percent complete. Repair 

work to the waterwheel and blast machinery moved so swiftly that construction temporarily 

stopped again in June to await an advancement of 1951 funds.49

Funding and progress on the reconstruction then crept along as unanticipated 

questions and costs continued to arise. In accordance with the recently approved policy, the 

planners had the evidence to restore the equipment to its last working status. The drawings 

made by Draftsman Jay LeVan and those from the Franklin Institute in the 1930s offered 

additional important details and a guarantee of authenticity (CCC and RDA architects and 

engineers had double checked their accuracy).50 With his father Frank, pattern maker Harold 

Hoffman performed the additional woodwork, used the older scratched parts the WPA had 

left in the barn to cut out different sections of the wheel, and completed the waterwheel and 

Blast Machinery in 1952.51

 

48 Gibbs to Director, September 2, 1949, Appleman to Regional Director, File 204 Inspections 

and Investigations 1939-50, Hopewell Village, HOFU; Fritz to Allen, August 1947, Fritz to Ronalds, July 

16, 1947, Gibbs to Regional Director, November 29, 1949, W File, Central Files, HOFU. 49 J. H. Denniston to Regional Engineer, November 10, 1949; Zimmer to Allen, April 13, 1951, File 

101 Restoration 1951, Hopewell Village, General Correspondence 1939-1952, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P; 

Kurtz, “History of Archeology,” 42; Bill Bitler. Taped interview by Leah S. Glaser, July 25, 2003. 50 Acting Regional Director E. M. Lisle to Drury, January 20, 1950, 101 Restoration Hopewell 

beginning April 1950, General Correspondence, 1939-52, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 51 Prentice, October 13, 1959, Hopewell Village NHS-Monthly Progress Report, 1955-59, General 

Correspondence, 1954-60, Eastern Office of Design and Construction, RG 79, NARA-P; Bitler, 

Interview, July 25, 2003. 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

128

The West Headrace 

When the work crews had almost completed the waterwheel and Blast Machinery 

restoration, Superintendent Cass requested a transfer from the regional stabilization funds to 

Hopewell in order to finish the West Headrace, wood flume, and piers in the Wheel Pit: $600 

more for the waterwheel, and $500-600 for the West Headrace. “We believe the West Head 

Race [sic] should be restored in order that a true picture may be had of the furnace,” he 

maintained. Some staff had hoped to develop a back-up water supply from Baptism Creek, but 

like Hopewell Furnace’s original owners, Engineer Tyler B. Kiener determined that the cost of 

delivering water for the waterwheel through the East Headrace was too expensive.52

 

Work on the West Headrace had begun in February of 1950 when Superintendent Cass 

submitted an application to simultaneously restore both of the headraces. The project 

continued the work of Archeologist Thor Borresen from 1940 when weather conditions and 

standing water permanently suspended completion.53 This time, the issue of water rights 

caused more delays. In order to commence work on the West Headrace, the park needed to 

devise the best method of appropriating the NPS’ water right to draw and carry water from 

Hopewell Lake, now part of French Creek State Park. This would require extensive two-year 

long negotiations with the state of Pennsylvania.54 Once the West Headrace was restored in 

May of 1952, work crews could finally operate the waterwheel and blast machinery. That 

summer, visitors would enjoy the treat Hopewell’s planners had promised since the park’s 

genesis: the restoration and operation of the waterwheel, Blast Machinery and the West 

Headrace.55

 

By the end of the month, Superintendent Cass conducted a demonstration of the 

waterwheel that impressed even the engineers. “The earth canal, disappearing around a bend 

into the woods, the flume, and the turning wheel, viewed from the high ground near the 

charcoal house make a spectacular picture,” admired Engineer J. H. Denniston. “I think this 

 

52 Cass to Allen, April 12, 1951, Assistant Regional Director Edward S. Zimmer to Regional 

Director, April 13, 1951, Cass to Allen, April 19, 1951, Allen to Draemel, April 26, 1951, Tyler Kiener to 

Regional Engineer, April 25, 1951, File 101 Restoration 1951, Hopewell Village, General Correspondence 

1939-52, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 53 Allen to Drury, February 27, 1950, Cass to Allen, February 24, 1950, Cass to Drury, February 24, 

1950, Allen to Superintendent, February 27, 1950, 101Restoration Hopewell beginning April 1950, General 

Correspondence, 1939-52, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 54 See Chapter 8 for a thorough discussion on this issue. 

55 Gibbs, Annual Report (1951), HOFU. 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

129

completed unit of the furnace restoration is a credit to the Park Service, and that Mr. Cass 

should be complimented on its successful completion.”56 On June 6, 1952, Philadelphia 

regional and Washington, DC representatives of the NPS as well as local politicians and 

scholars, attended the formal dedication of the waterwheel and blast machinery.57

5.2 Cars and People in Village for Dedication of Waterwheel Ceremony, 1952, 

HOFU Photographic Archives. 

5.3 Visitors Viewing Waterwheel Operation, 1953, HOFU Photographic Archives. 

 

56 Engineer J. H. Denniston to Regional Engineer, Reports on Visit to Hopewell (May 27, 1952), 

Cass to Allen, June 23, 1952, File 101 Restoration 1951, Hopewell Village, General Correspondence 1939-

52, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 57 Allen to Drury, June 30, 1952, File 101 Restoration 1951, Hopewell Village, General 

Correspondence 1939-1952, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

130

1952 Master Plan 

The same year that saw the restoration of the waterwheel, one long-awaited planning 

document, the Master Plan Development Outline, compiled ideas from the numerous

conferences, reports and memos on the topic since the end of the war. (Recall that the park’s 

existing Master Plan from 1941 did not address its post-1946 acreage of 848.06 acres.)58 The 

plan’s statement of significance emphasized Hopewell representative qualities and reflected 

the successful restoration of, and enthusiasm for, the site’s newest attraction: the waterwheel 

and Blast Machinery. The report stressed Hopewell’s uniqueness among the other historic 

sites in the National Park System. “Not only does this self-sustaining rural community have 

the quaint atmosphere of a bygone age, but it is an atmosphere largely unfamiliar to most 

Americans, who have become accustomed to view the past primarily in terms of political and 

military developments to the detriment of the important social and economic elements in our 

American heritage.” 59

In order to convey the issue of progress and change, the report reaffirmed the 

restoration target date as the last period of operation (1883). This plan could not only assure 

accuracy, but portray a pattern of growth “of a dynamic industrial organism,” instead of just a 

single historical moment.60 For example, the Ironmaster’s House would retain any of the 

features, such as the front porch, added during the furnace’s last years of operation. 

Superintendent Cass requested a physical history of the furnace group within the year. Walter 

Hugins’s resulting research reports, “The Physical History of the Hopewell Furnace Group 

1770-1883” and “Early Nineteenth Century Iron Furnaces: A Comparative Study,” pushed the 

development program forward significantly. Each report summarized and synthesized years’ 

worth of data helpful to the furnace’s restoration. 61

 

Other resources also received attention. In 1953 work began on the reconstruction of 

the Wheel Pit walls of the Wheelwright shop and the following year saw the restoration of the 

Blacksmith Shop interior. The Eastern National Park and Monument Association (ENPMA), a 

nonprofit cooperating association chartered by Congress in 1948 to promote the NPS’s 

 

58 “Master Plan Development Outline: Hopewell Village Historic Site, 1952,” Elverson, PA: 

Hopewell Village National Historic Site, National Park Service, HOFU. 59 Ibid. 

60 Ibid. 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

131

interpretive and research activities, funded the restoration of the first floor of the Ironmaster’s 

House. Hugins’s “Preliminary Report of the Interior Furnishings and Arrangement of the 

Ironmaster’s Mansion” suggested furnishing the structure with the intent to contrast its wealth 

with the Tenant Houses.62 Region I’s Museum Specialist Paul Hudson was shocked to see 

visitors freely wandering about and sitting in the furniture. Visitor complaints had prompted 

Ranger Bill Rowland and Historian Hugins to reopen the popular Ironmaster’s House one July 

day in 1952 in spite of its “unfit” and deteriorated state. Hudson strongly advised a new paint 

job and refurbishing of the furniture in what he characterized as a “musty and unkempt” 

environment. 63 In rebuttal, Superintendent Cass argued that people “do not expect to see a 

Vanderbilt Mansion or a Mount Vernon,” and its closing was not worth the public outcry.64

Hudson and the park evidently reached a compromise. Maintenance erected doorway 

barriers and the Ironmaster’s House hosted visitors the following year. 

At the same time, Hudson did encourage the restoration of the Bake Ovens, possibly 

through ENPMA funding as well. After years of waiting for funding, Cass and Hugins 

reviewed the old Bake Ovens reports of Borresen and Motz. Contractor C. Sheridan “Sherd” 

Painter, who was born at Hopewell, and his partner Ralph Bitler gave the Bake Ovens a facelift 

in 1955 in accordance with Motz’s assessment (restoration date in the 1840s).65 The number of 

construction projects during the Mission 66 era took park development further than ever 

before, but removing the road through the village was indisputably the most significant step 

forward. Most National Park Service officials agreed that any aggressive treatment of historic 

resources could not begin before the county agreed to remove the old road bisecting the 

village.66 On July 15, 1955, additional funds allowed the park to obliterate the Birdsboro-

 61 Walter Hugins, “The Physical History of the Hopewell Furnace Group 1770-1883,” (February 7, 

1954), Walter Hugins, “Early Nineteenth Century Iron Furnaces: A Comparative Study,” (January 7, 

1954), HOFU; Cass to Cox, September 24, 1954, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 62 Walter Hugins, “Preliminary Report of the Interior Furnishings and Arrangement of the 

Ironmaster’s Mansion,” (February 13, 1954), HOFU. 

63 Ibid. 

64 Cass to Cox, September 24, 1954, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 

65 Chief Historian Herbert Kahler to Director, July 1955, Hopewell NHP, Historical Files, 

Correspondence 1943-1957, WASO; Cass to Regional Director Elbert Cox, Region One, August 31, 1954, 

September 24, 1954, Harrington to Assistant Regional Director Daniel J. Tobin, Region One, October 13, 

1954, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 66 Bitler, Interview,, July 25, 2003. 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

132

Warwick Road that ran through the village.67 Superintendent Joseph Prentice recruited ablebodied laborers like Lloyd Huyett and then local college student Bill Bitler, to assist in the 

removal. Aside from returning the village’s former landscape, the removal of the road 

uncovered the foundations of six more structures and a wall that separated the community 

into two levels. The dramatic discoveries prompted then new Hopewell Historian Russell 

Apple, to complete a study of winding historic wagon road patterns that could guide the 

excavation and reconstruction of the road system over the next couple of years. The 1809 Road 

became French Creek’s six-mile Boone (Blue) Trail in 1956. Paul Schumacher of Independence 

National Historical Park returned to Hopewell to lead the archeological investigations and 

when completed, the EODC graded and restored the pre-1930s transportation network under 

Prentice’s direction.68

By August of 1956, the road system’s reconstruction was still only 73 percent complete. 

Designing a walking pattern atop of it would take almost five more years. Superintendent 

Prentice responded defensively to criticism of the slow progress of the road project.69

Perhaps in jest, someone noted in the registration book that Mssrs. Moron and Desolate 

of EODC visited Hopeless Village on July 12. The triple inference is entirely unjustified. 

The nearly completed road restoration project has given Hopewell Village a complete 

face-lifting so that for the first time it begins to look like an early American industrial 

village. EODC can be justly proud of the good work they did here. We appreciate the 

effort and interest shown us by their office. Many problems are encountered in a 

historic road reconstruction that are not met in normal construction. However, we 

believe that this project was accomplished to the complete satisfaction of all 

concerned.70

 

67 Acting Regional Director George Palmer, Region 5 to Superintendent, August 5, 1955, Ed 

Zimmer, EODC, Philadelphia Planning and Service Center to Tobin, August 15, 1955, Acting 

Superintendent Apple to Cox, June 25, 1955, Zimmer to Superintendent of Highways, Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania R. W. Kemmerer, July 18, 1955, Hopewell Village, General Correspondence 1954-66, 

Eastern Office of Design and Construction, RG 79, NARA-P. 68 Master Plan Development Outline, General Info, 2, “Hopewell Revives Old Look: Ancient 

Wall Uncovered,” Reading Eagle, ca. 1956, Hopewell Village Newspaper Clippings, Reading Public 

Library; Paul J. F. Schumacher, “Archeological Field Notes Historic Road Project Archeology,” October 

19, 1956, HOFU. 

69 Earl Heydinger, “Revision of Documentation for the Historical Base Maps 1830-1840, 

December 1965, Hopewell Village NHS 1961-66, General Correspondence 1966-68, Northeast Regional 

Office, NARA-P; Prentice, Hopewell Village NHS-Monthly Progress Report 1955-59, General 

Correspondence, 1954-60, Eastern Office of Design and Construction, RG 79, NARA-P. 70 Prentice, August 15, 1956, Hopewell Village NHS-Monthly Progress Report, 1955-59, General 

Correspondence 1953-64, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

133

While the completion of the historic road system was extremely significant, the NPS Director 

never approved the 1952 plan or its restoration policy, and it was soon absorbed and 

superseded by a much larger NPS-wide program.71 (Maps 5.2-5.4) 

Mission 66, 1956-1966 

Development during the Gibbs and Cass administrations paled in comparison to that of 

Joseph Prentice, who, aided by post-war programs to accommodate the increase in visitors, 

established of a new era for Hopewell Village NHS. A no-nonsense administrator, Joe Prentice 

was an ideal man to oversee the expansion of personnel and the most active construction 

period at Hopewell. “Prentice was a gem...Joe was ‘this is what you want done, get out of my 

way, we are going to do it,’” remarked Ranger John Keiffer (1959-1966). “Joe Prentice ran the 

park...He was involved, he just ran everything, he would be on the job with us once or twice a 

day, he was really into things and we got a lot done in his time,” explained former Maintenance 

Foreman Charlie Seidel. “He was always right there in his brown Keds, sleeves rolled up, and 

shirt soaked in perspiration,” agreed Ralph Bitler’s son, Ranger Bill Bitler.72

Prentice oversaw many of the changes prompted by Mission 66. Plans would address 

development in the areas of administration, infrastructure, visitor services, and site restoration. 

The program was ideal for this park in particular because it provided money for remaining 

restorations and forced the Hopewell staff to again revisit its plans and policies.73 Old 

Hopewell friend Roy Appleman chaired the Mission 66 committee, and former 

Superintendent Lon Garrison ran the program’s national steering committee.74 However, 

development decisions largely fell to park staff, subject to regional and national advice and 

approval. 

 

71 Master Plan Development Outline, 1952, Introduction, 2; Ernest Allen Connelly, July 13, 1970, 

Hopewell NHS, Correspondence 1960-1975, Historical Files, WASO; Joseph Prentice to Regional 

Director, December 13, 1955, Hopewell Furnace NHS, 1952-60, General Correspondence 1946-63, 

Eastern Office of Design and Construction, RG 79, NARA-P. 72 John Keiffer, Seasonal Ranger, Interview by Leah S. Glaser, July 23, 2003; Bitler, Interview, July 

25, 2003; Charlie Seidel, Interview by Leah S. Glaser, July 25, 2003. 73 Interpretation aspect of Mission 66 discussed in Chapter 9. 

74 Sara Allaback, Mission 66 Visitor Centers: The History of a Building Type (Washington, DC: 

National Park Service, Department of the Interior, 2000), http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/ 

allaback/vc0.htm (accessed May 12, 2003). 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

134

Administrative and Staff Changes 

Park Historian Russell A. Apple, who had only just joined the park in 1955, bore the task 

of drafting the Mission 66 Prospectus in which he hoped to compile and reconcile all of 

Hopewell’s many past plans, policies, and philosophies into one document and provide 

additional insight to past management practices.75 As he reviewed these practices, Apple 

blamed the park’s development delays on historically inadequate staffing.76

 

Apple pointed out that the historian’s office location in the village required him to 

perform administrative and protective functions on top of his regular duties of interpretation, 

research and development, preservation, and interpretation. Likewise, Administrative 

Assistant Catherine Fritz remained overworked and longed for a typist to produce the park’s 

many reports.77 With only two maintenance men (Frank Lucas and Frank “Chick” Huber) and 

a part-time charwoman (Sarah Gauger), Hopewell desperately needed seasonal help as 

visitation continued to rise. Apple acknowledged that the infusion of funds for archeology, 

storm damage, rehabilitation and the construction of water intake for the West Headrace 

increased personnel from five to eighteen by the end of the summer of 1951. This included a 

seasonal ranger-historian named Bill Rowland, a University of Pennsylvania graduate student 

under Professor Charles Bining, and Superintendent Prentice’s wife, Mary Ann, to help 

supplement the office staff. Unfortunately, Hopewell’s permanent staff remained too small for 

the demands of the park by the mid-1950s. The superintendent served as the only permanent 

administrative employee, while Historian Walter Hugins oversaw the research and 

interpretation programs with the assistance of seasonal rangers Bill Bitler, Bob Franz, and 

Charlie Diechert.78 Located on the lower floor of a modern barn, they kept busy with visitor 

and collection duties, leaving little time for historical research. Apple continued to call for an 

additional historian at permanent full-time status, cited the need for a research office, vault for 

artifact preservation, technician workshop, a library, and a microfilm camera. 

Associate Director Eivind T. Scoyen approved many of the housing and personnel 

requests in Apple’s Mission 66 Prospectus. He suggested two residences be constructed near 

 

75 Russell A. Apple, “Mission 66 Prospectus for Hopewell Village National Historic Site,” July 27, 

1955, HOFU. 

76 “Master Plan Development Outline, 1952,” HOFU. 

77 Ibid. 

78 Master Plan Development Outline, “Park Operation Prospectus,” January 1952, 4-11, HOFU; 

Kurtz, “History of Archeology,” 65. 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

135

the utility area and the rehabilitation of the Harrison Lloyd House. He also agreed to the 

construction of the utility area and the Visitor Center near the present village parking area, 

since as Apple argued, “Control is easiest at this location and it is the logical point for the 

collection of entrance fees.” 79

5.4 Seasonal Ranger-Historians Bill Bitler and Bob Franz, 1957, HOFU Photographic Archives. 

In 1956 Robert D. Ronsheim replaced Historian Apple. A management survey team of 

Regional Chief of Operations J. Carlisle Crouch, Regional Administrative Officer Benjamin 

Gibson, and Regional Chief of Interpretation Murray Nelligan also supported many of Apple’s 

assessments upon their inspection on March 14-15 of 1957. Due to the demands of Mission 66, 

“the need for a second historian is pressing,” as well as three seasonal rangers and a 

supervisory ranger in charge of resource protection. They explained that the volume and 

variety of protection activities was higher than in other parks of the same size.80

Unfortunately, Ronsheim often clashed with the superintendent over their respective 

attitudes toward restoration activities, but the hiring of a second historian affirmed the 

emphasis on historical research over archeology. Prentice’s friend, Harry Hart, suggested a 

former classmate of his and Bill Bitler’s at Albright College. While small in stature, Earl 

Heydinger had a strong-willed, often gruff and difficult demeanor, but he was a meticulous 

researcher, and he would remain at Hopewell Village NHS for the next two decades.81

 

Heydinger had written about Mark Bird’s activities in the Schuylkill River Valley in his MA 

 

79 Apple, Mission 66 Prospectus, April 25, 1956, Hopewell Village and accompanying memos, A 

98 General Correspondence 1954-56, Eastern Office of Design and Construction, RG 79, NARA-P. 80 Management Survey of Hopewell Village National Historic Site, “Hopewell Village,” General 

Correspondence 1952-66, NPS, Northeast Field Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 81 Bitler, Interview, July 25, 2003; Keiffer, Interview, July 23, 2003. 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

136

thesis at Lehigh University. All of his predecessors had been dedicated to their work and to 

the park, yet Heydinger spent over two decades of his career actively researching the history of 

the furnace community, drafting historic structure reports, and compiling briefs preceding 

archeological work. He kept especially busy his first year due to the number of excavations at 

the park, but few of Heydinger’s reports ever saw completion. Colleagues praised his research, 

but unanimously agreed that Heydinger had trouble with writing.82 Throughout the 1960s, the 

two historians split up Hopewell’s historical research and interpretive duties. Ronsheim 

focused on interpretative issues and planning, while Heydinger managed research and 

architectural studies.83

 

The two historians were supposed to supervise Seasonal Rangers Bitler, Franz, 

Diechert, and Keiffer (after 1959), who primarily took over interpretive and visitor services 

duties in the summertime. Prentice’s successor, Superintendent Benjamin Zerbey, converted 

Bitler, Diechert, and Clair Lau from seasonal to permanent status in order to call the men in for 

additional help throughout the school year, particularly weekends and hunting season. 

Unfortunately, there was often a good bit of friction between the rangers (most of whom were 

schoolteachers) and the historians about how to interact with the public. The administration 

tended to support the former.84

In addition to the increase in interpretive workers, Prentice also hired more staff in 

other areas as well. Contractor Charles “Charlie” Seidel of Birdsboro arrived in June 1959 to 

help direct the Barn restoration for the maintenance department. In November 1960 Seidel 

accepted a transfer as a Building Restoration Specialist for the EODC. When Frank Lucas 

retired on March 31, 1961, after twenty years of service at Hopewell, Seidel replaced him as 

Foreman II the following August. “We consider ourselves fortunate to have a building 

maintenance headed up by a man so well grounded in park restoration practices,” boasted 

Prentice.85 The same year, former WAE maintenance workers Lloyd Huyett and Charwoman 

 

82 Bitler, Interview, July 25, 2003. 

83 Management Appraisal Survey, April 1964. 

84 General Correspondence 1953-63, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P; Prentice, 

Monthly Reports, November-December, 1961, Hopewell Village NHS, 1960-62, General 

Correspondence 1953-63, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P; Bitler, Interview, July 25,2003. 

85 August 1961, September 13, 1961, October 1961, November 9, 1961, Monthly Reports, Hopewell 

Village NHS, 1960-62, General Correspondence 1953-63, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

137

Sarah Gauger converted to career employment status.86 On the administrative front, 

Wilhelmine “Helmie” Malizzi, a German war bride who lived in Geigertown, came aboard to 

assist Catherine Fritz about 1959 as a Clerk-Typist on a two-year appointment. Malizzi had 

spent the last year at Hopewell translating German language documents and manning the fire 

tower in nearby French Creek State Park. Courtesy of the Mission 66 program, all of these 

employees would have new facilities in which to work.87

 

Visitor Center 

 

While Mission 66 funds initially expanded Hopewell’s local staff, money for 

construction changed the face of Hopewell Village NHS. For almost every park in the system, 

the key component in the NPS’s one billion-dollar program would be the Visitor Center, a 

facility centered on the philosophy that each park, no matter how small or self-explanatory, 

needed to introduce visitors to its resources and programs. The building would also house the 

park administration, placing the clerk and superintendent closer to the operations of the site 

than the former CCC camp site had done. Over the years, many at NPS have questioned the 

wisdom of requiring a visitor center for every park, particularly since such facilities required 

considerable expenses in staffing, energy consumption, and maintenance.88

The Hopewell staff did not argue against a museum or visitor center, but continued to 

insist that a small one located in an administration building at the parking area would suffice 

for the small, remote park.89 Historian Walter Hugins had discussed converting the Barn into 

the utilities building and renovating “The Duplex” (Tenant House No. 3) for administration 

and museum exhibits in a previous report. Charles Peterson, (one of the few NPS architects 

with considerable restoration experience) arrived at Hopewell for the first time to advise on a 

rat problem, he observed much of the site going to waste. Peterson criticized the Hopewell 

staff for trying to maintain too many buildings with little or nothing in them.He further 

suggested the superintendent move his office to the second floor of the Ironmaster’s House, 

 

86 March 1961, April 13, 1961, May 1961, June 13, 1961, Monthly Reports, Hopewell Village NHS, 

1960-62, General Correspondence 1953-63, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 

87 Wilhelmine Malizzi, Interview by Leah S. Glaser, July 9, 2003. 

88 Mackintosh, “To Reconstruct or Not to Reconstruct,” CRM Bulletin 13, no.1 (1990). 

89 Master Plan Development Outline, 1952, HOFU; Chief Edward S. Zimmer, EODC, to Director, 

June 3, 1957, “Conditions Influencing Museums Development: The Park Story,” ca. 1957, File D6215, 

Central Files, HOFU. 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

138

the store and office exhibits move to the Barn, and the adaptation of the old tenant residences 

into NPS headquarters. 90 Director Conrad Wirth agreed, citing the successful use of the 

buildings at Appomattox Court House National Historical Park in Virginia for museum and 

administrative matters.91 Even Roy Appleman conceded that practical matters prevented all of 

Hopewell’s resources to serve as individual exhibits. “I am inclined more to view as years pass 

that it is impossible to keep period buildings in condition unless they are used.”92

The idea of a comprehensive Visitor Center, however, continued to maintain 

prominence in Hopewell’s development and interpretive plans. A memo from the Associate 

Director Eivind T. Scoyen in 1957 required each park to draft a prospectus.93 In May of that 

year, Historian Ronsheim produced a “Prospectus for the Hopewell Village NHS Visitor 

Center.”94 The study doubled as a museum prospectus with detailed descriptions of possible 

exhibits. By listing the requirements of the building as a lobby, information office, exhibit 

room, library, lecture room, study collection room, workroom, space for utilities, and staff 

offices. Ronsheim justified the Visitor Center at Hopewell Village as a vehicle for a museum 

that would explain Hopewell’s importance and story of the village to visitors.95 In a critique of 

Ronsheim’s study, EODC Chief Ed Zimmer underscored a desire to keep collections separate 

from visitor services, increase personnel, and to increase the research for some of the exhibits. 

However, he felt that the space of 8,000 square feet that Ronsheim allotted to accommodate 

800 visitors per hour was too ambitious a goal, even during peak visitation.96

The final plans were tested at the dedication ceremony. The staff had extended 250 

invitations to members of the Bird, Brooke, and Buckley families, representatives of 

government, press, industry, labor, and local history departments. About 70 invited guests, 

 

90 Acting Superintendent Hugins to Regional Director, Hopewell Village 1952-60, General 

Correspondence 1946-63, Northeast Regional Office, NARA-P; Acting Superintendent to Allen, June 22, 

1954, D18 HOVI 1954-1959, General Correspondence, Central Classified Files, RG 79, NACP; Charles 

Peterson to Chief, EODC, October 20, 1954, Hopewell NHS, Historical Files, Correspondence 1943-1957, 

WASO. 91 W. G. Carnes, to Chief, EODC, March 1955, Hopewell Furnace NHS, 1952-60, General 

Correspondence 1946-63, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 92 Appleman to Peterson, November 4, 1954, Hopewell NHP, Historical Files, Correspondence 

1943-1957, WASO. 93 Associate Director to Regional Directors, et al, February 26, 1957, Hopewell NHP, Historical 

Files, Correspondence 1943-1957, WASO. 94 Kurtz, “History of Archeology,” 57. 

95 Robert Ronsheim, “Prospectus for the Hopewell Village NHS Visitor Center,” 1957, HOFU. 

96 Zimmer, Chief, June 3, 1957, “Conditions Influencing Museums Development: The Park 

Story,” ca. 1957, File D6215, Central Files, HOFU. 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

139

representatives of the Pennsylvania History and Museum Commission, 65 members of the 

Daniel Boone High School Band, 175 Girl Scouts, and several visitors totaled a crowd of about 

300. The Birdsboro Steel Machine and Foundry Company funded the event through a $200 

gift. On June 28, 1959, Associate Director Scoyen delivered an account of “the park story” at 

the dedication of the Visitor Center. In a speech appropriate to the Cold War era, he 

announced that, “Certainly we cannot consider our progress as a Nation, without taking note 

of its development from a raw wilderness to the greatest industrial power ever known to man.” 

Assistant Regional Director George Palmer presided over the 32-minute long ceremony, which 

began at 2:30 pm on a 97-degree summer day. John Stanford of Bethesda Church gave an 

invocation.97 Those who arrived early could preview the Visitor Center at 1:30 pm. 

Restorations 1953-1965 

The Visitor Center was one example of how Mission 66 imposed general NPS 

architectural themes and development theories that did not necessarily coalesce with visions 

for Hopewell Village specifically. 98 However, the final development policy for the park under 

Mission 66 had fallen to the park’s historian. (See Maps 5.5-5.8 for documentation of plans and 

projects under Mission 66). In his prospectus, Historian Apple cited the village as “typical of 

colonial and early America” and reflective of the beginnings of the iron and steel industry, and 

he continued to assess restoration policy. He focused upon recreating the ironmaking process 

and the village community, fire protection, research, and improving administrative facilities. 

New Superintendent Prentice agreed with Apple about the ambiguity of the policy that 

restored the village to the last period of operation per Garrison’s restoration guidelines and the 

1952 Master Plan, while at the same time allowing resources to include colonial era details. It 

would require the park to include references to steam power, which briefly replaced that of the 

waterwheel and would de-emphasize other facilities that did not exist in the last period of 

operation. Plans to reconstruct the Schoolhouse, the Cupola, and the Cast House would have 

to be abandoned. These same resources, however, existed at a time (1820-1840) when casting 

at Hopewell Furnace, a central part of the park’s story, had reached a crescendo, and local staff 

 

97 Memorandum for the Files, July 9, 1959, File A8215, Central Files, HOFU. 

98 Acting Chief Robert P. White to Director, March 26, 1956; Tobin to Chief, EODC, October 11, 

1956, Hopewell Furnace NHS, 1952-60, General Correspondence 1946-63, Eastern Office of Design and 

Construction, RG 79, NARA-P. 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

140

were now certain they had enough information to restore the village to this period. This is a 

general time period, insisted Prentice, and “any earlier would indeed involve conjecture.” 99

The approval of the prospectus shrunk the restoration period and brought it back to 1820-1840, 

thus establishing “the golden era” as final restoration policy, but with the intent of at least 

preserving all the physical remains at the site even if they dated out of that time period.

However, a few years later Acting Regional Director George Palmer commented that a 

distinction should be drawn between preservation and interpretation. While preservation 

would focus on the “golden age,” the interpretation program should consider the “whole 

broad period” in order to explain the furnace’s establishment and decline.100

On May 23-24 1955, several NPS professionals (Dan Tobin, Frank Barnes, Charles 

Peterson, Wedge Hanson, Dick Sutton, John Reshaft, Rogers Young, and former Hopewell 

Superintendent James Cass) met with Prentice and submitted recommendations for Hopewell 

Village’s development. They agreed to support special efforts, such as HABS documentation, 

to preserve other historic buildings in the village. Two of the Tenant Houses would be used as 

exhibits, and a third as employee quarters. Until the Visitor Center opened, the Barn served as 

a temporary museum exhibit and comfort station. 101

 

99 Prentice to Tobin, December 13, 1955, Hopewell Furnace NHS, 1952-60, General 

Correspondence 1946-63, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P; Prentice to Tobin, October 13, 

1958, H30 Restoration Date, Central Files, HOFU. 100 Acting Regional Director George A. Palmer to Chief, EODC, October 3, 1958, 

Correspondence 1958-1960, Hopewell NHP, Historical Files, WASO; Prentice to Allen, October 13, 1958, 

H30 Restoration Date, Central Files, HOFU. 101 Chief Historian Herbert Kahler to Drury, July 1955, Supervising Architect Charles Peterson, 

Historic Structures, to Superintendent, September 14, 1956, Richard P. Donohoe to Peterson, August 31, 

1956, Hopewell NHP, Historical Files, Correspondence 1943-1957, WASO. 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

141

5.5 Excavating with a Front End Loader near the Furnace, 1955, HOFU Photographic Archives. 

Before his departure in September of 1956, Historian Russell Apple completed his most 

significant research contribution to the restoration of Hopewell Village. He synthesized the 

work of earlier researchers (Motz, Montgomery, Kurjack, etc.) and documented the historical 

base maps for the period 1830-1840, the restoration policy determined in the Mission 66 

Prospectus. When Apple was finished, the park had a four-inch thick document recording 

Hopewell’s historic landscape, structures, roads, and dates of construction.102

 

The document provided an important planning tool for restoration. In addition to the 

base maps, Apple documented the Bridge and Wheel Houses, the Connecting Shed, the 

Charcoal House, and the Charcoal House (aka Cooling) Shed in 1956. Hopewell’s carpenter 

Charles Painter stabilized the Bridge House and the ramp in 1957, and workers completed the 

Wheelhouse and Charcoal House Shed by 1958.103 Prentice also called for the restoration and 

reconstruction of the Schoolhouse, Wheelwright Shop and 1817 Cupola in the 1958 PCP. He 

soon amended the order to await archeological excavation and research after Historians 

Ronsheim and Heydinger, long critics of the park’s rush to restore since the end of the war, 

appealed to the region for more thorough investigations. John Cotter returned to conduct 

 

102 Kurtz, “History of Archeology,” 55; Frank Barnes to Drury, August 27, 1956, Hopewell Village 

NHS-Monthly Progress Report, 1955-59, General Correspondence 1953-64, Northeast Regional Office, 

RG 79, NARA-P. 103 Heydinger, “Revision of Documentation,” NARA-P; Tobin to Superintendent, July 13, 1956, 

D18 Master Plan Correspondence, Central Classified Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

142

several excavations around the Ironmaster’s House uncovering two stone pathways and the pit 

for the Ice House.104

 

5.6 Charcoal Cooling Shed Reconstruction, 1958, HOFU Photographic Archives. 

While Ronsheim and Heydinger provided historical data, various regional and national 

NPS staff continued to re-interpret Hopewell’s restoration policies for various resources. 

Regarding the Ironmaster’s House for example, EODC Chief Ed Zimmer told Prentice that 

“We are inclined to favor a late “freeze date” for this house so as to retain a large part of the 

structure as it stands when restoration is undertaken,”105 For the rest of the building, Prentice 

quickly rejected NPS Director Conrad Wirth’s suggestion to use the second floor as an 

employee residence. While he agreed that it would be a good idea protection-wise, the 

conversion to living space would be far too costly. Aside from the heating bill, the stone wall 

building would require structural changes to hide utility and service lines. Besides, he added, 

no one would want to live in a place where employees and visitors repeatedly passed beneath 

their windows. Tenant House No. 3, he suggested, would offer similar protection, but much 

more privacy.106

Philadelphia-based EODC Architect Norman Souder would exercise the most 

influence over the site’s restoration. Souder, whose drawing skills Maintenance Foreman 

 

104 Prentice to Tobin, November 3, 1958, Daniel Tobin to Prentice, November 5, 1959, Hopewell 

Village NHS 1953-62, General Correspondence 1946-63, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 105 Edward S. Zimmer, Chief to Superintendent, December 10, 1957, Hopewell NHP, Historical 

Files, Correspondence 1943-1957, WASO. 106 Prentice to Tobin, January 8, 1957, General Correspondence 1954-59, Northeast Regional 

Office, RG 79, NARA-P; Heydinger, “Revision of Documentation,” NARA-P; Kurtz, “History of 

Archeology,” 81. 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

143

Charlie Seidel likened to those of an artist, completed planning and drawings for the 

Ironmaster’s House by the end of 1957.107 Soon afterwards, Architect Souder examined Tenant 

House No. 3, also known as John Shaffer’s House, or “the Duplex.” He pointed out that if 

restoration policy still abided by the interpretation period of the “golden age” of 1820-1840, 

then the structure (built in 1854) would remain inappropriate. The interior could be gutted 

without straying from the park’s interpretive plans. He suggested that the stone house could 

be ideal employee housing. The structure offered plenty of living space if converted into a 

single family dwelling by cutting through the middle interior wall. Its use as a residence would 

offer protection during the hours the park was closed, water and electricity could be delivered 

at minimal expense, and a private driveway would offer independence from visitor traffic.108

Regional Director Dan Tobin agreed that the protection issue would justify the 

Duplex’s $14,000-plus rehabilitation, especially because it fell out of the scope of the 

interpretation period. Once a HABS report documented the structure, the seven-room home 

could replace one of the three residences proposed by 1958 Fiscal Year Buildings and Utilities 

Construction program. At the same time, it could retain its original exterior appearance and 

not become a visible intrusion on the rest of the site. The solution pleased the Washington 

office as well and it offered the idea that perhaps the Boarding House could function as a 

seasonal employee quarters as first mentioned in the Mission 66 Prospectus.109

Souder developed a plan for restoration of the entire site and produced a Historical 

Data Report in 1960 by compiling the work of Hopewell’s Historians Kurjack, Hugins, and 

Heydinger. Rather than continue the “piecemeal” archeology Hopewell conducted in the past, 

Souder ordered a “comprehensive archeological investigation” of the entire area 

encompassing the Cast House floor, Blacksmith Shop, Office-Store, and Barn.110

After clearing out the exhibits, Souder completed historic structure reviews for the 

Office-Store and Barn. Based on evidence that the Office-Store had gone through significant 

changes since the Civil War, he advised bringing the restoration and furnishings date to the 

 

107 Seidel, Interview, July 25, 2003. 

108 Architect Norman Souder, EODC, “Narrative Report on Proposed Conversion for 

Employees’ Quarters,” Hopewell Village NHS, 1960-62, General Correspondence 1953-63, Region 5, RG 

79, NARA-P 109 “Employees’ Residence,” January 22, 1958, Denver Service Center and Technical Information 

Center (DSC/TIC); Tobin to Prentice, December 20, 1957, Chief of Design and Construction Thomas C. 

Vint to Tobin, November 1, 1957, Hopewell NHP, Historical Files, Correspondence 1943-1957, WASO. 110 Kurtz, “History of Archeology,” 58-60, 65. 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

144

end of the “golden age,” 1840, still within the purview of Mission 66’s restoration policy. The 

store could even sell replicas of its display objects. Upon review of the report, Chief Architect 

Dick Sutton ordered further archeological and architectural study, and in 1960, NPS architects 

including Charles Peterson and Norman Souder, Acting Superintendent Ronsheim, and 

Historian Earl Heydinger all agreed to bring both buildings back to the “golden age.”111

 

In the entire village, EODC Architect Norman Souder observed, “the greatest 

anachronism was the Village Barn.” He scheduled the reconstruction of the Barn for 1959 

when he designed a plan for restoration based on his own architectural research and 

consultation with the Washington Support Office and the EODC rather than the park’s 

existing 1820-1840 policy. The Village Barn required some of the most dramatic work in the 

park. A modern dairy barn had completely obscured the original stone one sometime after 

1915. Operators erected a roofed structure over the original stone one in 1926.112 Historian 

Heydinger described the massive modern structure as “a distraction and irritant to most 

attempts to portray the Site as an active ironmaking village of the 1770-1883 period.”113 

5.7 East End of Dairy Barn, 1958, Photo by Bob Ronsheim. HOFU Photographic Archives. 

 

111 Architect Norman M. Souder, “Historic Structures Report Architectural Data Section, Part 1, 

Preliminary to the Restoration of the Office and Store Building,” Chief Architect Dick Sutton to 

Regional Director, November 18, 1959, Peterson to Chief, EODC, February 3, 1960, Correspondence 

1960-75, Hopewell Village NHS, Historical Files, WASO. 112 Norman M. Souder, “Restoration of the Village Barn, HVNHS, HSR, Architectural Data, Part 

III,” November 1962, HOFU; December 1959, January 14, 1960, Monthly Reports, Hopewell Village 

NHS, 1959, General Correspondence 1953-63, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 113 As quoted in Kurtz, “History of Archeology,” 63. 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

145

5.8 North View of Dairy Barn, Photo by Bob Ronsheim, 1958. HOFU Photographic Archives. 

Charles Painter, the carpenter who built the modern barn in 1926, also tore it down in 

June 1959 with the aid of contractor Charlie Seidel. They performed the demolition by hand so 

as not to disturb the old stone walls with heavy equipment.114 Supervising Architect Charles 

Peterson, Heydinger, Ronsheim, Souder, and Prentice, and EODC Chief Tom Vint agreed to 

restore the Barn to its 1820-1840 condition “with no deviations from authentic restoration 

being made in order to provide for the display of carriages and other exhibits.”115 French 

Creek State Park granted permission to haul the stone away from a stone barn matching the 

same time period on its property for use in the Village. While most of the carriage collection 

housed in the Barn would be de-accessioned because they dated well after the “golden age” 

period, Vint suggested the park might retain one or two for exhibit purposes.116

When John Cotter conducted a brief excavation around the Barn to find its original 

walls, he discovered evidence of several more buildings on the site over the years, each of 

which might be sited and considered for reconstruction in the future. The area included 

 

114 Norman M. Souder, “Restoration of the Village Barn,” Hopewell Village National Historic 

Site, Historic Structures Report, Architectural Data, Part III, November 1962, HOFU; Prentice, 

September 10, 1959, “Hopewell Village NHS-Monthly Progress Report, 1955-59, General 

Correspondence 1954-60, Eastern Office and Design and Construction, RG 79, NARA-P. 115 Thomas Vint to Chief of Design and Construction, April 16, 1959, Prentice to Regional 

Director George Palmer, March 27, 1959, H3015, Central Files, HOFU. See Chapter 8 for more 

information. 116 Prentice, Monthly Progress Report, January 1959, Monthly Progress Report, February 11, 1959, 

Hopewell Village NHS, 1959, General Correspondence 1954-63, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, 

NARA-P; Drury to Regional Director J. Carlisle Crouch, April 3, 1959, Supervising Architect Charles 

Peterson to Vint, April 3, 1959, Vint to Regional Director, March 11, 1959, Correspondence 1958-1960, 

Hopewell NHS, Historical Files, WASO; Prentice, September 10, 1959, “Hopewell Village NHS-Monthly 

Progress Report, 1955-59,” General Correspondence, 1954-60, Eastern Office of Design and 

Construction, RG 79, NARA-P. 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

146

“traces of” a stamping mill, cupola, cleaning sheds, pattern shop, warehouse, pot house, 

molding sheds, tailraces, underground drainage, and hundreds of artifacts.117 Superintendent 

Prentice advertised and sold off the salvage materials from the modern dairy barn to the 

highest bidders. He hoped to begin the reconstruction of the Barn by July 1959; however, they 

were “somewhat hampered by the shortage of good carpenters who are familiar with mortice 

and tenon frame construction.”118 In September, Architects Peterson, Cooper, and Judd of the 

EODC came to discuss the issue with Prentice and Souder.119

In November 1959 nine local Amish carpenters experienced in mortice and tenon 

construction arrived at Hopewell to begin re-building of the barn. Each day, a non-Amish 

friend with a pick-up truck delivered the contractors on the condition that Hopewell’s park 

rangers ensured visitors did not photograph them at work. By the end of the month, the Amish 

carpenters had joists in place, over half of the framing up and nearly half of the rafters raised.120

The activity at the barn site attracted considerable public interest, although many visitors 

complained that the carriage exhibit was no longer an attraction.121 The full reconstruction took 

two years, but it had several benefits beyond that of local authenticity. A Monthly Progress 

report observed that, 

the utilization of the religious group in the restoration of the barn has paid off in greatly 

improved public relations with all the “plain” people. They are proud of their part in 

our restoration. One of them wrote, “Your aims and ours are much alike. Here you are 

preserving an early American industry and interpreting life of the people in a rural, 

industrial community. We too are trying to preserve the way of life of our ancestors.”122

 

117 Prentice to Regional Director Ronald Lee, February 10, 1960, H301 Archeology-Barn, Central 

Files, HOFU. 118 Prentice, July 10, 1959, “Hopewell Village NHS-Monthly Progress Report, 1955-59,” General 

Correspondence, 1954-60, Eastern Office of Design and Construction, RG 79, NARA-P. 119 Prentice, October 13, 1959, “Hopewell Village NHS-Monthly Progress Report, 1955-59,” 

General Correspondence, 1954-60, Eastern Office of Design and Construction, RG 79, NARA-P. 120 Prentice, November 10, 1959, “Hopewell Village NHS-Monthly Progress Report, 1955-59,” 

General Correspondence, 1954-60, Eastern Office of Design and Construction, RG 79, NARA-P. 121 Prentice, August 14, 1959, “Hopewell Village NHS-Monthly Progress Report, 1955-59,” 

General Correspondence, 1954-60, Eastern Office of Design and Construction, RG 79, NARA-P. 122 Prentice, August 14, 1959, “Hopewell Village NHS-Monthly Progress Report, 1955-59,” 

General Correspondence, 1954-60, Eastern Office of Design and Construction, RG 79, NARA-P; Sept 

13, 1961, “Hopewell Village NHS, 1960-62,” General Correspondence 1953-63, Northeast Regional Office, 

RG 79, NARA-P. 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

147

Hopewell maintenance completed the “circa 1840” reconstruction in April of 1961 and 

whitewashed it in May.123

 

5.9 Barn Reconstruction, 1959, HOFU Photographic Archives. 

5.10 Barn Reconstruction, 1959, HOFU Photographic Archives. 

Historian Ronsheim and Architect Souder agreed that like the Barn, the restored 

Office-Store should reflect the “golden age” era, around 1840. The building, which long served 

as the park museum, became the subject of two Historic Structure Reports in 1959 and 1960. 

The building also received considerable archeological attention, which uncovered a large 

 

123 Kurtz, “History of Archeology,” 64; Prentice, May 1961, June 13, 1961, Monthly Reports, 

“Hopewell Village NHS, 1960-62,” General Correspondence 1953-63, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

148

collection of artifacts. From July 1960 to April 1961, restoration entailed the removal of a 

considerable number of features added after 1865. Renovations such as the removal or 

replacement of windows, doorway, siding, and bins, and lowering the line of the roof 

ultimately “altered the integrity of the building.”124 Subsequent historical research determined 

that rather than the golden period 1820-1840, the restored Office-Store resembled a pre-1800 

structure.125

5.11 Looking North from Bridge at Barn, Office-Store, and “Big House,” 1961, 

HOFU Photographic Archives. 

Prentice oversaw some of the park’s largest and most significant restoration projects, 

consistent with Roy Appleman’s original goal of a “revitalized village.” During the weekdays, 

visitors could watch the activity as part of their Hopewell experience. “When federal 

restoration plans are completed,” Prentice remarked to a journalist, “this place should look as 

if the workmen had just stepped out for the day.”126 

 

NARA-P. 124 Kurtz, “History of Archeology,” 67. 

125 Ibid., 68. 

126 “Visit to Hopewell,” Reading Automobile Club Magazine 36, no. 5 (July 1958), 5. 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

149

Zerbey’s Restorations 

When Superintendent Joe Prentice left Hopewell for Harpers Ferry National 

Monument at the end of 1961, Benjamin Zerbey, an area local from a large prominent family in 

nearby Pottsville, Pennsylvania, arrived to assume his first superintendency and his first tenure 

at a historical, rather than a natural, park. His administration (January 1962- March 1965) 

assumed a different character than the previous two with the more laid-back Zerbey 

emphasizing archeological investigation and research over rapid construction. Like his 

predecessors, he focused primarily on the physical development of the village to reflect the 

1820-1840 period. During his tenure, the park only stabilized the ruins of those resources that 

never even existed during the “golden age,” such as the Anthracite Furnace (1963-4) and the 

Wheel Pit (1963). Regional Archeologist John Cotter oversaw the excavation and stabilization 

of the brick Charcoal Kilns in the spring and summer of 1961.127 With a stone mason, his helper, 

and four laborers, Historian Apple directed the Kilns’ stabilization from 1963 to 1964.128 Zerbey 

and his administration hoped to avoid mistakes of the past, especially after historians surmised 

that the bulldozing that removed the Birdsboro-Warwick Road might have removed all traces 

of the Wheelwright Shop.129

 

In 1962 Leland Abel, an archeologist who had worked primarily in prehistoric western 

parks, received a temporary three-year assignment at Hopewell. “It is fortunate to have a man 

of Mr. Abel’s experiences and background to conduct the important project,” Zerbey 

commented in his monthly report.130 Abel oversaw an archeological program in addition to 

fabric and construction analysis on the Ironmaster’s House, Boarding House and Tenant 

House No. 1 and unearthed valuable restoration dates, but the exploration and reconstruction 

of Cast House was the most significant project work of the early 1960s from a public relations 

perspective. Abel completed the excavation after two and a half years, trying to locate the 

building and finding hundreds of artifacts, but nothing “exciting” except a tile that may or may 

not have indicated an original tile roof. Abel, whose strengths lay in Native American 

 

127 Prentice, Monthly Report, May 1961, Prentice, June 13, 1961, August, September 13, 1961, 

“Hopewell Village NHS, 1960-62,” General Correspondence, RG 79, NARA-P; Bitler, Interview, July 25, 

2003; Malizzi, Interview, July 9, 2003. 128 Kurtz, “History of Archeology,” 81; Heydinger, “Revision of Documentation,” NARA-P. 129 Kurtz, “History of Archeology,” 71. 

130 Zerbey, Monthly Report for February, March 8, 1962, “Hopewell Village NHS, 1960-62,” 

General Correspondence 1953-63, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

150

archeology, determined the roof was tile much to the chagrin of Ranger John Keiffer and 

Maintenance Foreman Charlie Seidel, since neither believed the structure could support 

almost sixty tons of tiles on its roof.131 Despite the doubts, Zerbey and Seidel then set off to the 

town of Leola to locate Christ Beiler, who had led the construction of the Barn a few years 

earlier. The crew of Amish carpenters returned to Hopewell in 1964-65 to rebuild the $70,000 

Cast House and Molding Sheds.132 Seidel’s maintenance crew hauled and unloaded the huge 

timbers—some local, and some from West Virginia—upon the request of the Amish workers. 

“Of course that was quite an event for the visitors themselves,” explained Superintendent 

Zerbey, “They love to watch the Amish people.” Believing it important to show visitors how 

the National Park Service worked, Zerbey (like Prentice) invited the public to watch the 

activity.133 Soon after the completion of the Cast House, the building began to sink from the 

weight of the tile roof and the high water table of the ground that supported it. Maintenance 

continually buttressed the roof until a contractor came in to pump concrete in the floors.134

 

5.12 Front of Cast House under Construction, 1964, HOFU Photographic Archives. 

 

131 Superintendent Benjamin Zerbey to Drury, June 8, 1962, “Hopewell Village NHS, 1960-62,” 

General Correspondence 1953-63, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P; Seidel, Interview, July 25, 

2003, Keiffer, Interview, July 23, 2003. 132 Heydinger, “Revision of Documentation,” 14, NARA-P; Eagle, Sept 2, 1964, Correspondence 

1960-75, Hopewell Village NHS, Historical Files, WASO; Benjamin Zerbey, Taped phone interview by 

Leah S. Glaser, July 15, 2003. 133 Zerbey, Press Release, October 21, 1962, Correspondence 1960-75, Hopewell Village NHS, 

Historical Files, WASO; Zerbey, Interview, July 15, 2003. 134 Seidel, Interview, July 25, 2003. 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

151

5.13 General View of Amish Workers Preparing Beams Prior to the Cast House 

Reconstruction, 1964. HOFU Photographic Archives. 

 Meanwhile, Historians Heydinger, Ronsheim, and briefly Herbert Kissling (who 

replaced Ronsheim when he transferred to Minute Man National Historical Park) attended to 

other projects neglected during Prentice’s tenure. Ronsheim typed up Kurjack’s notes, 

updated scripts for slideshows, completed furnishing studies, and with Heydinger, rewrote 

parts of the Master Plan.135 Heydinger began cataloging artifacts, but contributed the most to 

the development program when, from 1964 to 1966, he updated Apple’s base maps.136 Further 

historical research from 1962-1966 concentrated in furnishing plans for the Barn, Office-Store, 

Cast House and Tenant House No. 1.137

As one of two recipients of the first phase of an NPS-sponsored “Accelerated Public 

Works Program,” Hopewell began to embark on other long overdue rehabilitation projects in 

the early 1960s like the Tenant Houses and the Nathan Care House. Long-time employee 

Catherine Fritz initiated thoughts about restoring the latter, a structure ignored in Emil 

Heinrich’s initial draft of the rehabilitation program, as a house for her sister Celia and 

herself. 138 Park staff determined the remote Harrison Lloyd House (also known as the Old 

 

135 Prentice, Monthly Reports, November-December, 1961, Hopewell Village NHS, 1960-62, 

General Correspondence 1953-63, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 

136Zerbey to Lee, September 22, 1964, Hopewell Village NHS, 1960-62, General Correspondence 

1953-63, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 137 Earl Heydinger completed the “Revision of Documentation for the Historical Base Maps 1830-

1840” in December 1965. 

138 Benjamin Zerbey to Assistant Regional Director Palmer, February 8, 1962, H3013 HSR-West 

Headrace Flume, Central Files, HOFU; Gibbs to Allen, January 20, 1949, Allen to Gibbs, February 4, 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

152

Lloyd House) to be in unsafe and uninhabitable condition. Perhaps because it was not visible 

from the village, staff had paid little attention, beyond piecemeal maintenance, to the structure. 

Vandals had even broken in and built a campfire inside. Due to safety issues, the Maintenance 

Department deliberately destroyed the already deteriorating building by fire on January 14, 

1965.139

1964 Master Plan 

More critical than any other activity, Superintendent Zerbey’s tenure directed the 

completion and approval of Hopewell Village’s long-awaited Master Plan, prompted by new 

NPS Director George B. Hartzog’s 1964 directive, “The Road to the Future.” The directive 

imposed strict deadlines and accelerated Mission 66 Prospectus production on all parks.140 In 

September of 1960, Hopewell had only completed Chapter One, “Objectives and Policies” of 

the Master Plan narrative. In January 1962 staff submitted the General Park Information 

sections, and the following year rewrote their “Objectives and Policies” chapter. Associate 

Director of Design and Construction A. Clark Stratton approved the plan on November 4, 

1963.141

 

Earl Heydinger continued to revise the document, and in August of 1964, Zerbey 

submitted “Basic Information: the Land, the Visitor,” proposing several management 

programs months later. The “mission” articulated in the 1963 Mission 66 edition emphasized 

Hopewell as a phase of the ironmaking industry over “the way of life in a small, rural, industrial 

community.” The 1963 version reiterated the “golden age,” 1820-1840, as the period for 

interpretation and development emphasis, but park management would determine future 

reconstructions as warranted in compliance with the park mission and each individual 

structural study. However, in 1964, the Master Plan reflected new and changing management 

 

1949, File 204 Inspections and Investigations 1939-50, Hopewell Village, Central Classified Files, HOFU; 

Gibbs, March 1949, Superintendent’s Monthly Report, Hopewell Village, General Files, NERO-P. 139 The demolition occurred only after receiving permission for its removal from the Historic 

Structures Survey for possessing “little historic significance.” Seidel, Interview, July 25, 2003. 140 In a 1963 NPS conference, members of the Long-Range Requirements Task Force presented a 

paper arguing for such an emphasis. William L. Savage to Zerbey, August 24, 1964, Lee to Zerbey, June 

11, 1964, November 1963, Hopewell Furnace NHS 1961-66, General Correspondence 1966-68, Northeast 

Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 141 Master Plan, “Objectives and Policies,” (January 1963), revised November 1963, HOFU. 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

153

and preservation concepts. In terms of development and restoration, this version advocated 

structural restoration to all periods of furnace operation. Acting Director of Design and 

Construction Johannes E. N. Jenson approved the plan’s management objectives on 

September 21, 1964.142

The new Master Plan helped reconcile the inconsistent policies of Hopewell’s past, but 

turned the underlying philosophy of Hopewell Village development on its head. It indicated 

that rather than abiding by a restoration policy that considered the interpretation of the village 

as a whole, each restoration should be conducted on its own merits and broaden the 

preservation period to include all the periods of its operation rather than just one.143 The 1964 

Master Plan helped determine several important resource management decisions over the next 

few years including the preservation, if not the restoration, of resources built outside the 

“golden age” period. The Historic Structures Report for the Ironmaster’s House (1965) 

recommended it not be restored to “any particular restoration period,” but retain any features 

added up until 1883 when the furnace closed. (This decision was later reversed again in the late 

1970s when the house finally received attention). The Springhouse was restored in the fall of 

1965.144 Unfortunately, historical collections in several possible repositories do not reveal a 

final, completed, or approved Master Plan. Nor do they reveal any explanation for the 

oversight. 

Motivated by wartime neglect and Mission 66, the years 1947 through 1966 proved to 

be new a “golden age” of activity at the Hopewell Village National Historic Site. 

Administrators focused their energies almost exclusively on park recovery and maintenance, 

development, planning, and historic resource restoration. However, local and regional 

administrators loosely interpreted the NPS’s conservative preservation policies to fit 

Hopewell, and with constant changes in development plans, Hopewell’s collection of historic 

resources today reflects all of them. Appleman aimed to return Hopewell to the colonial era. 

Next, local and regional staff first hoped to preserve structures to the last period of operation, 

and then, under Mission 66, to the “golden age.” After years of debate and uncertainty, the 

1964 Master Plan, which advocated preservation of extant resources over a comprehensive 

 

142 Master Plan, “Objectives and Policies,” (January 1963), revised November 1963, HOFU; 

Master Plan, Chapter 2, “Area Objectives,” (August 1964), 6, HOFU. 143 Master Plan, Chapter 2, “Area Objectives,” (August 1964), 6, HOFU. 144 Heydinger, “Revision of Documentation,” 17, NARA-P. 
The Restoration of Hopewell Village 

154

restoration period, became the final word on Hopewell’s development policy, at least for a 

short time. 

The 1964 plan foreshadowed the future of preservation at the NPS. The passage of the 

National Historic Preservation Act in 1966 and the rise of a new generation of NPS leadership 

who reflected a new attitude toward historic preservation and interpretation seriously 

undermined the autonomy that local and regional NPS staff had enjoyed since the war. It also 

challenged the heightened development activities and the philosophy of restoration and 

reconstruction upon which the park preservation activities evolved. National standards and 

interpretive trends would have far more influence on the park’s management decisions than in 

the past. The new era brought an end to both the “golden age” as a target restoration date and 

to the one of Hopewell’s development. 
 

155

VI. What Now? Preservation and Celebration in the 

Post-Restoration Period, 1966-1988 

After World War II, the heightened restoration activity at Hopewell Village National 

Historic Site echoed the explosion of construction nationwide. The political and social 

environment that accompanied such rapid development also influenced the preservation 

policies of the park and the National Park Service overall. What began as the Civil Rights 

Movement in the 1950s and 1960s, fed into the anti-war, women’s rights, and environmental 

movements of subsequent years. These movements highlighted a need to include the working 

class, women, and minorities in America’s stories, and promoted awareness of the environment 

in response to the energy crisis. At the same time, the passage of the Historic Preservation Act of 

1966 and the 1976 Bicentennial (the events surrounding America’s 200th birthday) a decade later 

promoted national unity, a shared American heritage, and pride in the country’s success. The 

National Park Service would be at the forefront of both events, and the events, in turn, would 

promote a time of transition and change for Hopewell Village NHS. The park budget nearly 

quadrupled between the years of these landmark events.1

 With the bulk of restoration completed 

and a rising tide of conservatism regarding issues of preservation, physical development took a 

backseat to interpretive programs and protection issues. 

A Sturdy, Stable Staff 

When Benjamin Zerbey accepted a promotion in 1965, John C. W. “Bill” Riddle became 

Hopewell Village’s ninth superintendent in less than thirty years. He brought experience from 

both natural and historical parks. Like many of Hopewell’s superintendents, Riddle was 

relatively green as an administrator. He had only just cut his teeth with his first superintendence 

at the Mound City Group National Monument (today called Hopewell Culture National 

Historical Park), a prehistoric mound group in Ohio. Prior to that, he served as district ranger at 

Acadia National Park in Maine, Gettysburg National Military Park in Pennsylvania, and 

 

1

 This estimate does not take inflation issues into account. U.S. Congress, House of 

Representatives, Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, hearings, 1966-1977.Department of 

the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations for 1981. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 

Office. 
Preservation and Celebration 

156

Colonial National Historical Park in Virginia.2

 Employees remember him as “an old ranger 

type,” and thus fairly conservative about matters of reconstruction and interpretation. When he 

arrived at Hopewell, Riddle focused on issues appropriate to Hopewell (preservation, 

maintenance, visitor services, and protection), but he frequently consulted with the regional 

office for advice.3

 Most critically, Riddle at last acquired a staple of most national parks: a 

permanent, full-time ranger on Hopewell’s staff. 

Naturalist Denny Beach, who arrived at Hopewell from the Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park in 1966, served as Hopewell’s first supervisory park ranger. Beach was educated 

in geology and soil sciences, but had minored in American History. Coming from a vast, popular 

natural park, Beach met Hopewell Village, which he had to scour a map to locate, with a degree 

of “culture shock.” As the park’s only year-round ranger, Beach took up residence with his 

family in one of the tenant houses and assumed a variety of duties formerly performed by 

superintendents. These included protection, law enforcement, traffic counts, monitoring water 

samples, monitoring both the wild and domestic animals, maintaining relations with French 

Creek staff, and even conducting tours. Hopewell required far less law enforcement than the 

Smoky Mountains, but Beach nonetheless implemented several security and safety systems.4

 

An Operations Evaluation by the regional office in 1970 reorganized the park’s personnel 

into an Interpretation and Resource Management Department, with the position of park 

historian replaced by a supervisor. The evaluating office determined that, “a realignment of 

responsibilities would produce a more effective unit, create better team effort, and stimulate 

imaginative and innovative management in reaching the objectives and goals of the area.”5

 As a 

result, Beach’s successor Ranger Larry Points (1970-74) took on increasingly more responsibility 

for the interpretation program and increasingly clashed with the traditional Riddle. Perhaps 

because he was relatively new as a park administrator, or because he was keenly aware that 

Hopewell’s first superintendent, Lon Garrison, was now Regional Director, Riddle was a 

stickler for regulations and exercised a fairly authoritarian style. Historian Earl Heydinger 

 

2

 Ron Cockrell, Amidst Ancient Monuments: The Administrative History of Mound City Group 

National Monument / Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, Ohio (Omaha, NB: Midwest Support 

Office, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, 1999), http://www.nps.gov/hocu/adhi/ 

adhi4a.htm (accessed May 15, 2003). 3

 Warren “Denny” Beach to Leah S. Glaser, E-mail, “Hopewell Village Notes as Promised,” July 

24, 2003. 4

 Ibid.; Bitler, Interview, July 25, 2003. 
Preservation and Celebration 

157

complained bitterly to Roy Appleman that Riddle belittled much of his and the assistant 

historians’ research. Charlotte Fairbairn had joined the park as a junior historian to Heydinger 

in 1962, and Jane Henzi replaced her in 1969. Henzi, hired more for interpretive purposes rather 

than research, worked primarily with Supervisory Ranger Points. Both Henzi and Points often 

felt like they had to “work over, in, and around” Riddle in order to develop new programs.6

 

However, the living history program began under Riddle’s administration, and its success in the 

following years would finally put Hopewell “on the map” (see Chapter 10). 

In spite of some of the personnel conflicts, Heydinger, Fairbairn, and Henzi 

accomplished important historical research, and the park’s full-time permanent staff was the 

strongest and most professionally diverse it had ever been. The park even hired Nancy Prine, a 

museum aide, to work with collections from 1968 to 1969. Even more critical, the administrative 

and maintenance staff, who lived locally, solidified the park through their long-term service. 

Wilhelmine “Helmie” Malizzi was a highly organized administrative clerk and worthy heir to 

Catherine Fritz. Veronica Fitzgerald held a long requested part-time clerk-typist position 

(essential for the many structural reports required of restoration activities), and Collier Elmer 

Kohl, who could reportedly “charcoal a Sears and Roebuck catalog,” often performed the ever 

popular charcoal-making demonstrations.7

 For the first time, Hopewell Village’s maintenance 

staff was adequate with four fulltime employees (until then only two maintenance men, a parttime charwoman, and seasonal laborers made up the division): Charlie Seidel (foreman), Lloyd 

Huyett (laborer), Daniel Miller (painter), Elmer Musser (laborer), and Marie Care (a part-time 

janitor/ charwoman) and one or two more laborers joining them each summer. Both Huyett and 

Miller were skilled in a variety of areas including plumbing, stonework, and electrical work, 

making it somewhat easier for Seidel to address all of the park’s maintenance needs with a 

limited crew. 8 In April 1972 Larry Nash arrived from Independence National Historical Park as 

 5

 “Operations Evaluation of Hopewell Village National Historic Site” (Northeast Regional Office, 

April 1970), 3, Central Files, HOFU. 6

 Earl Heydinger to Roy Appleman, January 31, 1970, Appleman to Heydinger, Feb 12, 1970, 

Hopewell NHS, Correspondence 1960-1975, Historical Files, WASO; Larry Points, Taped phone interview 

by Leah S. Glaser, July 9, 2003. 7

 Chief Nathan B. Golub, Division of Maintenance to Regional Director, June 27, 1967, “Hopewell 

Village NHS 1965-68,” General Correspondence 1966-68, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P; 

Points Interview, July 9, 2003. 8 8

 Chief Nathan B. Golub, Division of Maintenance to Regional Director, June 27, 1967, 

“Hopewell Village NHS 1965-68,” General Correspondence 1966-68, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, 

NARA-P; Points Interview, July 9, 2003. 
Preservation and Celebration 

158

an interpretive specialist to replace a departing Georjean Bender who was following her new 

husband, an NPS Ranger, to Tonto National Monument in Arizona.9

At the end of 1972, Riddle left Hopewell Village NHS after over seven years of service 

and moved on to the Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial in Indiana where he finished his 

thirty-two year NPS career. Ranger Points briefly took over superintendent duties until January 

7, 1973, when Wallace B. “Wally” Elms, Chief of Interpretation and Resource Management at 

Herbert Hoover National Historic Site, arrived as the new superintendent.10 Trained as a 

traditional protection ranger in primarily natural parks in the West, Elms allowed his 

interpretation staff considerable freedom, but safety and legal issues dictated many of his 

management decisions. When he arrived, he found that the staff ran the park “pretty well” and 

sought only to continue existing activities. The living history program dominated the overall 

impression of the park during his administration while other operations “kind of rolled along.”11

Employees regarded Elms, a native of the Southwest, as charming and pleasant. He was “on top 

of everything, but not dictatorial,” attested Bill Bitler. Helmie Malizzi added that he was also 

open to suggestions for how to improve the park’s administration. 

Elms’ friendly and laid-back demeanor won over the staff, which grew to ten permanent 

employees when Theodore Ziegler, who had apprenticed under Elmer Kohl, was hired as a fulltime collier following Kohl’s retirement in 1973. Kenneth E. Reitz and Kevin Ziemba soon filled 

other new positions for a carpenter and farmer-demonstrator, respectively. Peter Baril from the 

new Albright Training Center in Harpers Ferry briefly replaced Ranger Larry Nash in January 

1974 as an interpretive specialist. Helmie Malizzi was promoted to an administrative assistant. 

Chief Ranger Larry Points left for Assatague Island National Seashore and Ranger Lawrence 

“Larry” Masters of the Natchez Trace Parkway took over his position at the end of the summer 

in 1974. Clerk Victoria Fitzgerald, Charwoman Marie Care, Ranger-Historian Bill Bitler and 

 

9

 Wally Elms to Assistant Director, Operations, January 17, 1973, Hopewell Furnace National 

Historic Site, Annual Report, HFC. 10 Elms served his first superintendence for a little over two and a half years until he left for 

Petersburg National Battlefield in Virginia, and then returned to Pennsylvania in 1981 to take charge of 

Valley Forge. “1st Woman Named at Hopewell,” Eagle (October 23, 1975); “Elms Going to Virginia,” Eagle

(August 14, 1975). 11 Nancy Brown, Taped interview by Leah S. Glaser, July 8, 2003; Wallace Elms, Taped phone 

interview by Leah S. Glaser, July 9, 2003. 
Preservation and Celebration 

159

Park Technician Charles Diechert all received full-time career-conditional appointments and 

completed Elm’s staff.12

 

The elimination of the historian position underscored the end of research and 

restoration as a focus at Hopewell. The administrations of Riddle and Elms oversaw the last era 

of major archeological excavations, restorations, and reconstructions as staff focused more on 

interpretation, preservation, and resource management. The staff and students of the 

University of Pennsylvania, including NPS Archeologist John Cotter (who held an Adjunct 

Professorship in the former Department of American Civilization at the university), directed 

investigations of the Schoolhouse and Tenant Houses in 1967-68, and then at the Smokehouse 

and the Springhouse in 1969. The Schoolhouse excavation determined the structure’s floor plan 

and window arrangement in anticipation of reconstruction, and the park completed part one of 

its Historic Structure Report for the structure in 1970. Unfortunately, by the time restoration 

plans could be made, the attitude of the preservation movement and the National Park Service 

had become far more conservative in its views of historic reconstructions.13

 

The National Historic Preservation Act 

The year of 1966 not only marked the fiftieth anniversary of the National Park Service, 

but the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). New highways, bridges, 

roads, and skyscrapers of post-war urban development threatened to destroy old 

neighborhoods and architectural treasures.14 In response, the historic preservation movement 

sought to save much of the basic fabric of these communities. Three years earlier, members of 

the National Trust for Historic Preservation had met at Colonial Williamsburg for a three-day 

conference that resulted in a published report called Historic Preservation Today. With support 

from the Johnson administration and the First Lady in May of 1965, the National Trust 

published With Heritage So Rich. The book called for a national system of historic preservation 

and inspired the NHPA legislation the following year.15 All of the historical units of the National 

 

12 “New Ranger at Hopewell,” Reading Eagle, August 29, 1974, K34 Newsclippings 1974-1983, 

Central Files, HOFU; Elms to Assistant Director, Operations, January 17, 1973, Elms to Regional Director 

Chester Brooks, January 17, 1975, Elizabeth Disrude, Annual Report, March 10, 1977, Hopewell Furnace 

National Historic Site, Annual Reports, HFC. 13 Kurtz, “History of Archeology,” 81. 

14 See Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities (New York: Vintage Books, 1961). 15 Murtagh, Keeping Time, 64-65. 
Preservation and Celebration 

160

Park System became some of the first properties to make up the National Register of Historic 

Places, a list of significant cultural resources administered by the NPS. 

The NHPA formalized an approval process for all federal agencies through Section 106 

of the law. The provision required that any plans for development, including a master plan, 

interpretive prospectus, or environmental impact statement, would have to submit to an 

approval process. NPS parks would need to follow the provisions of Section 106 and implement 

its regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800) when installing utilities such as power 

lines and waste disposal systems planned for the 1970s.16 This process was supposed to ensure 

the integrity of historic resources by requiring that all resources be judged and protected in 

accordance with National Register criteria, in consultation with the state historic preservation 

officer, before the government spent any federal money on projects (called “undertakings”). At 

Hopewell, such projects included the expansion of the water system, the restoration of the 

Ironmaster’s House, and the rehabilitation of the Blacksmith Shop after a fire. In 1974 the MidAtlantic Region and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation negotiated an agreement to 

“provide [the] guidelines and flexibility” needed for Hopewell’s staff to properly maintain 

historic structures by more clearly defining the difference between “maintenance,” 

“rehabilitation,” and “restoration,” and which would need to undergo the 106 process. The 

following year, Hopewell Village hosted a region-wide conference to discuss a memorandum of 

agreement on restoration policy, but it is unclear what, if any, definitive decisions came out of 

this meeting.17

Accuracy and Authenticity: Washington Discourages Reconstruction 

With the emphasis on preservation and integrity, support for historic reconstruction, 

and even restoration, was slipping among many preservation professionals in and out of the 

NPS. In addition to its advocacy of a national preservation system, the publication With Heritage 

So Rich voiced a rising concern toward historic reconstruction among preservation 

professionals. The book referred to such enterprises as “expensive, life-size toys, manufactured 

 

16 Compliance Office Ken Tapman, Hopewell Village NHS, Correspondence 1960-74, Historical 

Files, WASO. 17 Superintendent Elms to Associate Regional Director, Professional Services, MARO, October 9, 

1974, “H4217 106 Compliance,” Elms to William Wewer, SHPO, January 25, 1974, “H3417,” Central Files, 

HOFU; Glenn O. Hendrix, Denver Service Center, to Wallace Elms, January 23, 1975, MARO Records 

Center, Philadelphia. 
Preservation and Celebration 

161

for children of all ages who have forgotten how to read...They may be effective instruments of 

education, amusement, propaganda, or some kind of special pleading, but they have precious 

little to do with history, and absolutely nothing to do with historic preservation.”18

 

About the same time, a new generation of leaders in the NPS discouraged the type of 

replication made popular in Williamsburg, Virginia, (and echoed in Hopewell Village) as the 

best method of preservation. Increasingly, both American and European preservationist 

professionals denounced reconstruction as the “projection of fantasy into objects of the past.”19

 

In 1964, NPS Director Conrad Wirth and longtime Chief Historian Herb Kahler retired after 

many years of service. Their departure symbolized the passing of a generation that had operated 

the NPS since the 1930s, the years of Hopewell’s founding. Under the NPS’s new director 

George Hartzog, the Service published its first general policy on historic structure treatment 

since 1937’s merely suggestive “Better to preserve than repair, better to repair than restore, better 

restore than construct.” While men like Roy Appleman continued to emphasize interpretation 

as the primary mission of preservation until his own retirement in 1970, the new Chief Historian 

Robert Utley (1964-1972) expressed a great deal more suspicion over the wisdom of the practice. 

“A reconstruction, like a modern copy of an old painting, could conceivably be accurate,” he 

claimed, “but it could never be authentic-the genuine article.”20 In the ensuing years, 

questionable reconstructions raised more doubts about the practice. 

Issued in 1968, the Administrative Policies for Historical Areas of the National Park System

would serve as the basis for the planning period of the Bicentennial and limit the planners’ 

decision to reconstruct to far stricter guidelines than the 1937 policy. Historic reconstruction 

was authorized only “if: a) all or almost all of the structure is gone and recreation is essential for 

public understanding and appreciation of the historical associations for which the park was 

established; b) Sufficient historical, archeological, and architectural data exist to permit an 

accurate reconstruction; c) The structure can be erected at original or appropriate site.”21

 

Superintendents Riddle, Elms, and their successors also made park management decisions 

 

18 As quoted in Richard Sellars and Dwight Pitcaithley, “Reconstructions—Expensive, Life-Size 

Toys?” CRM Bulletin 2, no. 4 (1979), 2. 19 Ibid. 

20 As quoted in Mackintosh, “The Case Against Reconstruction,” CRM Bulletin 13, no.1 (1990); In 

1964, Utley became Chief Historian, and placed Roy Appleman in charge of NPS’s research division. Ellen 

K. Foppes and Robert Utley, “Present at the Creation: Robert M. Utley Recalls the Beginnings of the 

National Historic Preservation Program,” The Public Historian 24, no.3 (Spring 2002), 74. 21 Barry Mackintosh, “To Reconstruct or Not to Reconstruct.” CRM Bulletin 13, no.1 (1990). 
Preservation and Celebration 

162

within the parameters of several other restrictions including the Antiquities Act of 1906, the 

Organic Act of 1916, the Historic Sites Act of 1935, the NHPA, and after 1969, the National 

Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). NEPA required an Environmental Impact Statement for 

any undertaking affecting federally designated resources. Executive Order 11593 (issued in 1971) 

and the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 provided additional enforcement to 

the “protection and enhancement of the cultural environment” by requiring federal leadership. 

The former required federal agencies to take a leading role in national preservation efforts and 

survey their historic properties and nominate them to the register. The National Park Service 

forbade the destruction of any building over fifty years old without the approval of the Associate 

Director of Professional Services (later Cultural Resources Management). Furthermore, the 

legislation required that any structures less than fifty years old proposed for demolition or major 

alteration to be evaluated under the standards of the National Register, and nominated if 

eligible, to the list. Only the regional director could authorize a demolition for an ineligible 

property.22 These new rigid policies toward preservation methods and cultural resource 

management issues would have a significant influence on the options open to staff 

commemorating America’s 200th birthday at places like Hopewell Village. Out of the 

Bicentennial Development Program’s 104 million dollar budget for July 1, 1973-June 30, 1976, 

$122,000 was spent at Hopewell Village.23

 

The Bicentennial and Hopewell’s Revolutionary Heritage 

Service-wide disagreements over historic reconstruction in general significantly 

undermined the park’s plans for Bicentennial development. A decade after the passage of the 

NHPA, the park would prepare for the 200th birthday of the nation as one of twenty-two 

officially designated Bicentennial areas.24 In anticipation, the National Park Service established 

the American Revolution Bicentennial Commission to learn more about and more fully develop 

its sites associated with the American Revolution and to celebrate the Bicentennial from 1975 to 

 

22 Elizabeth Disrude, “Statement for Management,” January 29, 1976, HOFU; Director Ronald H. 

Walker to All Field Directors, January 26, 1973, “HE317,” Central Files, HOFU. 23 Merrill J. Mattes, Landmarks of Liberty: A Report on the American Revolution Bicentennial 

Development Program of the National Park Service, (Washington, DC: History Division, National Park 

Service, Department of the Interior, 1989), 74. 24 Mattes, Landmarks of Liberty, 3. 
Preservation and Celebration 

163

1983.25 Former Chief Historian Edwin C. Bearss has suggested that the Bicentennial 

Development Program, officially a three year planning session from 1972 to 1975, ranked only 

behind the New Deal relief agencies and Mission 66 in terms of the impact and scope of work 

accomplished in national parks. At Hopewell Village NHS, the celebration manifested in 

intense research, living history demonstrations, and limited restoration work.26

 

In July of 1969, three prominent national office historians convened at the site to advise 

the park on its future development with regards to its Revolutionary connections and what the 

park needed to accomplish in anticipation of the upcoming Bicentennial. Guide and RangerHistorian Jane Henzi toured Roy Appleman (now Chief of Park History Studies), Historian John 

Luzader, and Chief Historian Robert Utley around Hopewell Village NHS. The three men 

commended Hopewell’s staff on their familiarity with the site’s history, and not surprisingly, 

designated it as an official Bicentennial area. While the living history demonstrations of skills 

like charcoal making and sand molding thrilled them, the group noted several issues for the park 

to address. Most notably, they worried about the status of architectural research, specifically the 

level of completion for the Historic Structure Reports, a necessary precedent for Hopewell’s 

remaining restorations and reconstructions. The group identified the Ironmaster’s House and 

the Blacksmith Shop as requiring the most architectural and historical information in order to 

determine the date and nature of restoration the Washington office would approve. While 

Historian Earl Heydinger had gathered extensive data on most the structures, he was far less 

productive at writing and producing final reports. The NPS visitors requested that Heydinger 

complete unfinished Historic Structures Reports (HSR) for the Ironmaster’s House and the 

Wheelwright House and submit new ones for Tenant House No. 2, the Boarding House, the 

Greenhouse, the Ice House, the East Headrace, the Blacksmith Shop, and the Schoolhouse. 

Lastly, the group advised the staff to stabilize the Greenhouse and Ice House, to reconstruct the 

Schoolhouse, and to rehabilitate the East Headrace tin order to amend the “hodge-podge of 

downed sections, shoddy repairs, good repairs, and CCC restoration” from the 1930s. (Over the 

years, organic matter filled the ditch and a wall had begun to collapse.) “It is hoped that the park 

can assume a relatively completed condition by the opening of the Bicentennial period in 1975,” 

 

25 Chief of Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation Ernest Allen Connelly to Chief of 

Division of Management Analysis, July 13, 1970, Hopewell NHS, Correspondence 1960-1975, Historical 

Files, WASO. 26 Mattes, Landmarks of Liberty. 
Preservation and Celebration 

164

summarized Appleman. From that day, all of the park’s planning energies were directed to 1976 

as a deadline, while research would focus almost exclusively on the revolutionary period.27

Less than a year after this assessment, the NPS reorganized its regional offices, and the 

newly established Northeast Regional Office critiqued Hopewell Village’s management in an 

Operations Evaluation Report, the first such review since 1964. Chief of Operations Evaluation 

James W. Godbolt, Division of Maintenance Chief Nathan B. Golub, and Interpretive Specialist 

Earl W. Estes visited the site from April 13-15, 1970, to make their recommendations for 

Hopewell’s future. They each agreed that several buildings needed repairs, restoration, and 

possibly reconstruction to prepare the park for the bicentennial. In addition to the report, 

Ernest Allen Connelly, Chief of the Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, commented 

on these requirements. Connelly’s office underlined the previous recommendations of the 

historians including allowing Heydinger, as opposed to the Denver or Washington based 

historians, to update the historical base maps and HSRs to correspond to the most recent 

narratives and formats. The report also advised a draft of management objectives, revision of the 

1964 Master Plan, a draft of a new Interpretive Prospectus, and Natural Resources Management 

Plan.28

The Bicentennial not only prompted a review of Hopewell’s development, but also 

raised questions about the Hopewell site’s significance and interpretation by placing a large 

amount of emphasis on the American Revolution’s colonial and early republic era. This 

complicated development issues since throughout the 1950s and 1960s the park had restored and 

reconstructed buildings to reflect the furnace’s prosperous period from 1820 to 1840. Recall that 

back in 1938, the Secretary of the Interior had designated Hopewell Village as a historic site due 

to its “relationship to the colonial history of the United States,” but soon afterwards planners 

determined the site had changed too much to resemble this early era.29 Forty-five years later, 

due to the Bicentennial, the NPS again wished to emphasize that Hopewell Village was typical of 

eighteenth-century furnaces, when its development policy largely reflected the nineteenth

 

27 Ibid.; Appleman, “Visit 8 July 1969,” Hopewell NHS, Correspondence 1960-1975, Historical 

Files, WASO; Elms, 1973 Annual Report, Hopewell Furnace NHS, HFC; 106 Effect Report, Hopewell 

Village NHS 1965-68, General Correspondence 1966-68, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P; 

Disrude, “Statement for Management,” 1976, HOFU. 28 Ernest Allan Connelly to Chief, Division of Management Analysis, July 13, 1970, Associate 

Regional Director George Palmer to Director, April 29, 1971, Hopewell Village NHS, Correspondence, 

1960-1975, WASO. 29 Acting Secretary of the Interior E. K. Burlew, Order of Designation, August 3, 1938, 3 F.R. 2039. 
Preservation and Celebration 

165

century. Controversy over the nature of the site’s connection to the American Revolution 

further questioned site significance and revealed the unevenness of Hopewell’s development 

policy over the years. Pennsylvania State Art and Architecture Professor Irwin Richman 

reviewed Hopewell Village in 1968 and complained that with such a mix of restored and 

reconstructed buildings, he wished the signage would inform the visitor about “what is original 

and what is not.” 30

From Village to Furnace: New Plans for Hopewell 

In anticipation of the Bicentennial, Franklin G. Collins and Dr. Nan Rickey of the NPS’s 

Denver Service Center (DSC) helped Superintendent Riddle draft a new Master Plan and 

Interpretive Prospectus for Hopewell Village NHS in 1972-3 to clarify and replace those set forth 

in the 1964 Master Plan. The DSC had consolidated planning, design, and construction duties 

into one central office (replacing the regionally based EODC and WODC).31 The DSC planning 

team determined that the physical development of Hopewell should follow the parameters 

established during Mission 66 and focus on the years between 1820 and 1840. In accordance 

with the NPS reconstruction policies, structures post-dating that period should be stabilized, 

preserved, or used for administrative purposes, but not restored or reconstructed. In other 

words, Hopewell would still reflect the 1820-1840 period, but the park would also preserve stillexisting structures outside the “golden age” of operation, such as the Anthracite Furnace. 

In addition to preservation issues, the team also addressed the long-contested issue of 

significance. The documents charged that the park’s focus had wandered too far away from its 

industrial significance, concentrating instead on issues of the “village” or community. This 

notion of an idealistic, peaceful, rural community fed into visitors’ expectations as they entered 

the hills and trees that made the area so attractive as recreational spot.32 The park needed to 

return to the furnace, not the Ironmaster’s House and iron community as the focus of 

restoration, reconstruction, furnishings, and interpretive programs. The planning team argued 

that in historic times, the furnace 

 

30 Irwin Richman, Exhibit Review of “Hopewell Village National Historic Site,” in Technology and 

Culture 9, no, 2 (1968), 213-217. 

31 Denver Service Center, “A Master Plan: Hopewell Village NHS,” (1972), Section 106 Files, 

NERO-P. 32 Ibid. 
Preservation and Celebration 

166

was the feature around which all life in the village revolved, and it was not a quiet presence 

that could be ignored with any ease...Hopewell was a village built around an inferno. The 

absence of this force today is both misleading to visitors and disrespectful to the men and 

women who labored here. The furnace was their master—much more than the man in the 

Big House—and we should bend strenuous efforts to restore at least an impression of its 

power.33

 

The 1973 Interpretive Prospectus called for at least three more restorations: the furnace, 

the Ironmaster’s House, and the Bethesda Baptist Church. The planners and interpretive 

specialists of the 1970s were dissatisfied and disappointed with the 1940s stabilization and 

restoration of the furnace that made it impossible to use it “either in, or to suggest, its historic 

capacity,” and called for further study to “bring it back to life.” “Unless the furnace can once 

again be made the dominant feature in the vicinity,” they contended, “we will not have 

succeeded in communicating the site’s real significance.” 34 The planners hoped for a structure 

that could convey more than a visual impression, offering heat, a roar, light, fumes, dust, and 

perhaps even produce some quantities of iron.35

 

A meeting at the Mid-Atlantic Regional Office, which included Superintendent Elms, 

reviewed both the new Interpretive Prospectus and a new Master Plan. Mid-Atlantic Regional 

Director Chester Brooks suggested several revisions and reconciled the primary difference 

between the two: whether or not the furnace should be made to operate. All agreed that the new 

Master Plan’s proposal to bring the furnace back to full operation was not a realistic goal, but 

rather the park should simulate its operation as proposed in the Interpretive Prospectus.36

Historic structures not required for interpretation would house administrative functions. Even 

though the Visitor Center was barely over a decade old, they contended, it was an outdated 

intrusion. A new one, in a new location, would change circulation patterns and stress the “the 

primacy of the furnace amidst the other structures, a dramatic and historic approach to the 

furnace, and be large enough to accommodate a rise in visitation. In the meantime, the utility 

court would serve as the site of all management activities not directly related to Visitor Services. 

 

33 Nan Rickey, Frank Barnes, Franklin Collins, Earl Heydinger, William Jedlick, Lawrence Nash, 

Larry Points, John Riddle, and Norman Souder, Planning Team, “Interpretive Prospectus: Hopewell 

Village National Historic Site,” Lakewood, CO: Denver Service Center, National Park Service, 1973. 34 Nan Rickey, et al., “Interpretive Prospectus,” 12. 35 Ibid. 

36 Regional Director Chester L. Brooks to Nan Rickey, Northeast Team, Denver Service Center, 

March 6, 1975, 4217 106 Compliance, Central Files, HOFU. 
Preservation and Celebration 

167

The ENPMA or private party contracts would handle all the park’s sales needs.37 Lastly, Brooks 

advised changing the existing environmental impact statement in the Master Plan to an 

environmental assessment statement in order to gain final approval. These revisions were never 

completed, and hence the 1972 Master Plan was never approved leaving the 1964 Master Plan as 

the most recent document to guide the park’s management decisions. However, the Interpretive 

Prospectus, which was approved and ascribed to the restoration of Hopewell Village to its 

“golden age,” would serve as a guide the park’s planning document in subsequent years.38

The planners also disagreed with the decisions of their predecessors over restoring the 

Ironmaster’s House. “The Big House causes visual disturbance, and diminishes the credibility of 

the entire site.” They called for all of the architectural elements not native to the 1820-1840 peak 

period (the porch, some windows, a gable, and a bathroom) removed to bring it “in harmony” 

with the rest of the Park.39 Again, the regional officers rejected the idea, citing “new thinking” at 

the Washington level that it may not be possible or even historically desirable to remove all later 

alterations” as those elements might later be important to interpretation.40 The Bethesda 

Church would be the last restoration they advised. While it would not be used as part of the site 

interpretation, it was an important historic building.41

 

Conservative Construction 

The legislative requirements of the Historic Preservation Act, specifically the Section 106 

process, and the new restrictive policies of the NPS launched significant challenges to any plans 

to completely recreate any part of the village through reconstruction. However, planners 

continued to try and push development activity forward within the parameters of the 1964 plan 

and often with the support of the regional office. In addition to the resources already discussed, 

the planners had also suggested the Schoolhouse, Wagon Shed, and Wheelwright Shop for 

reconstruction in order to complete the idea of a self-contained community. And, while not 

absolutely necessary, they admitted, reconstruction of the Smokehouse, the Greenhouse, and 

 

37 Rickey, Master Plan, “Management Objectives,” Lakewood, CO: Denver Service Center, 

National Park Service, 1972; Regional Director Chester Brooks to Manager, DSC. March 6, 1975, D18 

Master Plan Correspondence 1952-1975, HOFU. 

38 Elms, Annual Report, 1973, Annual Reports, Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, HFC; 

Brooks to Rickey, March 6, 1975, 4217 106 Compliance, Central Files, HOFU. 39 Rickey, et al., “Interpretive Prospectus,” 1973, 13. 

40 Brooks to Rickey, March 6, 1975, 4217 106 Compliance, Central Files, HOFU. 
Preservation and Celebration 

168

the Ice/Summer House would “reinforce our goal of making the village as a believable human 

community.”42 The most controversial development issue involved the reconstruction of the 

Wheelwright Shop (identified by some as the Cleaning Shed), for which DSC historian John 

Albright re-wrote the Historic Structure report in 1974. Archeologist Leland Abel had written a 

fairly brief report in 1964 concluding that his findings did not find adequate information to 

locate the Wheelwright Shop. A meeting scheduled for September 1974 aimed to resolve 

disagreements and add the building to the list of projects approved for Bicentennial funding. 

Regional Director Chester Brooks, Historian Earl Heydinger, and Superintendent Elms 

advocated its reconstruction based on photographs from 1887 and 1896. “Since that building 

played so very important a part in the production of castings at the Village, its absence makes it 

virtually impossible to tell the Park’s story,” Brooks argued. He urged an immediate decision in 

order to meet the Bicentennial deadline.43

Robert Utley, former Chief Historian and the Assistant Director of Park Historic 

Preservation, as well as Merrill Mattes, Manager of the Historic Preservation Team at the 

Denver Service Center, put an end to Brooks’s plans. As part of the new, post-NHPA guard, 

they felt that only those reconstructions essential to the “understanding and appreciation of the 

historical associations for which the park was established” were justified and that the National 

Park Service needed to spend its limited funding far more wisely on the preservation of existing

structures. In order to gain support for reconstructions, Mattes and Utley told Regional 

Director Brooks he would have to address the following issues in a convincing statement: 

Professional ethics should dictate that the Park Service should not attempt any 

reconstruction without having complete information. Archeologists and Historians had 

never found any reliable factual data about the architecture, location and furnishings of 

the Wheelwright House. In addition, the “new” look of a reconstruction would create an 

aesthetic intrusion on the “patina” of the other original structures. In summary, Historian 

Albright argued that there is insufficient data to reconstruct the building or even prove 

that it existed; that reconstruction violates policy, that there are ethical and aesthetic 

aspects to the question; and that the necessary legal clearance to build might be 

impossible to obtain.”44

 41 See Chapter VII. 

42 Rickey, et al., “Interpretive Prospectus,” 1973. 

43 Brooks to Mattes, DSC, August 15, 1974, Brooks to Utley, WASO, September 3, 1974, 1960-1974, 

WASO; Wallace Elms to Brooks, June 5, 1974, Brooks to Manager, Historic Preservation Team, DSC, n.d., 44 Mattes to Brooks, Sept 13, 1974, Utley to Brooks, Regional Director, December 11, 1974, 

Hopewell, Correspondence, 1960-74, Historical Files, WASO. 
Preservation and Celebration 

169

Brooks defensively argued that in the case of the Wheelwright shop, reconstruction 

could be justified because the structure was essential to telling the story of the iron industry at 

Hopewell. Photographs, substantiated by historical witness Harker Long in the 1930s, would 

provide sufficient data regarding the look and location of the structure. Its mish-mosh of 

architectural styles would reflect the dynamism of the community, and eventually the new 

building would fade and blend with the original, restored structures anyway. “Like the 

reconstructed buildings at Appomattox Courthouse,” Brooks contended, “we believe this 

reconstruction would add immeasurably to Hopewell’s historic scene and its interpretation.”45

 

In addition, Brooks suggested that the Washington and Denver offices were jumping to 

conclusions about whether or not the Wheelwright Shop met compliance standards. Clearly 

irritated, Brooks maintained that in some cases, the review process tended to discount the 

recommendations of administrators over their own parks. “There is a tendency on the part of 

some offices to feel that their professional judgments should represent the final answers on 

projects...The general tone of Mr. Mattes’ memorandum suggests that park and Regional staff’s 

lack ethical backbone and professional competence.”46 In spite of Brooks’s protests, Utley 

continued to insist that the Wheelwright Shop was not essential to the interpretation of 

Hopewell Village, nor did sufficient data exist for its reconstruction. It served no direct role in 

ironmaking process, was built after the 1820-1840 interpretive period, and the park had only 

“reasonably well determined” the location. Even as time gradually brought the building closer 

to aesthetic compatibility, its existence “would become something of a fraud” and only serve as 

“another maintenance demand.”47

The Bicentennial's development period sponsored few new construction projects: plans 

to restore the Ironmaster's House, installation of an underground electric line in 1973, 

archeological work on the Schoolhouse area, and the expansion of the water system in 1974. The 

park reaped lasting benefits in the $19,246 restoration of Blacksmith Shop in 1975, even though 

the project primarily addressed repairs and aimed to correct past work. The maintenance staff 

had already restored the building in 1949-50, but the work was shoddy, and untreated wood was 

crumbling. Besides, the earlier work still did not reflect the restoration period of 1820-1840. 

John Albright and Norman Souder (both now at the Denver Service Center) completed the 

 

45 Utley to Brooks, October 11, 1974, Hopewell, Correspondence, 1960-74, Historical Files, WASO. 

46 Brooks to Utley, October 24, 1974, Hopewell, Correspondence, 1960-74, Historical Files, WASO. 
Preservation and Celebration 

170

HSR. When the Blacksmith Shop underwent reconstruction a second time following a fire in 

1980, NPS Architect Charles Peterson’s plans guided and completed the repairs by the following 

summer.48

New Leadership 

Wally Elms left Hopewell Village just before the height of bicentennial celebrations in 

September of 1975. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, Hopewell’s superintendent appointments 

tended to target people who could stress a new aspect of the park’s history and expand its visitor 

base. Elizabeth Disrude (October 26, 1975-February 27, 1988), the Mid-Atlantic Region’s first 

female superintendent, carried Hopewell through the 1970s and into the 80s. Disrude had 

worked her way up from a clerk-typist to an administrative officer at Perry’s Victory and 

International Peace Memorial National Monument in Ohio, but she had always wanted to work 

at Hopewell.49 Disrude’s appointment reflected the efforts of the National Park Service to 

respond to the growing women’s rights movement. The local newspaper even surmised, “As the 

new Superintendent, Mrs. Disrude may well make Berks Countians and other visitors aware that 

women, as wives and homemakers, played an important part in the early history of this colonial 

village whose furnace turned out pig iron that could be used to make stoves and other domestic 

utensils.”50 While the bureaucratic Disrude’s tenure was largely characterized by “nuts and 

bolts” micro-management (she toured the park with a notebook of assignments each morning), 

she and her staff, who included Chief Ranger Joseph Lee Boyle, managed to complete a couple 

of more construction projects at Hopewell.51

Perhaps her desire to emphasize the domestic (in addition to the technological and 

industrial) inspired Disrude to push for the long-awaited $200,000 rehabilitation on the 

 47 Utley to Brooks, December 11, 1974, Hopewell, Correspondence, 1960-74, Historical Files, 

WASO. 

48 1974 Annual Report, Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, HFC; Regional Director James 

Coleman Jr. to Associate Director, Management and Operations, WASO, December 15, 1980, H50 1977, 

079-920036, E-4700576 2, Records Center; Lawrence Coryell, MARO, to Chief of Contracting and 

Property Management, December 10, 1976, "HOVI Bicentennial File," NERO-P. 49 Disrude, Annual Report, October 27, 1975, Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, HFC. 

Carol L. Martin, “Hopewell Post...,” Reading Eagle (October 29, 1975). 50 “Hopewell Village Gets a New Look with Woman Head,” Reading Eagle (October 28, 1975). 51 Bitler, Interview, July 25, 2003; Gergle, Interview, July 24, 2003; Mike Kilareski, Interview with 

Leah S. Glaser, July 25, 2003. 
Preservation and Celebration 

171

Ironmaster’s House. Although the Bicentennial's regional program manager objected to 

completing gutting the house's interior, repairs, refurnishings, window replacements, and the 

installation of steel structural framing, fire and intrusion alarm systems, and drainage systems 

closed the “Big House” for a little over a year. By the time it reopened in May of 1981, it reflected 

Clement Brooke’s home of the early nineteenth century.52 The open house and reception hosted 

42 descendants of the Brooke and Clingan families.53

 

Disrude had far less luck on bringing attention to the other resources. Without the 

approval of the 1972 Master Plan, and under the restrictions of the NHPA, it was impossible to 

get financial support for the construction projects the DSC team had recommended. Cultural 

resource specialists ruled out remaining reconstruction efforts at Hopewell because they did not 

comply with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation and the new 

conservative NPS policies.54 The 1975 NPS Management Policies set very rigid standards, making 

reconstruction a considerably more formidable and complicated resource management option 

for most parks than in the past. In the late 1970s, the numbers of those against the idea of 

reconstruction only grew in NPS historians like Richard Sellars, Dwight Pitcaithley, and Barry 

Mackintosh. The general public, however, remained largely supportive of reconstructions.55

While Congress amended the 1980 Historic Preservation Act to define reconstruction as part of 

preservation, the 1985 edition of Cultural Resource Management Guideline NPS-28 stated 

emphatically that “the Service does not endorse, support, or encourage the reconstruction of 

historic structures.”56 When William Penn Mott Jr. became NPS Director, he was more 

supportive of reconstruction and amended the NPS’s Management Policies in 1988 to include 

reconstruction as a viable alternative for preservation in the NPS. However, the policies 

retained the restrictive 1975 criteria. 

 

52 Lawrence Coryell to Regional Director, February 13, 1976, "HOVI Bicentennial File, NERO-P; 

Regional Director Richard L. Stanton to State Historic Preservation Officer Ed Weintraub, July 24, 1979, 

“Correspondence 1975-,” Hopewell NHS, Historical Files, WASO; Gary Catt, “Hopewell Reopens 

Ironmaster’s House: Original Elegance is Restored,” December 22, 1980, “Hopewell Village,” Reading 

Public Library. 53 Disrude, 1981 Annual Report, April 8, 1982, Hopewell Furnace National Historic Park, HFC. 54 Derrick Cook, “Statement for Management: Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site,” 

(October 1993), 23. Copy at HOFU. 55 See Matzko, Reconstructing Fort Union. 56 Mackintosh, “To Reconstruct or Not to Reconstruct,”CRM Bulletin 13, no. 1 (1990); Sellars and 

Pitcaithley, “Reconstructions,” CRM Bulletin 2, no. 4 (1979); Matzko Reconstructing Fort Union, 5. 
Preservation and Celebration 

172

In light of these trends, the resources that received attention for the duration of 

Disrude’s tenure were largely for the purpose of repair and stabilization. The Youth 

Conservation Corps spent its first of many Hopewell summers reconstructing the East 

Headrace. They built a tool shed and office headquarters, and they would regularly reconstruct 

the Collier’s Hut as needed for demonstrations.57 By 1976 all of Hopewell Village’s other ruins 

continued to erode until work crews finally repaired the roof of the Connecting Shed in 1976, 

and stabilized the Schoolhouse and the Greenhouse ruins in 1977. Workers waterproofed the 

village structures in 1978. Chief Ranger and Historian Boyle and Interpretation Ranger Guy 

Lachine initiated some preservation work when they commissioned the Williamsport Historic 

Preservation Training Center to rehabilitate the crumbling waterwheel, originally restored back 

in 1952. That same year they also surveyed the charcoal hearths for future preservation 

planning.58

Visitor Safety and Park Protection 

By the 1980s, the importance of interpretation and restoration issues at Hopewell 

Furnace NHS had finally begun to wind down and various threats to park safety became the 

superintendent’s primary concern. Indeed, by the time she retired, Disrude had left almost all 

decisions regarding park development and interpretation to Chief Ranger Boyle. Safety to 

visitors had been a serious consideration at Hopewell since the introduction of a permanent 

ranger in the 1960s. Steep grades and steps in the village and loose slag surfaces offered hazards 

to handicapped guests.59 Even for others, the ruins posed dangers. Maintenance crews regularly 

cleared the roads and walkways throughout the historic village, and uniformed employees 

remained cognizant of poison ivy, bee nests, weak or rotted fences, and stair rails. Construction 

areas were barricaded and posted with warning signs. To protect the collections, live-in 

 

57 Diann L. Jacox and Joseph Lee Boyle, National Register of Historic Places-Nomination Form, 

1985; Regional Director James Coleman Jr. to Larry Tise, SHPO, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum 

Commission, October 25, 1983, “Correspondence 1975-,” Hopewell NHS, Historical Files, WASO; Lee A. 

Applegate, “Hard Work, Good Times at Hopewell,” Courier (September 1980), 5. 

58 Coryell to Regional Director, February 13, 1976, NERO-P; “Water-proofing of Historic 

Structures,” August 8, 1978, Mid-Atlantic Region, National Park Service, DSC/TIC; Elizabeth Disrude, 

“Threats to the Park,” 5, Central Files, HOFU; Gergle, Interview, July 24, 2003; Bitler, Interview, July 25, 

2003. 59 Acting Superintendent Robert Ronsheim to Elbert Cox, November 19, 1959, Hopewell Village 

NHS, 1959-64, General Correspondence, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 
Preservation and Celebration 

173

personnel, closed circuit TV, and alarm pads in buildings with artifacts supplemented barriers. 

The park began locking the entrance road gate by sunset. Disrude also worried that the closing 

of Bethlehem Steel in Pottstown would raise unemployment, increase visitation, and that many 

of these newly idle persons would encourage the intrusion of hunting from French Creek State 

Park. Drinking parties and littering on the 3/4 of a mile Harrison Lloyd Road threatened 

vandalism. She hoped to improve law enforcement problems by entering a cooperative 

agreement with the state park.60 By the 1980s, issues of protection extended to the park itself. 

Industrial, Recreational, and Residential Development 

The urban sprawl and infrastructure development that had prompted historic 

preservation legislation in the 1960s had reached rural Pennsylvania. Housing developments, 

shopping malls, and sanitary facilities threatened precious resources like water supplies and the 

very atmosphere of the park. In February 1983 the town of Birdsboro contacted Superintendent 

Disrude to request the park’s support in opposing the construction of a landfill by Chestnut Hill 

B&M, Incorporated near the Birdsboro watershed. It would be located just a little over three 

miles from the park’s northern boundary and the company would use an abandoned rock 

quarry to store municipal waste for about thirty years. In their defense, Birdsboro, along with 

Robeson and Union townships founded BRUTAL (Birdsboro, Robeson, Union Taskforce 

Against the Landfill). With concerns over the potential noise and the impact of heavy truck 

traffic on Pennsylvania State Route 345, constructed as a road to protect Hopewell Village from 

twentieth-century intrusions, Disrude quickly lent the group her support. Berks County’s plans 

to build a steam-operated incinerator in 1986 posed a similar danger. Actively opposed by local 

groups, the park raised concerns about air quality, excess trash hauled past the park in large 

trucks, and spilling pollutants into water supply and soil.61

Meanwhile, the State Department of Environmental Resources proposed building an 

emergency spillway at the north end of the Hopewell Dam on historic site lands. Located only 

 

60 Emergency Operations Committee, “Park Safety Study: Hopewell Village National Historic 

Site,” June 16, 1964, Hopewell Village NHS, 1959-64, General Correspondence, Northeast Regional Office, 

RG 79, NARA-P; Rickey, et al., “Interpretive Plan,” 1973; Disrude, “Statement for Management,” 1976, 

HOFU; Elizabeth Disrude, “Statement for Management: Hopewell Village National Historic Site,” 

January 13, 1981, HOFU. 61 Acting Superintendent Joseph L. Boyle to Donald W. Bagenstose, November 12, 1986, N1621 

“Threats to the Park,” Central Files, HOFU. 
Preservation and Celebration 

174

100 yards away from the edge of the historic village, the spillway would not just be an 

“intrusion,” but it threatened to destroy both cultural and natural resources (specifically a large 

portion of the West Headrace and several popular trails). While June 1972’s Hurricane Agnes 

had flooded the village and torn apart resources like the tailrace, Hopewell Dam held. However, 

a 1980 inspection identified it as an “unsafe non-emergency.” The U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers even indicated it might fail in the “in the event of a 100 year flood.”62 Harpers Ferry 

Center’s Heath Pemberton took the case to Chief Historian Ed Bearss. “A pristine wooded area 

would be destroyed at Hopewell merely to avoid possibly disrupting facilities in the State 

Park.”63

French Creek State Park 

Priorities of French Creek State Park threatened Hopewell in other ways as well. The 

state planned a new recreational complex that included 300 campsites within walking distance 

from Hopewell Village, a half-acre swimming pool with support facilities, a spray irrigation 

(sewage treatment) system, and an upgraded road and parking lot.64 The development 

threatened to harm several of Hopewell’s historical resources with additional litter, truck refuse, 

fires, waste spills, and the essential destruction of the area’s environmental integrity without any 

concern exhibited from the state park’s superintendent.65

As the state park expanded its facilities, it also looked to develop a sanitation 

infrastructure in the form of a sewage system. In the early 1970s, consultants determined that 

the park could best dispose of and treat its wastewater through spray irrigation instead of 

discharging it into French Creek.66 For its part, Hopewell hoped to tie into the central sewage 

 

62 1982 Annual Report, HOFU, HFC. 

63 1971 Annual Report, HOFU, HFC; Heath Pemberton to Ed Bearss, March 8, 1983. 

64 Disrude to James Coleman Jr., November 13, 1987, Finnerty to Disrude, December 1, 1986, Chief, 

Park Planning, Site Visit Report, May 23, 1989, N1621 “Threats to the Park,” Hopewell Village Historic Site, 

Central Files, HOFU; William Sharpe and C. William Neff, Hopewell Furnace NHS, Water Resource 

Management Plan, Final Report ( Washington, DC, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, 

November 1993). Copy in HOFU Library. 

65 Thomas B. Adams to Disrude, February 3, 1983, Disrude to James Coleman Jr., February 7, 1983, 

November 12, 1986, Leon T. Gonshor to Disrude, February 24, 1988, James Coleman Jr. to Wayne Lynn, 

August 27, 1984, N1621, “Threats to the Park,” Central Files, HOFU. 66 Superintendent Gibbs even dismissed fire as a worry in the protection of collections. Gibbs, 

Superintendent to Regional Director, July 22, 1949, W File, Central Files, HOFU; R. J. Schoenberger to 

Alfred Wertz, October 28, 1971. Section 106 Files, NERO-P. 
Preservation and Celebration 

175

treatment facility in the town of Birdsboro and further suggested that the state park might even 

try to do the same.67 Eventually, the opposition of the National Park Service to any sewage 

disposal facilities near Hopewell forced the state to look for alternative sites. Planners found 

that Mount Pleasure served just as well as the alternate spray disposal site.68

Even more critical than the threats from French Creek State Park was the need for a 

Land Protection Plan. Buffered on three sides by French Creek, Hopewell’s past managers had 

never been all that concerned with the issue until suburban developers increasingly eyed the 

empty fields of southeastern Pennsylvania.69 Until the late 1970s, the private landowners on 

lands within Warwick Township barely responded to the slow creep of urban expansion, but 

then hired a land-planning specialist to set standards for long-range growth control. In spite of 

such measures, plans for nearby Morgantown included golf courses, hotels, sports, residential, 

and industrial complexes, and even an amusement park. Union Township hoped to approve 

housing developments that might threaten Hopewell’s water quality and supply. William and 

Eva Sweidel sold their adjacent 108-acre property (later known as the Deepwater Tract) in 

September of 1986. The National Park Service had identified the area for acquisition back in 

1945, and prepared a justification for acquiring the land in the southeast, but before the park 

could get approval to purchase it, a new owner planned a heliport, riding ring, and new horse 

barn in 1980.70

 

Throughout the mid-1980s, Disrude, Joseph Lee Boyle, and Disrude’s successors Russell 

Smith and Derrick Cook felt they could not solely rely on citizen activism to protect the integrity 

of the park’s “historic scene.” They continued to argue for an expanded park boundary as the 

“most critical” issue for long-term park preservation. “Without protection of adjacent lands the 

historic scene will be severely degraded and significant related resources will be lost as has 

happened at so many other parks,” Disrude pleaded.71 Unfortunately, the lack of an updated 

 

67 Elms to Regional Director, August 15, 1974; Lawrence Masters to Hydraulic Engineer Joseph 

Karban, October 17, 1974. 68 Maurice Goddard to Deputy Director John Cook, November 5, 1976. 

69 Acting Superintendent Hugins to Regional Director, Hopewell Village 1952-60, 

Correspondence, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 70 Disrude to James Coleman Jr., February 7, 1983, November 12, 1986, Gonshor to Disrude, 

February 24, 1988. 71 Disrude to James Coleman Jr., November 13, 1987, N1621 “Threats to the Park,” Hopewell Village 

Historic Site, Finnerty to Disrude, December 1, 1986, Larry Clauser, “Housing Plan Worries Park Leaders: 

43 Homes Proposed near French Creek, Hopewell Parks, The Pottstown Mercury (May 31, 1989), Central 

Files, HOFU. 
Preservation and Celebration 

176

Master or General Management Plan (GMP) prevented any justification for the requests. In 

1986 the Mid-Atlantic Region’s Chief of Land Resources, Herbert Rothenberg, agreed with 

Superintendent Disrude’s request for a boundary modification, but could not acquire the buffer 

zone without the proper funding appropriation.72 “The current discussion seems to point out the 

need for a GMP to define what the historic scene is and what our objectives are in landscape 

preservation,” Acting Superintendent Russell Smith argued in 1988.73 By May 1991 none of these 

issues had resolved themselves, however the non-profit land conservation group, Natural Lands 

Trust, began to (and continues to) acquire the land southeast of Bethesda Church by donation 

and convert it into natural preserves for “passive recreation.”74

National Register Nominations 

If federal land acquisition was unsuccessful, historic preservation strategies offered 

additional protection for the park’s buffer zone. The federal and state governments, as well as 

private conservation groups all contributed to fulfilling the intention of NHPA and protecting 

Hopewell’s resources. When the National Register required all of the parks to submit 

documentation in 1985, Hopewell Furnace was cited for “its association with the American 

Revolution, as well as its long life as an industrial community, representative of the hundreds of 

charcoal ironworks, which once flourished in the Eastern United States.” As part of its district, 

the regional office’s Diane Jacox and Hopewell’s Joseph Lee Boyle listed fifty park resources 

contributing to site significance. At the time, the nomination listed the CCC-constructed 

Baptism Creek Picnic Shelter and Concession Building as “non-contributing” structures. But in 

1994 the Deputy Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the National 

Register staff accepted the Regional Office’s determination that the ECW/CCC affiliation was a 

legitimate contributing theme, making the picnic shelter and concession buildings (and other 

intact Hopewell structures) eligible for the NRHP. In late 1986, the SHPO approved a Bureau of 

State Parks nomination for ECW architecture in the state’s parks that included two historic 

 

72 Chief Herbert Rothernberg, Land Resources Division, MARO, to Associate Regional Director 

Maureen Finnerty, Management and Operations, MARO, September 30, 1985, National Register Files, 

NERO-P. 73 Acting Superintendent Russell P. Smith to Finnerty, MARO, March 21, 1988, N1621 “Threats to 

the Park,” Hopewell Village Historic Site, Central Files, HOFU. 74 National Lands Trust, “About NLT,” http://www.natlands.org/aboutnlt/aboutnlt.html 

(accessed May 15, 2003). 
Preservation and Celebration 

177

districts in French Creek (CCC Camp SP-17 Historic District and Six Penny Lake Day Use 

Historic District). The National Register accepted this thematic nomination in 1987, thereby 

officially recognizing the significance of New Deal resources at Hopewell and French Creek.75

 

In 1995 the North Warwick Historic and Archeological District, which included part of 

Hopewell Furnace NHS in Chester County, expanded the historic buffer zone even further. 

This nomination was conducted for the French and Pickering Creek Conservation Trusts.76

Return to Staffing Problems 

In addition to all of the environmental threats, low funding and a small staff put the 

preservation and maintenance of Hopewell’s collections, structures, and trails at risk.77 In spite 

of her efforts to “run a tight ship,” Superintendent Disrude saw high employee turnover as the 

solid staff of the 1960s and 70s begin to slip away.78 When Earl Heydinger retired in October of 

1976 (although he had been on sick leave since April), Park Ranger Hooper W. Morrow from 

Natchez Trace Parkway joined the staff as a ranger until 1980, when he transferred to the 

Department of Fish and Wildlife. Larry Masters took over in the position of Chief of 

Interpretation and Resource Management. Other rangers rotated in and out of positions. The 

NPS did not hire another historian for Hopewell. After a brief stay by another ranger named 

Michael John, Joseph Lee Boyle assumed the management of the Interpretation and Resource 

Management staff in 1981. Rangers James Ebert and William Lutz left soon afterwards, and 

Richard Wolf and Janet Kennedy filled their positions. Long-time painter Daniel Miller suffered 

a stroke in 1979. John Kowalski first replaced him, and eventually the park just hired contractors. 

 

75 Diann L. Jacox and Joseph Lee Boyle, National Register of Historic Places-Registration Form, 

1985, Chief J. Keith Everett, for Regional Director B. J. Griffin to Brent D. Glass, SHPO, August 2, 1994, 

Determination of Eligibility, Mark Luellen; Brenda Barrett, Department SHPO, to Griffin, August 18, 1994, 

Bonnie J. Halda for Chief, Park Historic Preservation Division, MARO, Everett to Chief, National 

Register Branch, Interagency Resources Division [Carol Schull], WASO, September 1, 1994, Patrick O’ 

Bannon and William R. Henry Jr., John Milner Associates, Inc. for Bureau of State Parks, Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Resources, NRHP Nomination Form, October 15, 1986, copies in HOFU 

National Register Files, NERO-P. 

76 Estelle Cremers for French Creek and Pickering Creeks Conservation Trust, NRHP 

Nomination Form, 1994, copy in HOFU National Register Files, NERO-P. 77 William Penn Mott, Director Briefing Statements, September 1986, A1619, Central Files, Bally 

Building, HOFU. 

78 Barbara Gergle, Interview, July 24, 2003. 
Preservation and Celebration 

178

Carpenter Kenneth Reitz resigned in July 1979.79 When Charlie Seidel retired in 1987, Frank 

Terbosic replaced him.80

 

However, the Gramm-Rudman budget cuts of the mid-1980s along with continued 

visitation and maintenance demands, ensured that the park would have a perpetual need for a 

carpenter, visitor services, and a museum curator. The NHPA mandated resource management 

duties be assigned to park rangers, so it allowed the rangers less time for visitor services. With 

one supervisor, 1.8 GS-581 park rangers, seven seasonals, and one farmer, visitors received very 

little interpretation at Hopewell Village. The chronic lack of sufficient staffing led to resource 

deterioration, forced the interpretive program to encourage self-guiding, and relied almost 

exclusively on volunteers to operate a living history program. Volunteers in Parks, or VIPs (over 

150 in 1982), the Youth and Student Conservation Corps, and the Chester County Youth 

Employment Program supplemented summer staff.82

 

In 1988 Hopewell Village NHS, renamed Hopewell Furnace NHS in 1985, celebrated its 

50th anniversary and said goodbye to Elizabeth Disrude after twelve long years, surpassing 

Riddle for the longest administration at the park. With her departure, Hopewell Furnace was 

about to face some of its most serious managerial challenges. After Disrude’s retirement, Russell 

Smith from the Philadelphia Regional Office acted as interim superintendent from February to 

July of 1988 when Derrick Cook arrived from Frederick Douglass National Historic Site. Smith 

oversaw a difficult transition period, exacerbated by difficult personnel issues, office politics, 

and personality conflicts. The park’s longtime administrative officer, Helmie Malizzi, retired 

soon after Disrude. Secretary Barbara Gergle found herself suddenly overwhelmed with budget 

issues, and Smith had difficulty establishing authority during his brief tenure due to 

disagreements between park employees and the region about the future of Hopewell. Employee 

tensions continued after Cook’s appointment as Hopewell’s first African American 

superintendent. The revolving door of Regional Directors (seven during Cook's seven-year 

administration) further undermined his leadership effectiveness. Employee turnover continued

under Cook.

83

 Boyle transferred to Valley Forge. Also, Chief of Maintenance Frank Terbosic

 

79 Disrude, 1976 Annual Report, March 10, 1977, Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, HFC. 80 Disrude, 1987 Annual Report, April 7, 1988, Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, HFC. 81 “GS-5” refers to the pay grade for park rangers. 

82 Ibid., Disrude, 1980 Annual Report, March 11, 1981, Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, 

HFC; “Statement of Interpretation,” 1988, 11; Cook, “Statement for Management,” 1993. 

83 Derrick Cook, Phone interview by Leah S. Glaser, August 27, 2003. 
Preservation and Celebration 

179

Cook and his Chief Ranger Jim Corless initiated important reports for park planning: the 

List of Classified Structures, the Resource Management Plan, and the Cultural Landscape 

Report, but he found it particularly difficult to finagle money for reports for Hopewell. Cook 

spent a great deal of time trying to establish local connections. In addition to talks with the 

French Creek administrators and bonding with other nearby historic sites (i.e. the Daniel Boone 

Homestead), he began the Friends of Hopewell Furnace in order to supplement the park’s 

dwindling staff and budget with publicity and fund-raising. Cook had worked with similar 

groups before at Independence and Frederick Douglass and felt it would benefit a park with 

limited administrative resources like Hopewell. The group started small, but under Cook’s 

successor, Josie Fernandez, the Friends organization became extremely active. Due to the 

budgetary constraints, the park continued to lean heavily upon volunteers as well as the Friends 

to continue living history demonstrations, organize speakers, and sponsor new special events to 

attract audiences. The latter included a wedding program in period costume and a Springtime 

Apple Blossom Festival.84

Jim Corless shared many of the managerial responsibilities during Cook’s tenure, but 

Josie Fernandez arrived to replace Cook as a dynamic, albeit inexperienced, park leader. Like 

her predecessors, Hopewell was Fernandez’s first superintendent position and she used the 

park as a training ground. Having worked in the Mid-Atlantic Regional Office as the public 

affairs officer, she relied heavily on her staff to advise her on field operations. A charismatic 

personality, Fernandez concentrated primarily on outreach during her tenure, especially toward 

the rising Hispanic population in Reading. Her energy and self-described “cheerleading” also 

injected creative life and enthusiasm into the staff and she encouraged ideas that would 

publicize the park. As someone fresh to the position and the areas, she also persuaded other 

park superintendents in the Chesapeake sub-cluster to allocate more funding to Hopewell 

Furnace. At the same time, she worked to scale back other financial demands and work to 

clearly articulate the park’s needs in a request for more budget money. In 1998 Fernandez left 

Hopewell just before the celebration of the park’s sixtieth anniversary to assume the 

superintendent post at Women’s Rights National Historical Park.85

 

84 Russell Smith, Phone interview by Leah S. Glaser, July 8, 2003; Frank Hebblethwaite, Interview 

by Leah S. Glaser, July 24, 2003; Gergle, Interview, July 24, 2003; Jeffrey Collins, Interview by Leah S. 

Glaser, July 24, 2003; Cook, Interview, August 27, 2003. 

85 Hebblethwaite, Interview, July 24, 2003; Gergle, Interview, July 24, 2003; Collins, Interview, July 

24, 2003; Josie Fernandez, Phone Interview by Leah S. Glaser, August 28, 2003. 
Preservation and Celebration 

180

The sixtieth anniversary offered the park an opportunity for some much needed 

publicity. The Friends group organized several workshops and performances. Ranger Frank 

Hebblethwaite arranged for jazz musician Howard Armstrong, who grew up in Tennessee iron 

furnace town, to play at the park, a performance that attracted over 300 people. Hebblethwaite 

also arranged for Hopewell’s superintendent to throw out the first pitch at the Reading Phillies 

baseball game. It was new Superintendent Bill Sanders’ first official act. 

Over the last thirty-five years, physical development at Hopewell has taken a backseat as 

park leadership and staff focused on natural resources, artifact preservation, and visitor services. 

The demands of the National Historic Preservation Act, a decrease in funding, personnel issues, 

high leadership turnover, and a backlash against reconstruction brought an end to the intensity 

of post-war development activity at Hopewell Village NHS by the late 1980s. However, for a 

time the interpretation of the park resembled, although in no way realized, Roy Appleman’s 

dream of a “revitalized village” (See Chapter 10). Battling the NPS for the area’s historic 

memories were those interested in other ways to use its plentiful resources. The Bicentennial 

augmented Hopewell’s interpretive programming, yet the park staff still hoped to fulfill the 

vision of the early planners. 

By the 1970s and 80s, Hopewell’s superintendents clamored for a General Management 

Plan to replace the outdated and largely irrelevant 1964 Master Plan. During his tenure, 

Superintendent Cook argued that the 25-year-old Master Plan reflected administrators’ 

decisions before the passage of the NHPA and the National Environmental Protection Act 

(NEPA) and was “woefully inadequate for present standards.”86 In the 1993 Statement for 

Management, Superintendent Cook and his staff insisted, “Hopewell Furnace needs to be not a 

finished park [sic],” but “a dynamic, interpretive resource that speaks freshly and meaningfully 

to every new and returning visitor, today, tomorrow, and in perpetuity.”87 Today, Hopewell still 

 

86 Superintendent Derrick Cook to Regional Director, December 20, 1989, D18 Master Plan 

Correspondence, Central Files, HOFU. 86 Derrick Cook, Annual Narrative Report, 1993/1992/1991, Hopewell Furnace, Annual Reports, 

HFC. 

87 Cook, “Statement for Management,” 1993, 7. 
Preservation and Celebration 

181

struggles to find a name for itself and attract the kind of attention and priority it needs to receive 

more funding. Park activities continue to focus on services, resource protection, and daily park 

operations over physical site development. 
 

182

VII. Restoration, Religion, Recreation, and Roads: Conflicts in 

Resource Use 

As the NPS has struggled to settle upon a development policy, to plot out goals, and to 

ultimately restore the Hopewell Furnace for public education, preservation, and enjoyment, 

various private and public groups have contested and coordinated the use of lands and 

resources within the site and its surrounding lands. In a 1979 review of how historical parks 

were coping with recreational use, NPS Historian Harry Butowsky maintained that parks 

needed to make a distinction between compatible and non-compatible use of a historic area. 

Any activities or use within the park boundaries, whether recreational, religious, operational or 

otherwise, should not disrupt the “historic scene” or have an adverse impact on historic 

resources.1

 Over the years, the demands of the public for park resources have forced a 

constant re-evaluation of the park’s purpose, goals, and significance. 

The rising population and popularity of travel in America following World War II 

prompted Congress to request an examination of public demands and available resources. In 

1962, the Outdoor Recreation and Resource Review Commission issued the report Outdoor 

Recreation in America. Their findings obviously had an enormous impact on Service-wide 

management. An agency once engrossed in park promotion was now faced with regulating 

public use to relieve the demands on limited staff, facilities, and resources. 

Zoning 

One recommendation for regulating park use entailed managing resources by 

classifying parklands according to categories.2

 In 1964 Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall 

sent NPS Director George Hartzog a directive requiring all parks be divided into recreational, 

historical, and natural categories and requested the NPS develop a set of management 

principles for each. Each park’s master plan would reflect this new management system for 

public use. Hopewell Village NHS sub-divided its lands into four categories: historical, special 

 

1

 See Harry Butowsky, “Recreation and the Historical Park,” CRM Bulletin 2, no. 4 (December 

1979). 2

 Ronald F. Lee, Public Use of the National Park System 1872-2000, January 1, 1968, 

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/lee3/lee9a.htm (accessed May 13, 2003). 
Restoration, Religion, Recreation, and Roads 

183

use, natural, and development.3

 A few years later, in her 1976 Statement for Management, 

Superintendent Disrude re-zoned the park and divided Hopewell Village National Historic 

Park into three zones of use, dropping the natural zone.4

 By 1981 her Statement for 

Management again expanded the zoning to four classifications per the request of the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation and reintroduced the natural zone. While the historic zone 

was used for “passive recreation through the interpretation of cultural resources,” she 

explained, the natural zone opened part of Hopewell Village NHS to recreational activities like 

hiking and horseback riding in cooperation with the Horseshoe Trail Association (the 

Horseshoe Trail connects Hopewell to Valley Forge NHS, Cornwall Furnace, Mount Gretna, 

and Pennsylvania’s Appalachian Mountains), as well as nature study, photography, and birdwatching.5

 The Special Use Zone consisted of 96 acres made up of a utility corridor and of 

“open fields” used to assist in the preservation of agricultural lands. In 1997 a completed 

Cultural Landscape Report re-divided the park into four management zones as well. They 

included the “Core Village Zone,” the “Park Management Zone,” the “Woodland 

Management Zone,” and the “Agricultural Zone,” which included Bethesda Church.6

 None of 

these categories, however, adequately addresses the issue of Special Use Permits. 

Special Use Permits 

The NPS issues special use permits to members of the public to allow them to use park 

resources or lands for purposes compatible with the park’s historical significance and purpose 

for establishment. Throughout much of its history, Hopewell allowed some of the historical 

structures to serve as private residences, first for existing tenants of the Brooke property and 

local WPA workers, and then primarily for employees like maintenance personnel Leroy 

Sanders. The NPS issued a special use permit to the U.S. Navy during World War II to occupy 

the former CCC camp as a rest camp for British sailors. During the 1970s and 80s, one to three 

former employees moved into the dwellings. Superintendent Elms summarized the rationale as 

mutual benefit. “It is felt best to rent these structures to them, as long as permanents are not 

 

3

 Master Plan, August 1964, 7,HOFU; See Ronald F. Lee, Public Use, http://www.cr.nps.gov/ 

history/online_books/lee3/lee9a.htm (accessed May 13, 2003). 4

 The problems with Disrude’s initial classification system are discussed in the following 

chapter. Disrude, “Statement for Management,” 1976. 5

 Disrude, “Statement for Management,” 1981. 
Restoration, Religion, Recreation, and Roads 

184

affected, rather than let the structures stand vacant and unprotected.”7

 Other situations 

proved to be more complicated, as with the case of Bethesda Church. 

Bethesda Church: Separation of Church and State? 

Bethesda Church has served as an unusual and awkward resource for Hopewell 

administrators. It is a cultural resource, not an interpretive exhibit, but nonetheless an NPS 

responsibility. While owned by the federal government, the building continued to serve the 

needs of an active religious group, the Bethesda Baptist Congregation, until 1990. The 

congregation performed custodial work and grounds maintenance of the churchyard and 

cemetery, while the NPS maintained the actual structure.8

 This uneasy relationship reflected 

the tensions between church and state, the rights of a few versus the benefit of the many, and 

the historic preservation of an actively used facility with a need for maintenance and modern 

improvements. 

Located on park lands, but out of sight of the village nucleus, Bethesda Church and 

cemetery played an integral role in the Hopewell iron community by serving its diverse 

spiritual needs through regular worship and burial services. During the Revolutionary War, the 

army converted many of the other local churches into area hospitals and locals searched for 

alternative places in which they could properly worship. Thomas Lloyd III, a Hopewell 

employee, founded the “Lloyd Meeting House” as a non-denominational center of worship 

soon after the American Revolution (ca.1782).9

 Lloyd’s family worked at the furnace and on 

nearby farms for several generations. While the Hopewell Furnace ironmasters were primarily 

Episcopalian, many of the workers tended to worship as Baptists or Lutherans. An absence of 

documents indicates that Lloyd may have suspended regular religious services until around 

1810, although the earliest recorded burial was one of the furnace’s woodcutters named 

Thomas Kirby in 1807. In 1827 or 1828 the thirty-one remaining members of the congregation 

joined the Philadelphia Baptist Association and soon changed its name to the Bethesda Baptist 

 6

 CLR. 

7

 Wallace Elms, 1972 Annual Report, January 17, 1973, 1973 Annual Report, January 25, 1974, 1974 

Annual Report, January 17, 1975, Annual Reports, Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, Harpers 

Ferry Center (HFC). 8

 Ibid. 
Restoration, Religion, Recreation, and Roads 

185

Church.10 Throughout Hopewell Furnace’s peak years of operation, the group’s Temperance 

Society discouraged “those giant social evils caused by the improper use of rum and tobacco.”11

The congregation, which held regular monthly meetings, had some trouble finding a 

pastor, but finally secured Brother Caleb Davidson in 1842. Religious revivalism tripled the 

congregation’s size between 1843 and 1845 and Hopewell workers actively supported it through 

individual contributions. In 1848 Ironmaster Clement Brooke supported the church by 

donating five dollars toward a twenty dollar fund to build a protective wall around the building 

and adjacent cemetery. Membership continued to rise to 118 in 1852. A few years later in 1858, 

fifty-three congregants left to join the Lawrenceville Church. The few remaining worshipers 

practiced only every other Sunday over the next twenty years. After the furnace’s last blast in 

1883, only twelve people continued to attend and the church fell into disrepair. The 

congregation replaced the wood shingle roof, floor, pulpit, chimney, and pews.12

 

In July of 1888, the congregation submitted a petition to incorporate in stating their 

purpose of “proclaiming the Gospel and maintaining spiritual and moral control of its 

members.” 13 Available documentation does not reveal much about the congregants’ activities 

over the next few years, but members continued to maintain the building, installing an iron 

gate to close off the stone wall in 1905 and installing new windows.14

In 1919 the Brooke family consolidated their land holdings and took title of the church 

from the Lloyd family, but the church congregation continued to exercise “all property rights 

and sold lots in the graveyard.”15 When the government advertised the Brooke land for 

condemnation in order to establish the French Creek Recreational Demonstration Area, none 

of the church’s trustees submitted a claim for the church and cemetery land. “Consequently,” 

 9

 Luanne Feik, “Historic Chapel in Hopewell Park,” Chester County Daily Local, March 30, 1997, 

“Bethesda,” Vertical Files, HOFU. 10 June 9, 1956, HOFU 34134 Archives found during renovation, Box 1, Bally Building, HOFU; 

Superintendent Lemuel Garrison to Coordinating Superintendent, September 1, 1941, L3 Bethesda 

Baptist Church Special Permits, Central Files, HOFU. 11 As quoted in Karen Guenther, “Religion in an Iron-Making Community: Bethesda Baptist 

Church and Hopewell Village,” Paper, University of Connecticut, 1984, Vertical File, HOFU. 12 Guenther, “Religion,” 8. 

13 Bethesda Church Petition to Incorporate, July 12, 1888, Documents 1884-1934, Box 32, Bally 

Building, HOFU; Guenther, “Religion,” 8; Feik, “Historic Chapel,” HOFU. 14 Guenther, “Religion,” 8. 

15 Guenther, “Religion,” 8-9; Earl Heydinger, “Historic Structures Report, Historical Data, Part I: 

Bethesda Baptist Church, Hopewell Village National Historic Site,” 3, Prentice to Mrs. Earl Lloyd, June 

12, 1958; Lloyd to Department of Parks, June 3, 1958. 
Restoration, Religion, Recreation, and Roads 

186

explained Hopewell’s first superintendent, Lon Garrison, “in spite of the continuous use of 

this church by its congregation, title passed to the United States government.”16 Bethesda 

Church remained within the jurisdiction of the RDA, not the NPS, after the Secretary of the 

Interior established the initial Hopewell Village National Historic Site in 1938. 

Garrison negotiated the first arrangement with the congregation through the church 

clerk, Ernest S. Lloyd. Although he later contended only four surviving members made up the 

congregation, Garrison considered the group’s resentment over the government’s ownership 

of the building as one of many important community relations issues he needed to resolve.17 As 

a token of good faith, he sent over three dollars to aid the congregation in a new paint job and 

assured Lloyd of the NPS’s commitment to the Bethesda Church and the congregation’s 

“continuous and free use of the building for worship” as long as they needed it. After that 

time, Garrison assured Lloyd that the NPS would provide “continuous and perpetual care.” 

Although it was not technically within the boundaries of the national historic site, “... in our 

minds the Bethesda Church is an integral part of the complete Hopewell picture, and ... we 

sincerely desire to maintain this church in its present location and to protect it as well as we do 

our other Hopewell buildings.” He suggested guaranteeing these responsibilities and promises 

through a Special Use Permit.18 Thrilled with the new painting and other improvements to the 

roof and floor, Lloyd felt the congregation “should be in pretty good shape for a number of 

years without requiring any additional expense.”19 Regarding the Special Use Permit, Lloyd 

informed Garrison that, “the more I think of this the better I like the idea.” However, the clerk 

emphatically requested the inclusion of two conditions: 1) the NPS must promise that Christian 

services continue to be the building’s only use, and 2) present lot holders retain their burial 

privileges (he added that claimants would probably be few). 

Garrison left Hopewell before solidifying the deal. When Ralston Lattimore arrived, 

Coordinating Superintendent Francis Ronalds advised him to either hold off on pursuing the 

issue of the Special Use Permit or make the arrangement temporary. In case the RDA 

eventually joined the historic site (which it did in 1942), the NPS could negotiate a cooperative 

 

16 Garrison to Coordinating Superintendent, September 1, 1941, Ronalds to Director, October 2, 

1941, L3 Bethesda Baptist Church Special Permits, Central Files, HOFU. 17 Ibid. 

18 Garrison to Ernest S. Lloyd, August 5, 1941, File L3 Bethesda Baptist Church Special Permits, 

Central Files, HOFU. 19 Lloyd to Garrison, August 6, 1941, Central Files, HOFU. 
Restoration, Religion, Recreation, and Roads 

187

agreement (per the 1935 Historic Sites Act), and a more appropriate arrangement for a mutually 

beneficial relationship. The congregation could worship and the park could maintain the 

building as well as good community relationships. But before they could raise the issue, Lloyd 

agreed to sign the special use permit.20 

On March 2, 1942, the park issued a Special Use Permit stipulating, “Permittee is 

authorized to use entire property for religious, memorial and burial purposes during the time 

of this permit. All members of the church, relatives of such members, and all relatives having 

members interred in the cemetery shall have the privilege of being interred therein at such 

place within the cemetery...”21 The initial permit did not require the congregation to pay a fee, 

but subsequently the NPS charged an annual renewal fee of one dollar. However, the fact that 

the one-year permit would only be renewable for five years continued to upset the other 

congregation members. They found a friend in Lattimore. “If there is any possible way to allay 

the fears of these people,” the new superintendent wrote Director Newton Drury, “we should 

do so.” If and when Hopewell NHS took over the property, the NPS needed to assure 

descendants of Thomas Lloyd, present members of church and lot holders that they would 

retain a perpetual privilege of burial. In order to do so, the church and cemetery should be 

included in the historic site, “not for its inherent value to posterity, but for the protection of 

the small group of citizens to whom, through our acquisition of the church property, we have 

unwittingly done an injustice.”22

After French Creek RDA did, in fact, become part of the Hopewell Village National 

Historic Site, Coordinating Superintendent Ronalds again raised the issue of entering a 

 

20 Acting Director to Ronalds, December 27, 1941, Ronalds to Lattimore, February 13, 1942, L3 

Bethesda Baptist Church Special Permits, Central Files, HOFU. 21 Riddle to Sandiford, August 10, 1965, Bethesda Congregation, Central Files, HOFU. 

22 The conditions requested certainly did not seem beyond the scope of the National Park 

Service policy on cemeteries within its parks, as established by Horace Albright. “On behalf of the Park 

Service that we will do everything within our power to keep the cemeteries intact and that the parties 

who have bodies buried there may come and go to and from the cemeteries with all freedom of action 

and have the right to keep the brush and briers cleaned off. In addition, they will also not only have the 

right of internment of any bodies now living within the park area and who have been interested in the 

cemetery and wish to be buried there, but we feel there may be some who have moved out whose family 

burial plots are in these cemeteries and who therefore may wish to be buried in the same cemetery with 

their kinfolk. These we will also accord the privilege of burial in the old family burial ground. 

Furthermore, we will assume it is an obligation of the National Park Service to assist in keeping these 

cemeteries as cleaned up as possible after we have taken them over as part of the park.” Lattimore to 

Director, March 2, 1942, L3 Bethesda Baptist Church Special Permits, Central Files, HOFU; Acting 

Assistant Director Henry Langley to Senator Richard Neuberger, July 6, 1956, Bethesda Congregation, 

Central Files, HOFU. 
Restoration, Religion, Recreation, and Roads 

188

cooperative agreement with the congregation to replace the Special Use Permit. This time, 

however, the issue would wait until after the war.23 Acting Superintendent Emil Heinrich 

continued to issue Special Use Permits, but during the war, he neglectfully omitted the 

conditions Lloyd had insisted upon, particularly the one that restricted church use to religious 

services. When he noticed his error, the superintendent reinserted the condition when he reissued the permit through 1947.24

Perhaps Heinrich did not pursue a cooperative agreement with the congregation 

because in the years during and after World War II, the Bethesda Baptist congregation seemed 

fairly inactive. There exists no record of protest following the site’s inclusion in the new, 

expanded 1947 boundary of the historic site. Superintendent James Cass had trouble finding 

someone to collect the one-dollar fee from in order to allow the permit’s renewal in 1951. Cass 

eventually arranged to exchange keys with the congregation members in order that both 

parties would be able to lock up the facilities and protect the property from vandalism.25

By the time of Superintendent Prentice’s tenure, local residents had again become vocal 

about the government’s right of ownership to the church. Maintenance issues aggravated 

tensions further. Prentice observed, “This is a rather ticklish spot in which to be placed since 

lot owners possess certain perpetual rights to individual lots and Board of Trustees claims 

general authority over the graveyard as a whole.”26 The church’s Pastor, Principal J. W. 

Sandiford from Craig Ridgway Elementary in Coatesville, and several congregants raised 

questions about the legality of the claim, leading even Prentice to admit that he could find no 

proof of title to the 3/4 acre in the files of the NPS office in Washington, DC, nor in the files of 

the Pennsylvania Title and Insurance Company.27

Due to the awkward situation, Hopewell’s superintendents agreed to only do work 

after a written request from the Church’s Board of Trustees. Likewise, the Board of Trustees 

 

23 Ronalds to Heinrich, March 30, 1943, L3 Bethesda Baptist Church Special Permits, Central 

Files, HOFU. 24 Tolson to Francis Ronalds, March 14, 1946, Ronalds to Heinrich, March 26, 1946, Heinrich to 

Ronalds, March 28, 1946, L3 Bethesda Baptist Church Special Permits, Central Files, HOFU. 25 Cass to Coordinating Superintendent, February 16, 1951, Cass to Coordinating Superintendent, 

February 26, 1951, Cass to Anna Krepps, February 20, 1953, L3 Bethesda Baptist Church Special Permits, 

Central Files, HOFU. 26 Prentice to Mrs. Earl Lloyd, June 12, 1958; Mrs. Earl Lloyd to Department of Parks, June 3, 

1958, Bethesda Congregation, Central Files, HOFU. 27 Prentice to Regional Director Daniel Tobin, July 23, 1956; Sandiford to Prentice, July 23, 1957, 

Bethesda Congregation, Central Files, HOFU. 
Restoration, Religion, Recreation, and Roads 

189

requested approval from the NPS for any repairs its congregation performed.28 In 1955 the NPS 

restored the Carriage Shed, which early church members used to shelter their carriages, 

wagons, and horses. Unfortunately, the relationship between the park and the church seemed 

to run hot and cold. The two institutions held opposing goals for the building’s use and 

preservation and often disagreed about their priorities. While the congregation complained 

about the church’s falling plaster in 1957, the NPS looked to not just repair, but to await 

funding and restore the walls and ceiling with white water-proofing paint that would both 

protect and mimic the structure’s original whitewash. During the same time period, Sandiford 

gave an invocation at the Visitor Center dedication.29

In 1963 the Park Service repainted the church's interior and cleaned off fall saplings. 

The next year, the NPS removed five trees from the front of the church in order to mimic the 

historic view more closely as well as to prevent the roots from damaging the wall. However, 

the loss of the greenery distressed Sandiford and the congregation who requested that the 

government replace the trees with shrubbery. At the same time, Sandiford asked the NPS to 

tend to the cemetery headstones, and insisted upon the repair of the floor where joists had 

rotted and collapsed under the weight of the piano-organ. While workers had the floor up, he 

asked that they install a copper line for heat.30

Superintendent Riddle, who worshipped with his family at the Bethesda Church, 

seemed more responsive to the congregation’s complaints, although it took several years 

before the NPS mended the church floor in 1972 after it collapsed again at the end of a Palm 

Sunday service.31 With Riddle’s departure later that year, tensions again built up. With funding 

low, Acting Superintendent and Ranger Larry Points directed public monies to other areas of 

the park where it would “do the most people the most good.” The park valued the Bethesda 

Church, but the congregation was a small one, and the NPS preferred to conduct a complete 

and accurate restoration along with other bicentennial development, rather than continue to 

 

28 Prentice to Mrs. Earl Lloyd, June 12, 1958; Mrs. Earl Lloyd to Department of Parks, June 3, 1958, 

HOFU. 29 Prentice to Sandiford, June 29, 1957; Memorandum for the Files, July 9, 1959, File A8215, 

Central Files, HOFU. 30 Sandiford to Zerbey, March 11, 1963, Zerbey to Sandiford, June 10, 1964, May 20, 1964, Zerbey 

to Mrs. Earl Lloyd, June 10, 1964, Sandiford to Zerbey, June 17, 1964, Sandiford to Zerbey, October 5, 

1964, Zerbey to Sandiford, October 13, 1964, Bethesda Congregation, Central Files, HOFU. 31 Sandiford to Riddle, September 28, 1967, Assistant Director Nathan Golub, Operations, to 

Sandiford, May 12, 1972, Riddle, April 20, 1972, Sandiford to Elms, March 9, 1973, Bethesda 

Congregation, Visitor Center, HOFU. 
Restoration, Religion, Recreation, and Roads 

190

provide temporary fixes for every complaint as it arose. In late 1972 the NPS declared the 

building unsafe for use, and cancelled the permit for two years.32

The closure caused enormous public relations problems. While awaiting the interior 

renovations, congregants insisted that either the park proceed with church repairs quickly or 

find the congregation another place to worship. They again challenged the government’s 

ownership of the property and found support in the many other Baptist churches in the area. 

“Let us just say that the church has been around for the last 190 years; let us please ask for your 

patience for the next three or four...” Points asked.33 When Superintendent Elms arrived, he 

also pleaded for the congregation’s cooperation and understanding regarding a complete 

restoration by indicating that bicentennial funds would pay for a 1820-1840 rehabilitation. 

When Congress reduced these funds and the Park Service deferred the church project until 

after 1975, Sandiford and the congregation stood firm, threatening that if the park continued to 

ignore the church’s needs, they would lobby their congressional representative to have the 

church returned to the congregation.34

In response to congressional inquiries, Associate Director George Palmer called Lon 

Garrison to question him about the issue of church ownership. Garrison claimed that the dean 

of the University of Pennsylvania had owned the church and cemetery before the government 

acquired it in a “Declaration of Taking” when it established the Recreational Demonstration 

Area. No surrounding landowners objected when notified, likely because the less than active 

congregation in the 1930s only used the site for funerals.35

At last, in February of 1974, the NPS replaced floor joists and investigated the addition 

of electrical services for heating and humidity control in order to prepare it for a $22,000 

interior restoration from July through December. Not only were the congregation’s oil lamps 

and space heaters undoubtedly a fire hazard, but also preservationists blamed the humidity for 

the constantly decaying floor. The Lawrence Construction Company (who was also at work on 

the Blacksmith Shop) restored the floor to pre-1840 conditions, replaced the plaster ceiling, 

 

32 Elms, 1972 Annual Report, January 17, 1973, 1974 Annual Report, January 17, 1975, Hopewell 

Furnace NHS, Annual Reports, HFC. 33 Acting Superintendent Larry Points to Sandiford, November 17, 1972, November 13, 1972, 

Bethesda Congregation, Central Files, Visitor Center, HOFU. 34 Elms to Sandiford, March 5, 1973, Sandiford to Elms, March 9, 1973, Brooks to Representative 

Edwin D. Eshleman, August 15, 1973, Brooks to Richard Schweiker, July 31, 1973, George Neiffer to Rep 

John Ware, July 18, 1973, Bethesda Congregation, Central Files, HOFU. 
Restoration, Religion, Recreation, and Roads 

191

repaired and installed twenty pews, repainted the interior, ran an underground electric line, 

and installed four heaters. Superintendent Elms revised the Special Use Permit for the first 

time since 1942, charging the congregation $52 a year for electricity, and in 1975, new 

Superintendent Disrude adjusted the number to $77 and added storm windows and doors to 

reduce heating costs. From then on, the park battled the congregation to lower what 

Hopewell’s administrators considered exorbitant electric bills of well over $100 a month due to 

overheating. When the building was finally completed, relations with the surrounding religious 

community significantly improved.36

As the congregation grew frustrated with the park, the park grew irritated with the 

congregation who insisted on retaining burial rights but provided the government with no 

record of them. The issue of burial first had arisen in 1949 when Ernest Lloyd passed away and 

claimed a burial plot. A few years later in the 1950s, Delia J. Rogers requested her burial be 

with her father, George Mollette, and her two brothers. Records do not indicate if she ever 

took her plot. The issue arose again in March of 1974 after Stephen Lloyd requested 

permission to bury his aunt, Anita Troit. Concerned about burial rights and grave disturbance, 

Lloyd assured Elms that Troit would be buried in the same plot as her husband, who had been 

buried deep enough to accommodate her. Sandiford claimed the church had no records but 

was confident in Lloyd’s rights and guessed availability of two or three more plots. The Skean 

Funeral Home also promised to hand dig the grave. Unfortunately, Mr. Skean did not keep his 

word and used a backhoe. Furthermore, after finding that Mrs. Troit’s husband had only been 

buried three feet deep, the funeral home dug another grave to the south (without consulting 

the park), thankfully not hitting another site but pushed horizontal grave stones into the 

ground and out of alignment.37 In response, Elms called for the closure of the cemetery if no 

lot holders could be identified. “All in all a pretty disappointing situation,” Elms commented. 

 35 Associate Director George Palmer to Superintendent, March 20, 1973, Bethesda Congregation, 

Central Files, HOFU. 

36 Ibid., Elms to Tobin, December 23, 1974, Elms to Sandiford, January 16, 1975, Chester Brooks, 

Regional Director to H. L. Philips, February 2, 1974, Elms to Sandiford, February 27, 1975, Elms to 

Regional Director, April 11, 1974, Victor Dennis to Elms, April 16, 1974, Elms to Regional Director, April 

19, 1974, Bethesda Congregation, Central Files, HOFU. 37 Elms to Staff, March 28, 1974, Elms to File, May 1, 1974 Bethesda Congregation, Central Files, 

HOFU. 
Restoration, Religion, Recreation, and Roads 

192

“I firmly believe that the Special Use Permit must be revised, the fee raised, restrictions 

imposed, and the cemetery declared closed.”38

In 1975 Sandiford, the church’s longtime pastor and spokesman, resigned from his 

position without a word from him or any other church member to Superintendent Elms who 

continued to send him correspondence regarding matters of fire protection and structural 

interpretation.39 Superintendent Elizabeth Disrude continued Elms’ efforts to lower bills, 

obtain a signature from the new Reverend Bruce Waldt, as well as secure a membership roster 

and burial plot plan.40 Under Disrude, the maintenance costs charged to the congregation 

soared to $300 a year, but foreman Charlie Seidel claimed the NPS spent more money 

adjusting humidity levels, providing lighting outlets for the pulpit, piano, maintaining the floor, 

and re-painting.41

At about the middle of Disrude’s tenure in 1982, the park began the complete 

renovation of the Bethesda Church exterior in order to both protect the property and “reestablish the historic scene.” The project, which met Section 106 compliance, included window 

restoration with six over nine windows, stabilization, replacement of non-historic asbestos 

shingle roof and restoration of the collapsing church wall with historic wood coping rather 

than cement.42 The renovations attracted many new members. By 1983 the congregation 

counted forty members up from only a dozen in previous years. They used the facility only 

two hours each Sunday and performed other church activities in one another’s homes. Some 

members began to discuss finding a new facility to accommodate the enlarged congregation.43

Disrude proved extremely reluctant to engage in issues dealing with the cemetery. But 

in 1985, a longtime friend of the park, Mary Busenkell requested permission for her burial 

there. Busenkell was the great, great granddaughter to Thomas Lloyd III, builder of the church 

and daughter of Ernest Lloyd, the caretaker who negotiated the Special Use Permit with 

 

38 Elms to Regional Director, December 23, 1974, Bethesda Congregation, Central Files, HOFU. 39 Elms to Mrs. Jacob Krepps, April 3, 1975, J. W. Sandiford to Elms, April 22, 1975, Bethesda 

Congregation, Central Files, HOFU. 40 Disrude to Rev. Bruce Waldt, December 22, 1975, Classified Files, Visitor Center, HOFU. 41 Stanley J. Watkins. “US Owns Church: Ironworkers Worshipped Here” Reading Eagle, April 

16, 1983. K34 Newspaper Clippings 1974-1983, Bally Building, HOFU. 42 James Coleman Jr. to Robert J. Garvey Jr, June 20, 1982, Acting Superintendent Joseph L. Boyle 

to Irwin Richman, January 20, 1983, Disrude to Edwin Brumbaugh, 1983, H3015 Historic Structure 

Report, Bethesda Church, Central Files, HOFU. 43 Watkins, “US Owns Church,” Reading Eagle, April 16, 1983, HOFU; Diane Kozak, “Leaving 

History Behind for a New Church,” Pottstown Mercury, October 1, 1989, Bethesda Congregation, Central 

Files, HOFU. 
Restoration, Religion, Recreation, and Roads 

193

Garrison. Ironically, Busenkell lacked any proof of documentation that she had a claim to the 

plots prior to 1935.44 When Disrude retired in February of 1988 and Russell P. Smith took over 

active duties, he worked to grant Busenkell’s request. Even though she was unable to provide 

documentation of her rights, Smith determined that she had convincing evidence based on 

family tradition. He ordered three plots marked for archeological testing of empty plots in 

order not to disturb existing gravesites as had occurred in 1974. Smith concluded that because 

national cemeteries allowed ground disturbance as part of normal historic maintenance, the 

park did not need 106 compliance, just the superintendent’s approval of the headstone.45

In the early 1980s, park staff began research to restore the surrounding stone wall, roof, 

and windows of Bethesda Church to the 1820-1840 “golden age” period and submitted the 

changes to the 106 process.46 By 1988 the congregation’s membership had reached fifty and 

decided to move to a more modern facility in Harmonyville that could “grow and sustain” the 

church and accommodate as many as 125 people.47 The park continued to maintain the 

Bethesda Church and open it up for special interpretative events as in 1997 when the park 

charged $8 a person to attend the reenactment of an 1837 wedding. The park also allowed 

private parties to rent out the church for weddings or films. Staff charged a $25 fee to begin the 

permit process and a $50 fee if the park accepted the application.48 In 1994, when the church 

accommodated three to four weddings annually, the cost rose to $100. Soon afterwards, the 

Park Service began to look for a long-term leasing partner to share in maintenance costs, but 

the old structure continued to be a maintenance burden. In 1997 the fuse box caught fire, 

leaving a wedding party without heat. The following year, the park policy began charging 

wedding parties a $4-5 park entrance fee for each guest. Despite numerous complaints, the 

new situation conformed with the policies of other parks,49 The Long Range Interpretive Plan 

 

44 Regional Director James Coleman Jr. to Mary Lloyd Busenkell, April 4, 1985, Mary Lloyd 

Busenkell to James Coleman Jr., March 11, 1985; Ranger Hooper Marrow to Mary Lloyd Busenkell, 

October 29, 1977, “HSR-Bethesda Church,” H3015, Central Files, HOFU. 45 Acting Superintendent Russell P. Smith to Deputy Regional Director, June 16, 1988, Smith to 

Busenkell, June 1988, Smith to Deputy Regional Director, May 13, 1988, Central Files, HOFU. 

46 Joseph Lee Boyle to Irwin Richman, January 20, 1983, James W. Coleman to Robert J. Garvey, 

Jr., June 30, 1982, “HSR-Bethesda Church,” H3015, Central Files, HOFU. 47 Kozak, “Leaving History,” HOFU. 

48 “Hopewell Furnace,” National Park Service: US Department of the Interior; Feik, “Historic 

Chapel,” HOFU. 49 Dave Mowery, “Tiny Chapel Awaiting a New Life,” Reading Eagle, April 2, 1994, Central Files, 

HOFU; Josie Fernandez to David and Brenda Keota Pierson, April 12, 1997, Jeffrey Collins, e-mail, 

January 30, 1998, Bethesda Congregation, Central Files, HOFU. 
Restoration, Religion, Recreation, and Roads 

194

drafted in 1993 offered that the NPS and the National Lands Trust, a non-profit organization 

which had just acquired adjacent lands for a “light recreation” land preserve, use the building 

as an environmental center.50 Neither party has yet pursued this option, but such an 

arrangement might re-ignite longtime conflicts over recreational uses of Hopewell lands. 

French Creek State Park and Recreation (Post-1947) 

The initial designation of the former Hopewell Furnace property as a Recreational 

Demonstration Area created an immediate conflict of use for the historic village as soon as it 

earned recognition as a National Historic Site. As discussed in Chapter 3, the demands of 

World War II shuffled historic preservation issues to the background and the hunting issue 

(arguably a form of recreation) caused enough of a conflict to permanently separate the parks 

when the federal government transferred its land to the state. The proximity to and historical 

affiliation with French Creek State Park have made recreational issues more of a concern for 

Hopewell than other historical sites. The state park and the historic site have had to live next 

door to one another, and like a divorced couple, continue to share resources and negotiate 

compromises with varying levels of success. NPS policy encouraged cooperation, but 

frequently the competing goals of recreation and historic preservation came into conflict. 

The 1946 boundary change abruptly separated Hopewell Village from its traditional 

surroundings, and the two entities never entered any formal agreements with regards to 

recreational use. The post-war emphasis on restoration of the park’s historic structures 

convinced Hopewell’s staff to release the last of its recreational responsibilities and allow the 

neighboring state park to fulfill public recreational needs. Fishermen, hikers, birdwatchers, 

and others still used lands within the boundaries of the historic site, although such use was 

never encouraged. While no longer a single unit or legally linked, Hopewell Village and its 

environs maintained an inevitable relationship with the newly created French Creek State 

Park. Sometimes, they seemed compatible as when campers at French Creek visited Hopewell 

or when Hopewell staff directed visitors to French Creek for picnicking or other recreational 

 

50 Derrick M. Cook, et al., “Long-Range Interpretive Plan: Hopewell Furnace National Historic 

Site,” Elverson, PA: Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, March 1993, 35. Copy at NERO-P. 
Restoration, Religion, Recreation, and Roads 

195

activities. Boy scouts and school groups (about 8th/9th grade) who camped at the French Creek 

demonstrated considerable interest in visiting.51

Meanwhile, public confusion over the difference between French Creek State Park and 

Hopewell Village National Historic Site persisted. Dennis Kurjack was determined to stop 

those headed for Hopewell Lake leaving their vehicles in the nearby village because the cars 

gave the “park the look of a concession.”52 But an even more serious issue was the Baptism 

Creek Picnic Site. Because of its proximity, the historic site initially maintained Baptism Creek 

Picnic Site to appease visitor enjoyment. 

Baptism Creek Picnic Site 

After the separation of French Creek State Park from the National Park Service, only 

one picnic area remained with the boundaries of the historic site. As early as 1946, the Baptism 

Creek Picnic Area had become one of Hopewell’s primary sanitary problems.53 Staff attributed 

a rat problem at Hopewell to the park’s chicken feed and the nearby picnic areas’ garbage 

receptacles.54 Eventually, the site offered comfort facilities, but sold no food concessions, thus 

encouraging people to make alternate arrangements to picnic at French Creek State Park.55

While plans intended to close the site in 1947, Hopewell did not officially rescind all its 

picnic responsibilities (primarily at Baptism Creek) to French Creek facilities until August of 

1950.56 Not only was picnicking an unnecessary service with the neighboring recreational park, 

but the notoriously small Hopewell personnel simply did not have enough labor and time to 

protect and maintain the grounds and protect the water supply for this type of public use. 

Hopewell then only allowed picnicking in a small area behind the Visitor Center leaving those 

 

51 Master Plan Development Outline, 1952, HOFU. 52 Kurjack to Ronalds, July 15, 1947, NARA-P. 

53 Regional Director Thomas J. Allen to Superintendent Emil Heinrich, August 29, 1946, “File 204 

Inspections and Investigations, 1939-50,” Albert H. Stevenson, U.S. Public Health Service, “Report of 

Sanitary Inspection of the Hopewell Village National Historic Site for the National Park Service,” July 

23, 1946, Central Historical Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 54 Acting Regional Director Ewell M. Lisle to Superintendent, March 3, 1947, Heinrich to Lisle, 

February 13, 1947, Hopewell Village, File 720-04, “Wildlife 1943-1953,” Bally Building, HOFU. 55 District Commissioner John J. Johnson to James Cass, June 6, 1950, Principal Marguerite 

Tennis, Bywood School to Superintendent, May 29, 1950, Russell A. Gobbs to Dean M. E. Gresh, West 

Reading High School, M. E. Gresh to Gibbs, October 12, 1949, Gibbs to Samuel Clauser, October 4, 1949, 

Seniors, Elisabeth Irwin High School to Kurjack, October 30, 1947, File 367 Tours, Central Classified 

Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 

56 James Cass, Annual Report, 1950, Annual Reports, Historic Central Files, HOFU. 
Restoration, Religion, Recreation, and Roads 

196

types of facilities to the neighboring state park. Other rules for recreational use limited speeds 

to 25 mph, restricted horseback riding to established roads, and required riders to walk their 

bicycles when they were near historic structures.57

While the public complained about the closure of the Baptism Creek Picnic Site in the 

1950s, Acting Superintendent/Historian Bob Ronsheim explained, “We have neither the funds 

nor personnel to maintain Baptism Creek as a picnic area. Nor would such use be in keeping 

with the purposes for which Hopewell Village National Historic Site was established.”58

 

Assistant Regional Director George Palmer defended Hopewell’s decision to the public. 

To better enable it to fulfill the obligations placed upon it by the cited Act, the Service 

has adopted a policy of not encouraging picnicking and other non-conforming uses of 

historical areas where a demonstrated need is not readily apparent. The proximity of 

Hopewell Village to French Creek State Park, where picnicking and other day-use 

recreational facilities are available, has resulted in our exercising this policy in this 

instance. The former picnic site now serves as a buffer against encroachment upon the 

historic values which have caused Hopewell Village to be established as a National 

Historic Site...We appreciate your concern that the development of physical 

recreational facilities has not been consistent with the growing need. We are sure, 

however, that you realize, as we do, that preservation of the all-too-few sites, which 

mark the progress of the American way of life, is also highly important.59

Only hikers and some illegal hunters frequented the area until the 1970s when the park 

converted the former picnic site into an environmental study area (ESA), the details of 

which will be discussed in the following chapter. 

Wildlife Watching 

The relationship between Hopewell and French Creek began to improve under Joe 

Prentice as both agencies began to recognize the public’s demand for recreational areas. By the 

time of the hunting season in 1959, more hunters seemed to understand the difference between 

the two parks. A wire boundary certainly helped them distinguish the two.60 In September 1961 

 

57 Superintendent John C.W. Riddle to Assistant Director, Park Support Services, NERO, A6423 

Park Activity Standards and Resource Requirements Data, 1971-72. 

58 Mrs. William Henkel to Maurice Goddard, August 24, 1957, Acting Superintendent Robert 

Ronsheim to Henkel, September 16, 1957, Hopewell Village, General Correspondence 1952-66, NPS, 

Northeast Field Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 59 George Palmer to Henkel, September 24, 1957, Hopewell Village, General Correspondence 

1952-66, NPS, Northeast Field Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 60 Prentice, May 1959, June 12, 1959, December 1959 Monthly Report, January 14, 1960, “Hopewell 

Village NHS, 1959,” August, Sept 13, 1961, “Hopewell Village NHS, 1960-62,” General Correspondence 

1953-63, Northeast Regional Office, NARA-P. 
Restoration, Religion, Recreation, and Roads 

197

the new State Park Superintendent, Joseph Hayden, expressed a desire to continue his 

predecessor’s work of reexamining the recreational use and potential of “this heavily used 

park” and continued to foster a closer cooperation with Hopewell regarding the construction 

and fire protection programs.61 Superintendent Curtis English of the Department of Forests 

and Waters also brought over several state park tour leaders for indoctrination into 

Hopewell’s history and use of area resources.62 After Prentice left at the end 1961, Hayden of 

French Creek welcomed his replacement, Benjamin J. Zerbey in 1962. When summer arrived, 

Hayden and Zerbey together selected the locations for mounting park signs. State Game 

Protector Joseph Leiendecker visited Hopewell in June to discuss wildlife protection issues 

with the new Hopewell superintendent.63

Bird watchers frequently wandered across park boundaries, but a growing and 

migrating deer population also attracted a large number of people interested in “spotlighting,” 

defined as observing wildlife at night with headlights or flashlights.64 Both the state and 

national parks faced the burden of handling frequent road kills. Russell Gibbs reported that 

while he remained on good terms with state game protectors, they had no authority to stop the 

spotlighting of deer. “To date no one has shot at me and there is a burning ambition to extend 

the record for as long as possible. As you know such an outdoor sport has been indulged in, in 

the past.”65 A year later, the Regional Office agreed it would be a mistake to challenge the 

spotlighting as prohibitive under the NPS regulation of “disturbance in any manner.” 

However, a park officer should be able to arrest someone spotlighting as incidental to shooting 

a deer.66 Superintendent Zerbey offered no objections when the state transferred three of its 

park areas to the State Game Commission.67 The spotlighting problem, however, continued 

and future superintendents agreed with their predecessors. “The National Park Service and 

 

61 Prentice, September, October 11, 1961, “Hopewell Village NHS, 1960-62,”,General 

Correspondence 1953-63, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 62 August, Sept 13, 1961, “Hopewell Village NHS, 1960-62,” General Correspondence 1953-63, 

Northeast Regional Office, NARA-P. 

63 Zerbey, May Monthly Report, June 7, 1962, June, July 5, 1962, “Hopewell Village NHS, 1960-

62,” General Correspondence 1953-63, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 

64 Elms, 1972 Annual Report, HFC. 

65 Gibbs to Ronalds, December 28, 1947, Wildlife-Hopewell Village, General Correspondence 

1939-1952, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 66 Ronalds to Allen, Dec 17, 1948, Allen to Ronalds, Dec 23, 1948, Annual Planting and Wildlife 

reports, File 720-04 from January 1946, NARA-P. 

67 Zerbey to Regional Director, August 12, 1975, “Transfer of French Creek State Park Lands,” 

Central Historical Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 
Restoration, Religion, Recreation, and Roads 

198

Hopewell Village do not feel this is a valid national park activity and efforts are being made to 

curb the practice of spotlighting within the historic site,” insisted Superintendent Wally Elms 

in his 1972 report.68 Today, the practice is outlawed inside the Hopewell borders. 

Fishing 

Aside from the man-made headraces and tailrace, French Creek is the principal body of 

water flowing through Hopewell along with its tributaries Baptism Creek and Spout Run 

Creek. Local organizations expressed interest in fishing in the lake and streams of the French 

Creek Recreational Demonstration Area almost as soon as the project began, including 

stocking Hopewell Lake. Regional Biologist O. B. Taylor decided to open French Creek and 

Six Penny Creek to trout fishing (stocking would be restricted to Brook Trout) and be 

governed by state laws. Hopewell Lake closed until July 1, 1942, to allow for further 

development.69 A few months later, Emil Heinrich reopened the lake to fishing between sunrise 

and sunset, but without boats, per an agreement with the Pennsylvania Game Commission. 70

 

Other actions showed Heinrich’s willingness to maintain a positive relationship with the local 

community regarding the park’s recreational opportunities. In April 1943 his monthly report 

described the extension of eleven permits for farmland near the park boundaries to extend 

neighborly good will. He reminded the regional supervisors about the park’s cooperation with 

several other government agencies including the Navy (for the Rest Camp), as well as 

Pennsylvania’s Department of Forests and Waters, and particularly the Game and Fish 

Commissions. He had even discussed further fish stocking of Hopewell Lake.71 Perhaps as a 

gesture, Regional Director Thomas Allen asked NPS Director Newton Drury to approve the 

opening of Hopewell’s lake and streams to shore side fishing in accordance with state 

regulations from sunrise to sunset.72 After the State took over the lake’s management, those 

overseeing lands in the Historic Site still remained vigilant about fishing issues along the .75 

 

68 Elms, 1972 Annual Report, HFC. 

69 Regional Biologist O.B. Taylor to Acting regional Director Fred Johnston, April 11, 1940, 

Records of the Regional Wildlife Technician 1936-1942, Region 1, LD-7 French Creek (SP-17-17) RDP, 

RG 79, NARA-P. 70 Heinrich, Annual Report, 1943, HOFU. 

71 Superintendent’s Narrative Report for the Month of April 1943, Annual Reports, Historic 

Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 72 Allen to Director. May 16, 1945, File 297-03 Report History, Central Classified Files 1933-49, 

National Historic Sites-Hopewell, RG 79, NACP. 
Restoration, Religion, Recreation, and Roads 

199

mile of French Creek, the only stream with fish, within the new boundaries. The fish 

population has likely changed over the years, but the 1964 Master Plan reported that at that 

time the stream hosted several types of fish including brook trout, creek chub, troutperch, 

sucker, sunfish, yellow perch, crappie, bluegill, catfish, eel, and largemouth bass.73 Today, 

Hopewell Lake is no longer within the boundaries of the historic site, but NPS visitors can 

easily walk to it. 

Because French Creek State Park maintained three well stocked lakes, the only 

management practice that NPS administrators applied beyond “protection patrol” was a ban 

on fishing from sunset to sunrise by Special Regulation 7.20 CFR until 1973.74 Revised 

regulations that year limited the no-fishing window to one-half hour before sunset to one-half 

hour before sunrise. They also banned fishing in French Creek from the park’s western 

boundary to Highway 345 “because of the intrusion on the historic scene” with “the 

paraphernalia of the present day fly fisherman as he pursues his quarry.” In addition, Ranger 

Larry Points and Superintendent Elms advocated eliminating activity where it “adversely 

affects the ecology of stream headwaters in the Baptism Creek Environmental Study Area” (the 

former picnic site). Points felt obligated to regulate fishing even though the creek held few fish 

of legal size because many people did not realize that as they “clomp their way in and wade up 

the stream,” they agitate “a large number of flora and fauna in the ESA.” He would continue to 

allow the people to try to catch the large rainbow and brook trout, but the difficulty of 

reaching the confluence of French and Baptism Creek tended to dissuade the less experienced 

fishermen anyway. Elms’ staff also considered prohibiting the use of worms as bait to 

discourage would-be fisherman from digging for them in the parklands, “but it will also keep a 

lot of children from fishing for Bluegills and other small members of the sunfish family.”75 Alas, 

many of these debates may have been somewhat academic, since, as Former Ranger Mike 

Kilareski maintains, fishing on the wild and overgrown French Creek was “a miserable time.”76

 

73 Zerbey, Master Plan of Hopewell Village National Historic Site, “Chapter 1, Basic Information: 

The Land, The Visitor” (1964), 10, HOFU. 74 Hopewell Village National Historic Site, Aquatic Resource Status Statement, ca. 1967, “N14 

Aquatic Resource Status Statement,” Wallace Elms to Regional Director, July 11, 1975, Historical Central 

Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 75 Superintendent Wallace Elms to Regional Director, July 11, 1975, HOFU; Wallace Elms, 

Superintendent, “36 CFR 7 Hopewell Village Historic Site, Fishing,” HOFU; Acting Assistant Director 

Joseph J. Monkoski to Disrude, January 4, 1973; Acting Superintendent Larry G. Points to Assistant 

Director, Operations, Northeast Region, November 20, 1972, W42 Fishing, Central Files, HOFU. 

76 Mike Kilareski, Taped Interview by Leah S. Glaser, July 25, 2003. 
Restoration, Religion, Recreation, and Roads 

200

Hiking and Trail Use 

Following the permanent separation of the parks in 1946, Hopewell Village NHS 

administrators depended on French Creek to accommodate people interested in camping, 

swimming, and fishing activities, but retained several segments of recreational hiking and 

riding trails including the Horseshoe Trail, Lenape Trail, Raccoon Trail, and Buzzard Trail. In 

1956, Hopewell’s “1809/Joanna Furnace Road” became a section of the six-mile Boone (Blue) 

Trail, hooking up with French Creek’s system. For years, Hopewell Village NHS remained one 

of a minority of parks that did not institute park fees due to the average of 10,000 annual 

visitors who wandered into the park along the trails rather than driving in along the entrance 

road (the staff did control vehicle traffic).77

The inclusion of the French Creek Trail system added repeated maintenance problems 

and vandalism to the staff’s obligations of historic preservation as the NPS assumed 

responsibility for replacing disfigured signage and numbered stakes that mischievous hikers 

had moved or removed.78 The Horseshoe and Wilmington, Delaware, Trail Clubs have even 

protested trail conditions in Hopewell Village and French Creek State Park. Joe Prentice 

observed that in the 1950s and 60s, “There seems to be a revival of interest in the sport of 

hiking similar to that in the late ‘30s. We promised to do what we could with available funds.”79

In the 1970s Superintendent Disrude applied for and received National Recreation Trail 

designation for Baptism Creek Trail, a .75 mile loop used to gain access to three other trails 

from French Creek State Park (Lenape, Raccoon, and Buzzard) in 1980 and received it in 1982.80

Funding for such maintenance remained small, but both parks agreed to do what they could.

Snowmobile Policy 

 

77 Elms, 1972 Annual Report, HOFU. 

78 Riddle to Director, January 29, 1970, “Annual Information and Interpretive Services Report,” 

Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, Annual Reports, HFC. 79 March 1961, April 13, 1961, Monthly Reports, Hopewell Village NHS, 1960-62, General 

Correspondence 1953-63, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 80 Elizabeth Disrude, January 29, 1976, Baptism Creek Trail, ca.1980, L5817 National Recreation 

Trails, HOFU; Disrude, 1982 Annual Report, April 11, 1983, HOFU. 
Restoration, Religion, Recreation, and Roads 

201

Beyond hiking, the public used the trails for other activities. In response to the 

popularity of recreational vehicles, the revised management policies of the 1979 National Park 

Service addressed the snowmobile. Both Hopewell and French Creek outlawed snowmobiles 

arguing that since the park offered regular vehicles access to park roads all year round, there 

would be no need. 81 Furthermore, snowmobiles did not follow the historic site boundary and 

disturbed the historic scene. 

Water Use and Supplies 

The supply of water in the Hopewell area was one of the primary resources that 

attracted both the furnace owners and the government in search of a good place for people 

relax. However, water is an elusive resource and defies political boundaries. The issue of 

water rights remains central to the relationship between the federal and state parks. 

French Creek State Park and Water Rights 

When the government purchased the land for the French Creek RDA, planners 

projected the considerable expansion of the lake as the centerpiece of the future French Creek 

State Park. At the same time, development plans at Hopewell Village NHS envisioned a 

magnificent water power demonstration with the visual and sound effects of an operating 

furnace. Water would flow over both the East and West Headraces to the furnace, than exit 

through the tailrace. Melvin Weig, therefore, included an easement and the right to a 

maximum amount of water a day in his boundary proposal. Planners like Appleman and Weig 

hoped to provide enough water to power the restored waterwheel “at a reasonable rate of 

speed, at least intermittently, so that visitors might obtain a graphic picture of the way in which 

the works actually operated when producing cold-blast charcoal iron.” 82

The power of fast-moving water from French Creek had served as a key reason Mark 

Bird located his furnace between Mount Pleasure and Brushy Hill in Union Township, Berks 

County, Pennsylvania. However, Bird initially brought water from nearby springs or the Spout 

 

81 Michael K. Johnson to Associate Regional Director, MARO, October 22, 1979, Central Files, 

HOFU. 
Restoration, Religion, Recreation, and Roads 

202

Run and Baptism Creeks through the East Headrace and later supplemented that water supply 

with drained water from French Creek through the West Headrace, which he built off his land. 

Soon after Buckley and the Brookes purchased the furnace, landowner George Sands and 

others from the Warwick Iron Company cut through the West Headrace where that company 

claimed the rights. Reportedly, Sands challenged the water right. When the Brookes refused 

to compensate him, Warwick Iron launched a lawsuit. Others say Sands settled the matter 

when he broke, or cut through, the side of the headrace with a crowbar. The matter was finally 

settled in a lawsuit, and the Brookes and Buckley constructed a dam on French Creek.83

 

Restoration of the waterwheel in the 1950s again raised issues of water rights. The 

logical source of water would be delivered through the West Headrace from Hopewell Lake. 

The operation of the waterwheel would require further funds and would involve the 

construction of intake works at the spillway of Hopewell Dam (located in French Creek), the 

rehabilitation of the West Headrace, and the construction of a wood flume to carry the water 

from the end of the headrace to the waterwheel. The historians even hoped the wheel could 

operate the compressed air apparatus that supplied a blast of air to the furnace. This ambitious 

trick necessitated extensive negotiation with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania over water 

rights from the reservoir created by Hopewell Dam.84

 

Regional Director Thomas Allen and his staff (including former Morristown 

Superintendent, now Associate Regional Director, Elbert Cox) realized the task of negotiating 

with the state, owner of Hopewell Lake since 1946, would not be that easy. Representing the 

Department of Forests and Waters, Walter Wirth protested that taking water from the lake 

would lower the lake’s water supply and the Department of Health would, in turn, cancel the 

lake’s bathing permit. An exasperated Allen reminded Wirth about the provision for water 

 82 Melvin Weig, “Report on Proposed Hopewell Village Boundary at French Creek Recreational 

Demonstration Project, Birdsboro, Pennsylvania,” (Bronxville, NY: Region 1, District 3, National Park 

Service, April 10, 1937), 4, 6, HOFU. 

83 Walker, Hopewell Village, 21; Hopewell Reporter, “Water for the Furnace,” Hopewell Iron 

Master (February 1942), 4. Copies on Microfiche at French Creek State Park; John Cowan, “Interview 

with Harker Long,” April 5, 1938, Hopewell Village/ Hopewell Furnace File to September 1940, NEROP. 

84 Denniston to Regional Engineer, November 28, 1949, Appleman to Regional Engineer, 

December 1, 1949, Kurjack to Superintendent, Appleman Engineer Kiener to Regional Engineer, Weig to 

Coordinating Superintendent, April 25, 1950, Superintendent to Regional Director, March 23, 1950 re 

March 22-23 conference, W. E. O’Neil to M. F. Draemel, Department of Forests and Waters, June 13, 
Restoration, Religion, Recreation, and Roads 

203

rights included in the 1946 transfer of Hopewell parklands back to the state. “You will see that 

the reservation is clear-cut and comprehensive; that the rights of the grantor under this 

phrasing are such that the use of water for filling the West Headrace to feed the mill would 

take priority over maintenance of Hopewell Lake to any desired level...” He added that while 

the water right seemed straight forward, he hoped the agencies could work something out 

regarding the water transfer without penalizing either the state’s recreational program or the 

rights of the NPS. 

The Service agreed to conduct research to determine the elevation of the lake, the flow 

of French Creek, and the plans for the intake works.85 Still, Secretary of the Department of 

Forests and Waters Milo F. Draemel insisted that the Department of Health had already 

reluctantly granted permission to swim with the little water available and asked the NPS to 

reconsider. He even tried to persuade NPS Director Allen and Cox that the NPS should just 

simulate the operation of the waterwheel rather than try to reproduce its exact operations. He 

suggested drilling a well and pumping a small stream of water when visitors came around. This 

way, water could be re-circulated. “The desirability of exhibiting a Colonial [sic] forge in 

operation by water power is appreciated,” he argued. “It does not seem, however, that it 

should be given precedence over the recreational use of the lake for the general public...This is 

the only State Park within driving distance to the large metropolitan areas of Philadelphia and 

it serves the population of the large industrial cities of Reading, Allentown, and Bethlehem.”86

 

Furious at the suggestion, Elbert Cox insisted that, “the clause in the deed was put there 

deliberately and we are unable to change our plans even though we are quite willing and 

anxious to work out some good mutual solution. His [Draemel’s] suggestion would not be 

acceptable.”87 His superior, Thomas Allen, agreed:

The reservation clause in the quitclaim deed of November 25, 1946 was included in 

conformity with a long accepted plan for the development of Hopewell village. It was 

not inserted as an indefinite item. The deed was accepted by the Commonwealth of PA; 

 

1950, Associate Regional Director Elbert Cox to Draemel, September 6, 1950, Hopewell Village, General 

Correspondence 1939-52, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 

85 Lisle to Director, July 25, 1950; Walter Wirth, Department of Forests and Waters to Allen, 

September 5, 1950, M. F. Draemel to Associate Regional Director Elbert Cox, September 14, 1950; Allen 

to Wirth, September 15, 1950; Superintendent to Regional Director, October 12, 1950. 86 Admiral Milo F. Draemel, Secretary, Department of Forests and Waters to Newton Drury, 

December 12, 1950, Draemel to Elbert Cox, Assistant Regional Director, November 20, 1950, Hopewell 

Village, General Correspondence 1939-52, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 

87 Draemel to Cox, November 20, 1950, NARA-P. 
Restoration, Religion, Recreation, and Roads 

204

the rights of the United States in the matter are established, regardless of subsequent 

further impoundment within the watershed. The National Park Service does not find it 

possible to change its long-perfected plans for operation and exhibition of the 

reconstructed waterwheel. The suggestion of directing a stream of water against the 

wheel by pumping from a driven well is not acceptable. Historical authenticity would be 

entirely lost under such procedure.88

Draemel then went over Allen’s head, writing Director Drury directly about the 

situation. The issue soon went beyond the Regional Office to involve several prominent figures 

in the Directorate. Acting Director Hillory Tolson, Roy Appleman, and Associate Director 

Demaray all agreed that the NPS should protect Hopewell’s interests and “hold firm” its water 

rights, but somehow work out a joint-use arrangement.89 When Assistant Director Conrad 

Wirth instructed Allen to arrange a meeting at Hopewell with the State Department of Health 

the following February, the NPS was clearly hoping to maintain amiable relations and 

accommodate the needs of the state. 

It should be determined how much water will be required to operate the waterwheel for 

a limited period of time each day during the season of heaviest visitation so the draw 

down on the lake can be established and the State Department of Health can render a 

decision regarding the continued use of the lake for bathing purposes by the organized 

camp groups...In the event a solution is not offered as a result of this study, then we 

should seek an alternative by devising a means of augmenting the natural water supply.90

The next month, NPS Regional Engineer W. E. O’ Neil wrote to Frank Tetzlaff of the 

U.S. Public Health Service to determine how much water would need to be withdrawn in order 

for the state to restrict swimming. (It should be noted that after the 1946 transfer of French 

Creek, the commonwealth had constructed another dam and 22-acre swimming lake on Scott’s 

Run, a tributary to French Creek). O’Neil determined that Hopewell would need to draw no 

more than one cubic foot per second from the lake to operate the waterwheel. This amount 

would only make a difference to the operation of the seventy-acre Hopewell Lake over 2-3 

months of the year. During those times of low French Creek runoff, Hopewell should only 

 

88 Allen to Milo F. Draemel, November 30, 1950, Hopewell Village, General Correspondence 

1939-52, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 

89 Acting Director Hillory A. Tolson to Cox, Dec 27, 1950, Hopewell Village, General 

Correspondence 1939-52, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 90 Assistant Director Conrad Wirth to Regional Director, February 28, 1951, File 101 Restoration 

1951, Hopewell Village, General Correspondence, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 
Restoration, Religion, Recreation, and Roads 

205

draw water from the lake eight hours each day.91 The inquiry prompted a conference at 

Hopewell on April 11, 1951, that supported the calculations of the National Park Service. 

Normal flow information from 1938 revealed that French Creek had enough water for use by 

both parks. L. D. Matter and Edward Edgerley from the state, Floyd Taylor from the U.S. 

Public Health Service, Coordinating Superintendent Ronalds, and Superintendent Cass agreed 

that swimming in Hopewell Lake would remain authorized as long as Hopewell’s intake works 

drained the water from the lake surface.92

In spite of these conclusions, another meeting followed in Secretary Draemal’s office 

on April 23 with Walter Wirth and NPS Engineer Tyler B. Kiener. Draemel repeated his 

arguments that Hopewell Lake served as the area’s only bathing facility and he wanted 

assurance that the Park Service would keep down its water use down in times of drought. Allen 

agreed to deliver water through a partially closed pipe to avoid losses due to percolation or 

evaporation, siphon water from no more than two feet below the spillway lip, turn off the valve 

at times of low visitation, and finally, to investigate other water supplies to run the wheel such 

as the East Headrace.93

The very next month, they again began to “butt heads” over respective construction 

projects. After considerable coaxing, regional intervention, and a promise to speed up 

Hopewell’s construction schedule, Superintendent Cass succeeded in convincing Draemel to 

wait to fill up the lake for summertime until Hopewell had completed its construction of the 

intake and pipeline.94 Every year, the state park drained the lake to re-grade its beach for 

bathers and by mid-June the lake filled up in time for swimming season. Since the state had 

taken ownership and management of French Creek State Park, it had ordered five draw downs 

 

91 Regional Engineer W. E. O’Neil to Sanitary Engineer Director Frank Tetzlaff, U.S. Public 

Health Service, March 27, 1951, O’Neil to Director, May 7, 1951, File 101 Restoration 1951, Hopewell 

Village, General Correspondence 1939-1952, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 92 Superintendent Cass to Allen, April 12, 1951, Floyd Taylor to Regional Engineer O’Neil, April 

13, 1951, File 101 Restoration 1951, Hopewell Village, General Correspondence 1939-1952, Region 5, RG 79, 

NARA-P. 93 Regional Chief Allyn Bursley, Land and Recreational Planning, to Allen, April 23, 1951, Allen to 

Draemel, April 23, 1951, Cox to Allen, April 24, 1951, File 101 Restoration 1951, Hopewell Village, General 

Correspondence 1939-1952, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 94 Cass to Allen, May 3, 1951, Allen to Milo Draemel, May 4, 1951, Acting Regional Director Elbert 

Cox to Milo Draemel, May 22, 1951, Cass to Allen, June 14, 1951, Allen to Draemel, June 18, 1951, File 101 

Restoration 1951, Hopewell Village, General Correspondence 1939-1952, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 
Restoration, Religion, Recreation, and Roads 

206

of the water in the dam reservoir. This action creates high concentrations of suspended iron.95

Past negotiations had agreed that the Park Service would build its intake pipe close to the water 

surface-three feet below spillway’s elevation. In 1957, however, the lake did not rise high 

enough to take the necessary water to operate the waterwheel, nor did French Creek Park 

want the NPS to take any more water since its administrators expected the conditions to 

continue all summer. Hopewell’s staff worried not only about operating the wheel, but had to 

tap the village water supply (a couple of local springs), in order to keep the waterwheel and the 

wooden raceways damp and prevent deteriorating or warping. Superintendent Prentice found 

the situation frustrating and embarrassing for the NPS. “The public finds this spraying of the 

waterwheel with a garden hose rather silly.” After failing to persuade the Regional Office to 

send out an engineer to open the East Headrace (which the NPS had already determined 

would be too expensive an enterprise), Prentice tried to convince French Creek State Park that 

Hopewell Village NHS needed only a negligible amount of water to operate the machinery. 

One inch of water off the surface of the lake would run the wheel for 3.5 months. 

We at the National Park Service feel that the operation of this waterwheel is a great 

esthetic thrill for the about 110,000 people per year who visit our area. Few people ever 

get a chance to see one in operation. It gives life a meaning to the story of early 

American iron production and is therefore of considerable value...Recreation in your 

area is also of immense value to the people of our country. I know that it must seem to 

you of the greatest importance to maintain proper water levels in the lake. However, I 

am only asking you to put the waterwheel consumption in its proper light. We divert 

perhaps 1/20th of the water you feel that you must keep in the creek and we return it 

again to the creek after having used it to provide a moving exhibit for thousands of 

people to enjoy.96

In October 1959 the state park again lowered its lake level to construct stone docks, and again 

shut down waterwheel and Blast Machinery operations. Almost ten years later, the Regional 

Office sent out an engineer to investigate the possibility of extending the site’s water intake 

location at the dam “to avoid the frequent shutdowns of our only moving exhibit.”97 In 1992 the 

 

95 William Sharpe and C. William Neff, “Hopewell Furnace NHS, Water Resource Management 

Plan, Final Report,” (Washington, DC, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, November 

1993), 10. Copy in HOFU Library. 

96 Ronsheim memo, February 26, 1957, Joseph R. Prentice to Regional Director, July 15, 1957, 

Joseph Prentice to Curtis English, July 16, 1957, H-3015 Waterwheel and Machinery, Central Files, 

HOFU. 97 October 1959 Monthly Report, November 10, 1959, “Hopewell Village NHS, 1959,” General 

Correspondence 1953-63, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P; Civil Engineer Joseph Monkosji 

to Regional Director, October 26, 1967, Hopewell Village NHS 1965-68, General Correspondence 1966-

68, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 
Restoration, Religion, Recreation, and Roads 

207

annual report recorded that the site had found a solution by installing a temporary water 

supply system for the wheel when the lake was drained again for the construction of the 

spillway. 

Domestic Water Use 

In addition to needing water to run the wheel, the Hopewell NHS also required a 

sufficient water supply for domestic use, livestock, visitor services, and irrigation. Site 

practices, like converting fields back to agricultural use exacerbated concerns about water 

resources. Much of this resource would derive from perennial springs, French Creek, Spout 

Run, Baptism Creek, surrounding wetlands and floodplains, and an extensive groundwater 

system.98

 

While the flow from French Creek ran the waterwheel, Gum Spring, located just north 

of the village, provided the main source of potable water to the village core and administrative 

buildings (save the Lloyd House). The CCC installed the original system in 1932-33. With no 

money available for a fire protection system in the village, Weig and Garrison requested a 

gravity water system beginning at the original water supply, fire hydrants near each house, and 

protection for the CCC camp and project offices. The system provided for two pit privies of 

two seats each as toilet facilities for a public “comfort station,” and the eventual installation of 

a septic tank. While the public expressed considerable dismay over the action, the closure of 

the Baptism Creek Picnic Site greatly cut the amount of refuse in the park.99

From the spring, the water then flowed by gravity through a two-inch pipe to a 14,000 

gallon reservoir/storage tank, and then on to drinking fountains and other places in the park. 

The NPS removed the CCC pipe in 1940, and installed a degasifier and lime contact filter at the 

reservoir in 1957.100 By 1962 much of the system was badly rusted, but little was done to expand 

 

98 Sharpe and Neff, “Water Resource Management Plan,” November 1993, HOFU. 99 Evison to Ronalds, March 16, 1940, Weig to Director, March 5, 1940, Garrison to Coordinating 

Superintendent, February 19, 1940, File 660-05 Water, Historical Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU; 

Robert D. Ronsheim to Mrs. William Henkel, September 16, 1957, “Hopewell Village,” General 

Correspondence 1952-56, NPS, Northeast Field Office, RG 79, NARA-P 100 EODC, “Modification of Water Supply,” Reservoir Site, Hopewell Village National Historic 

Site, March 1957, Region 5, Records of the National Park Service, DSC/TIC. 
Restoration, Religion, Recreation, and Roads 

208

or improve the antiquated system, nor follow the recommendation in the Master Plan for 

designing a new one for several years.101

Environmentally conscious legislation in 1960s and 1970s helped protect all water 

resources by state and federal law. The Water Quality Act of 1965 required that parks comply 

with state regulations. In 1969 the National Environmental Protection Act followed on the 

heels of the Historical Preservation Act, requiring reports that assessed the impact of a federal 

project prior to any undertaking. In the late 1960s, the Office of Land and Water Rights at the 

Washington Service Center collected information on each of Hopewell’s water sources, 

partially compiled the data into seven dockets and submitted them to Superintendent Riddle 

for review. These dockets included the CCC Well, Apricot Spring, Gum Spring, Spring House 

(Building #17), Lloyd House (Building #71), and Hopewell Lake (no records have surfaced to 

indicate the superintendent ever completed them).102 In 1974 the park expanded the water 

system to include a 50,000-gallon water reservoir and a chlorinating system.103

The threat of surrounding industrial and housing development to the park, which grew 

throughout the 1980s, expanded the competitors for Hopewell Furnace’s water rights beyond 

French Creek State Park. Yet amidst its many reports and threats to the quantity and quality of 

its water supply, the NPS did not produce a comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan 

document or recommend plans for Hopewell’s water supply until 1993.104 The plan cited a 

critical need for cooperative management of water resources between French Creek and 

Hopewell. 

Fire Control 

 

101 Richard S. Mark, “Report of the Environmental Health Survey of the Hopewell Village 

National Historic Site,” June 11, 1956, Joe Prentice to Daniel Tobin, Regional Director, June 29, 1956, 

“Hopewell,” General Correspondence 1952-56, NPS, Northeast Field Office, RG 79, NARA-P; Joseph 

Prentice, “Master Plan of the Preservation and Use of Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site,” 

Hopewell Village National Historic Site, National Park Service, January 1962, 2, HOFU; Assistant 

Regional Director Nathan B. Golub to Superintendent Elms, November 14, 1974, D5039 Gum Springs 

Reservoir, Central Files, HOFU. 102 Chief Richard Stanton, Office of Land and Water Rights, July 13, 1967, L54 WSC-OLW, 

Historical Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 103 Wallace Elms, 1973, 1974 Annual Report, Annual Reports, Hopewell Furnace National 

Historic Site, HFC. 104 Sharpe and Neff, “Water Resource Management Plan,” November 1993, HOFU. 
Restoration, Religion, Recreation, and Roads 

209

Water supply in the village core not only was an important factor for providing 

essential visitor services, but a 1970 Operations Evaluation written by the Northeast Regional 

Office stressed the need to provide fire protection for the over fifty historic structures that 

inspired the park’s establishment. While fire had never been a serious problem at Hopewell, 

even in drought years, the preservation of the village core meant very little if these resources 

remained at risk for fire.105

 

One of the first activities of the CCC was to clear the woods of underbrush to reduce 

the chance of fire. 106 They also erected a fire tower in the late 1930s on what is currently French 

Creek State Park land and established an easement from the Brooke estate to the Department 

of Forests. Even though the tower allowed a birds-eye view of much of the area, the Regional 

Office suggested the structure was out of sync with the goals of the historic site and 

recommended that the easement be cancelled. “We present this subject only with the 

intention of not to overlook any angles which may later on interfere with a well balanced, 

broad development picture of HOVI [Hopewell Village],” commented Regional Director 

Ewell M. Lisle.107

 

Indeed, the issue of fire control remained an unresolved, yet essential issue that left the 

village core extremely vulnerable amidst acres of woodland. Superintendent Garrison 

inquired after fire equipment for the fifteen standing buildings as well as the family camp 

converted from one of the older CCC barracks, almost as soon as he took his post in 1939.108 A 

couple of months later, the National Park Service entered a memorandum of understanding on 

behalf of both Hopewell NHS and the French Creek RDA, with the Valley Forge District of 

the Pennsylvania Department of Forests and Waters. It outlined a plan of action for the CCC 

and RDA in the event of a forest fire. Reports would be made from the state-owned fire tower 

within the RDA. The superintendent would act as fire chief and direct five trained CCC crews 

of twenty men. A federally owned vehicle would serve as the fire truck.109 In 1942 

 

105 Ernest Allan Connelly to Chief, Division of Management Analysis, July 13, 1970, Hopewell 

Village NHS, Correspondence, 1960-1975, WASO. 106 “Company 3301 Moves In,” The Keystone Veteran 1, no. 1, Civilian Conservation Corps Papers, 

Company 3301, microfilm, FCSP. 107 Emil Heinrich to Coordinating Superintendent, February 26, 1943, Acting Regional Director 

E. M. Lisle to Coordinating Superintendent, March 16, 1942, NMP-CCC Hopewell Village, 5/1/40-

9/30/42, General Correspondence 1954-56, Eastern Office of Design and Construction, RG 79, NARA-P. 108 Lemuel Garrison to Director, December 20, 1939, W file, Central Files, HOFU. 109 H. K. Roberts to Field Inspector Emil Heinrich, June 5, 1940, Forest Fire Control Plan, 

February 28, 1940, General Correspondence 1939-52, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 
Restoration, Religion, Recreation, and Roads 

210

representatives from the Department of Forest and Waters came to Hopewell to discuss a 

cooperative agreement regarding fire protection.110 This agreement presumably stayed in effect 

for Hopewell until 1951 when Hopewell Village NHS signed a cooperative agreement with the 

French Creek State Park.111 However, during World War II, Superintendent Heinrich was 

overjoyed with the volunteer fire-fighting services of the British sailors.112 A few years later, 

Hopewell suffered a devastating loss for maintenance when a fire destroyed the garage 

building and $3,000 worth of tools the day after Christmas. The impact lasted for several 

years.113

Mission 66 increased funding for the installation of hydrants. These additions would 

help address the issue of fire protection as well as reassess the alarm system to include a sound 

appropriate to the park’s isolated location.114 On October 18, 1960, Prentice held a fire drill to 

locate and test the water supply.115 Later that decade, the park realized that all of the Mission 66 

construction necessitated moving toward more water development including opening up a 

well near Building #71 (Lloyd House) and installing fire hydrants near the Visitor Center. 116 

Fire protection numbered among the many duties of the chief ranger, Denny Beach. The 

Regional Office stressed the importance of having a fire protection system ready by the 

Bicentennial celebrations.117 After the installation of the new water system in 1974, Operations 

Chief Nathan Golub warned the superintendent that the park would still need to keep the old 

 

110 “Superintendent’s Narrative Report of the Month of January, 1942,” File 207-03.3 Part 1 

Hopewell Village NHS Administration and Personnel Superintendents December 1939-March 1944, 

Hopewell Village, Central Classified Files, RG 79, NACP. 111 1951 Annual Superintendent’s Report, Historical Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 112 Heinrich to George Wirt, Department of Forests and Waters, May 3, 1943, Heinrich to Fred 

Brouse, Department of Forest and Waters, Heinrich to Regional Director Thomas Allen, May 7, 1943, 

Heinrich to Regional Forester, May 15, 1943, W File, Central Files, HOFU. 113 Custodian Russell A. Gibbs, Annual Report 1948, Annual Report, 1950, Superintendent’s 

Reports, Historical Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 114 Mission 66 Prospectus, April 25, 1956, A 98 General Correspondence 1954-56, Eastern Office 

of Design and Construction, RG 79, NARA-P; Chief Nathan B. Golub, Division of Maintenance to 

Regional Director, June 27, 1967, “Hopewell Village NHS 1965-68, General Correspondence 1966-68, 

Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 115 Prentice to Regional Director, n.d. Hopewell Village NHS, 1959-64, General Correspondence, 

Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 116Nathan B. Golub to Regional Director, June 27, 1967,RG 79, NARA-P; Benjamin Zerbey, 

“Master Plan of Hopewell Village Historic Park,” August 1964, 8. 117 Allan Connelly to Chief, Division of Management Analysis, July 13, 1970, Hopewell Village 

NHS, Correspondence, 1960-1975, Historical Files, WASO. 
Restoration, Religion, Recreation, and Roads 

211

system as a back up.118 While maintaining the twenty-year fire agreement with French Creek 

State Park, the park also entered a cooperative agreement in 1975 with the nearby Kulptown 

Volunteer Fire Department, a well-equipped and trained group, to address structural fires. 

The agreement included a dialer system to alert Kulptown and park officials as a supplement to 

the existing freon-activated horns and fire extinguishers.119 The system tragically failed in 1980 

when the Blacksmith Shop burned down after it was used as a demonstration site on Labor 

Day. The structure had had no fire detection device, and a spark from the hearth likely caused 

the blaze.120

Infrastructure 

The recreational interests of French Creek State Park and the religious issues of the 

Bethesda congregation often challenged the park’s development goals. However, the use of 

park lands and resources to build infrastructure like utilities and road systems contributed to 

Hopewell’s operations and interpretative services. Such services also required special 

arrangements and agreements between NPS and non-NPS entities. 

Roads. The arrival of Superintendent Joseph Prentice in the summer of 1954 continued 

Hopewell on its course toward a revitalized village. Over his six-year tenure, he guided 

numerous “ambitious, though sometimes misguided, investigations and restorations” 

including rebuilding the village’s historic roads.121 The National Park Service had faced its most 

serious development impediments in maintaining funding and a work force, but the failed 

negotiations to acquire roads that ran through the park from adjacent townships also delayed 

progress.122 The new entrance road and parking lots in 1954 brought further attention to the 

historic road system and “scene.” 123 However, in order to close the public roads and initiate 

Prentice’s historic road restoration, the NPS would have to work in conjunction with French 

Creek State Park. 

 

118 Nathan B. Golub to Superintendent, November 14, 1974, D5039 Gum Springs Reservoir, 

Central Files, HOFU. 119 Disrude, 1975 Annual Report, February 11, 1976, Annual Reports, HOFU, HFC. 

120 Dirude, 1980 Annual Report, March 11, 1981, Annual Reports, HOFU, HFC. 

121 Kurtz, “History of Archeology,” 53. 

122 “Master Plan Development Outline,” 7-12, HOFU. 

123 “Hopewell Village NHS 1952-54,” General Correspondence 1948-60, Northeast Regional 

Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 
Restoration, Religion, Recreation, and Roads 

212

Although the by-pass road helped divert most traffic away from the historic site, the 

new entrance road finally allowed the closing of the intrusive Birdsboro-Warwick Highway, 

which bisected the village for several years. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania repaired and 

straightened the highway in 1932, irrespective of preservation concerns.124 Since that time, the 

state and township had done very little about maintaining the roadways through the parks, and 

the National Park Service had no authority to expend federal funds to do so.125 In March 1949 

the new manager at French Creek, George Corbin, began working on a plan with the 

commonwealth to relocate the Joanna Road blacktop and close the existing lake road off from 

the village area. If the plan proved successful, it would facilitate the closures of roads like 

Birdsboro-Warwick Road that cut off the Ironmaster’s House from the furnace group and 

result in a far more peaceful and attractive Hopewell Village, and eliminate a major 

impediment for collecting funding for Hopewell’s restoration.126

Finally, in the summer of 1952, French Creek and Hopewell met with the Union 

Township Board of Supervisors (Berks County), the public agency with the legal authority to 

close public roads. Walter Wirth of French Creek State Park softened resistance to the 

requests of the National Park Service by asking for the township to close Joanna Road. The 

board agreed as long as the state promised to return the road to the township if they ever 

abandoned it, and asked Wirth to widen the group camp road for school buses in the park. 

The NPS’s subsequent request for portions of Birdsboro-Warwick Road (Union Township 

Road 418), Joanna Road (417), and St. Peter's Road (347), totaling 1.35 miles, met no opposition 

or stipulations. “It seems that at long last, after many years of negotiations and 

correspondence, we are about to acquire the roads needed to afford proper control of the 

area,” James Cass proclaimed.127 The decision also paved the way for Prentice’s road 

restorations in 1955-56. 

By the early 1970s, the transportation pattern within and outside Hopewell’s 

boundaries had been so altered that even those visitors who sought out Hopewell Village as a 

 

124 Tobin to Superintendent, July 13, 1956, D18 Master Plan Correspondence, Central Files, 

HOFU. 125 Allen to Custodian Gibbs, April 5, 1948, File 630 Roads, Hopewell Village, General 

Correspondence 1939-1952, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 126 Gibbs to Allen, March 23, 1949, Hopewell Village, General Correspondence 1939-1952, Region 

5, RG 79, NARA-P. 127 Cass to Cox, June 12, 1952, Cass to John C Bradley, June 12, 1952, File 630 Roads, Hopewell 

Village, General Correspondence 1939-1952, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 
Restoration, Religion, Recreation, and Roads 

213

destination, could not find it. The old Birdsboro-Warwick Highway, which passed by the park 

entrance, had no route number. Chief Ranger Larry Points met with the Department of 

Transportation to assign number “345.”128 However, recently lost and cranky visitors 

continued to arrive at the park after numerous wrong turns due to the lack of direction 

between the Pennsylvania Turnpike and the closest numbered route. Since that time, the 

Turnpike Authority and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation have erected 

additional road signs to guide visitors to Hopewell. 

Utilities. Other significant developments remained hidden from visitors’ eyes, but 

proved just as vital to the operation and infrastructure of the park. At the time the government 

purchased Louise Brooke’s land, National Transit Company Telegraphs and Metropolitan 

Edison had already claimed rights-of-way through the property. In the late 1940s, Acting 

Custodian Catherine Fritz raised the issue of electrical service in the park when Historian 

Dennis Kurjack’s office was relocated to a section of the Barn. It was important for him to be 

able to work on site in the village core because most of it entailed visitation and artifact 

treatment. His predecessor before the war, Archeologist Chris Motz, had located his office in 

the same space, but the CCC funds had provided him with an electric generator. When Fritz 

contacted the Metropolitan Edison Company about the issue, they told her they could lay 

wiring underground, but they strongly discouraged it due to poor reliability. Coordinating 

Superintendent Francis Ronalds and Historian Melvin Weig agreed, however, that overhead 

wiring would be aesthetically prohibitive, and that underground wiring would be too 

expensive. They suggested a light plant instead.129

Associate Regional Director Elbert Cox, Roy Appleman, Regional Landscape Architect 

Stanley W. Abbott, Melvin Weig, and Dennis Kurjack convened at Hopewell Village NHS to 

further discuss utilities issues at a January 19, 1949, conference. A September inspection by 

Ronald Lee several months later prompted them to revisit the issue with more urgency. The 

advent of winter, and the obvious lack of progress on an administration building, highlighted 

the need for adequate heat and lighting in the historian’s office in the Barn as well as electric 

lighting for the exhibit cases in the Office-Store. Superintendent Russell Gibbs had the electric 

company survey the power line and pole locations, but electricity in the village became even 

 

128 Points, Interview, July 9, 2003. 
Restoration, Religion, Recreation, and Roads 

214

more of a priority in the 1950s when Hopewell Village staff tried to lure the Pennsylvania 

Handicraft Guild to the village for the latter’s annual fair. Superintendent Gibbs sought 

approval to erect poles in strategic areas “so that they intrude as little as possible on the 

scene.”130

With far less fanfare than the Visitor Center, the former CCC SP-7 area became the 

permanent site for the park’s new maintenance building, metal storage and two residences and 

parking in 1959, per Apple’s Mission 66 prospectus. The NPS destroyed the last of the CCC 

buildings at that site in the summer of 1960.131 Soon after Mission 66 development, the NPS 

issued twenty-year special use permits to Bell Telephone and the Metropolitan Edison 

Company. While Bell agreed to run the lines underground to the village core, Edison was 

again reluctant.132 Finally after some negotiation, the electric company routed them 

underground throughout the village in 1973 to prevent “intrusion upon the historical scene.”133

 

When the permits expired and in anticipation of the Bicentennial, Edison completed the 

underground installation of a power line, telephone line, and television cable line to all parts of 

the village for an alarm system. The power line also provided electrical power at the Cast 

House and Tenant Houses Nos. 2 and 3 by early December 1973. Regional Engineer Veach 

designed a second distribution system to allow the control of humidity in Tenant Houses Nos. 

1 and 2 and the Boarding House in order to protect the furnishings.134

As these examples illustrate, many of Hopewell’s decisions in the area of land use tried 

to balance the park’s administrative needs with its management obligations. Religious and 

recreational considerations have posed the most glaring challenges to the preservation goals of 

 129 Catherine Fritz to Regional Director, ca. 1947, Melvin Weig to Francis Ronalds, August 8, 1947, 

Fritz to Ronalds, July 16, 1947, Ronalds to Fritz, July 11, 1947, Fritz to Ronalds, July 9, 1947, W File, Central 

Files, HOFU. 130 Gibbs to Regional Director, November 29, 1949, W File, Central Files, HOFU; Cass to 

Regional Director, May 4, 1950, W File, Central Files, HOFU; Prentice, Monthly Report, January 1959, 

February 11, 1959, Hopewell Village, General Files, NERO-P 131 Monthly Report, 1959, NERO-P; “Assessment of Artifact Storage Building Construction and 

Impact on CCC-Era Features,” Section 106 Files, NERO-P. 132 Chief Nathan B. Golub, Division of Maintenance to Regional Director Lemuel Garrison, June 

27, 1967, “Hopewell Village NHS 1965-68,” General Correspondence 1966-68, Northeast Regional 

Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 133Nathan Golub to Elms, April 2, 1973, Correspondence 1960-75, Hopewell Village NHS, 

Historical Files, WASO. 134 Elms, 1973 Annual Report, January 25, 1974, Annual Reports, HOFU, HFC. 
Restoration, Religion, Recreation, and Roads 

215

the park. Preserving the historic landscape motivated many of the NPS’s management choices 

regarding Hopewell’s resource use and the building of its infrastructure. Preserving the 

“historic scene” by maintaining surrounding agricultural fields also fell under the category of 

Special Use. However, because such use contributed to issues of site preservation, the topic 

will be discussed in the following chapter on natural and cultural landscape management. 
 

216

VIII. Preserving the Rural-Industrial Landscape: 

Natural Resource and Cultural Landscape Management 

Unlike many of its other historic areas, the National Park Service discovered and 

designated Hopewell Village National Historic Site in the middle of a natural preserve, a 

recreational demonstration area already federally recognized and set aside for conservation 

based upon its rural location and natural beauty. Throughout the twentieth century, yearround visitors have flocked to the Hopewell area to soak in the springtime blooms, stroll under 

the lush shade of summertime trees, “leaf-peep” at fall foliage, and spy on the idyllic winter 

wonderland at Hopewell Village and French Creek State Park. At the same time, visitors can 

learn about how industries like Hopewell Furnace extracted the very natural resources they 

had come out to “the country” to enjoy. 

Today, environmentalists emphasize man living harmoniously with nature, but in their 

day, the ironmaster and his workers “symbolized progress and man’s domination over 

nature.”1

 In his study of the Columbia River, Historian Richard White argues that, “One of the 

great shortcomings–intellectual and political–of modern environmentalism is its failure to 

grasp how human beings have historically known nature through work.” 2 This idea about how 

working people have interacted with nature was also illustrated through the rural-industrial 

landscape at Hopewell Furnace. The structures at Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site 

claimed their prominent place in park development since the park’s designation, but the 

natural setting remained a critical part of recreating the park’s “historic scene.” 

The “Historic Scene” 

Swedish Architect Arthur Hazelius, who designed the prototype for outdoor history 

museums, advocated the interpretation of structures “in natural as well as historical and 

cultural context.”3

 The preservation of Hopewell’s natural landscape was often inconsistent 

throughout the park’s life, usually at the “whim” of park managers, and often considered only 

 

1

 Francaviglia, Hard Places, 9. 2

 Richard White, The Organic Machine: The Remaking of the Columbia River (New York: Hill and 

Wang, 1995), 4-5. 3

 Jay Anderson, Time Machines: The World of Living History. (Nashville, TN: American 

Association of State and Local History, 1984), 19. 
Preserving the Rural-Industrial Landscape 

217

for aesthetic and nostalgic reasons.4

 Initially, the planners at Hopewell Village focused upon 

the surviving cultural structures over the natural characteristics of the landscape, but they still 

had a hard time ignoring the latter. Historian Roy Appleman included the vegetable and flower 

gardens, orchard, and piles of ore in his development proposal in 1936. Other reports of that 

era describe the “historical grounds” and list historical gardens. Conferences discussed 

running electrical wires underground so as not to “intrude” upon the historic scene.5

 Still, the 

original boundaries as drawn by Melvin Weig largely focused only around the built 

environment, often referred to as the “core village area” or “village nucleus.” Weig also cited 

“landscape surroundings” like gardens and agricultural fields. Due to the desire to preserve 

administrative independence from recreational planning, however, the historians drew the 

park’s initial boundary lines to focus primarily around the built structures, thus excluding the 

RDA and a large chunk of the surrounding natural environment.6

 Even Appleman downplayed 

the importance of including forestland within the historic site arguing “simply to show the 

extent of the area involved in the operation of a charcoal-burning, ironmaking establishment.”7

Soon after designation in 1938, several interpretation issues elevated the importance of 

Hopewell’s natural surroundings to the telling of the furnace’s history. The Hopewell Village 

pamphlet that the NPS produced in 1940 began with a photograph of the landscape and 

explained the reasoning behind the policy of siting iron furnaces. The following year, NPS 

Geologist Harold Hawkins advocated the installation of an exhibit describing the ironmaking 

process. “To not exploit these facts and tell the metallurgic and geologic stories,” he argued, 

“would leave a gap in the interpretative presentation as would be true if the social and military 

stories were omitted.”8

 

When Hopewell Village NHS acquired all of the French Creek RDA in 1942, 

management had a difficult time balancing the lake, trails, picnic facilities, and campsites 

against the integrity of the historic resources and “scene.” Post-war hunting groups challenged 

 

4

 James P. Corless, Roger Stone, and Jeffrey Collins, “Resource Management Plan: Hopewell 

Furnace National Historic Site,” (1994), 9. (RMP) 5

 Prentice, Monthly Report, January 1959, February 11, 1959, NERO-P. 6

 Melvin Borgeson, April 20, 1937, H14 Research Survey, Central Files, HOFU; CLR; Acting 

Regional Director Fred Johnston to Director, October 12, 1942, “File 601-03 Camp Sites,” National 

Historic Sites-Hopewell, Central Classified Files 1933-49, RG 79, NACP. 7

 See Chapter 2 for more details on the initial boundary decisions. H. K. Roberts to Francis 

Ronalds. February 3, 1940, Hopewell Village [2], 1936-1952, Hopewell Village, Region I, Central 

Classified Files 1936-1952, RG 79, NARA-P. 8

 Harold Hawkins, March 27, 1941, General Files, NERO-P. 
Preserving the Rural-Industrial Landscape 

218

the park’s ban on hunting. In order to support their own position, they often cited the 1916 

Organic Act, which established the National Park Service. They emphasized the part of the 

legislation that made the agency responsible for the preservation and conservation of natural 

resources within its jurisdiction for the public’s enjoyment.9

Even after the 1946 split from former RDA lands rid Hopewell of the hunting concerns 

and other recreational obligations, park interpreters still could not escape discussing the 

significance of natural resources in the ironmaking process, particularly trees for fuel, a 

running water supply for energy, and iron ore and limestone for ingredients. Walter Hugins’s 

Mission 66 Prospectus called for recognition of the natural resources that Hopewell workers 

used to make iron. Hugins even advocated the reconstruction of quarries, charcoal pits, ore 

and limestone stockpiles, and other ironmaking facilities.10 In November 1963 the draft of the 

Master Plan presented the park’s objectives as preserving surviving structures and objects, as 

well as the environment and the historic scene. It stated: 

A resource second only to the village nucleus in importance is its immediate environs: the 

surrounding fields devoted to agriculture and pasturing, the scattering of houses beyond 

the village core, and some 600 acres of second growth timber land. These complete the 

scene and serve as a reminder of the rural conditions that were a necessity for Hopewell 

Village’s existence.”11

Superintendent Elizabeth Disrude took many steps to preserve the rural setting. She 

recognized that, “For a park to manage its natural resources effectively, the managers need to 

know what natural changes are expected and the anticipated directions and rates of such 

changes. They also need to recognize changes, which are unexpected and may disrupt the 

management or the natural environment of the park.”12 Subsequent environmental legislation 

further raised the requirements for managing natural resources, in addition to the cultural 

ones, within a historic site. However, when classifying much of the village’s natural 

surroundings for management in the 1976 Statement for Management, Superintendent Disrude 

 

9

 “...to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and 

provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired 

for the enjoyment of future generations.” As quoted in Elizabeth Disrude, “Statement for Management,” 

1981, 2. 10 Walter Hugins, “Mission 66 Prospectus for Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site,” (July 17, 

1955), 3, HOFU. 11 “Master Plan for the Preservation and Use of Hopewell Village National Historic Site,” 

Volume 1, Chapter 1, Objectives and Policies (January 1963), 2, HOFU. 12 1986 Annual Report, April 8, 1987; Disrude to Art Miller, November 7, 1985, “Semi-annual 

report to Congress.” 
Preserving the Rural-Industrial Landscape 

219

placed them under the “special use zone,” rather than part of the “historic zone.” She defined 

the former category: “Lands within this zone are managed to preserve the setting of the 

village.” Even though most of the special use zone fell under “special use permits,” this 

categorization, which limited the “historic zone” to the village core, continued to propagate a 

management tradition at Hopewell Village National Historic Site: separating the resources of 

the built environment from those of the natural one. The Washington Area Support Office 

encouraged an even more distinct separation, commenting that Disrude should eliminate the 

special use zone and simply divide the resources between “historic” or “natural.”13

Such a decision to divide resources along “historical” and “natural” lines had 

significant repercussions for the site’s management. The classification, which would have to 

be approved by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, would mean that only the 

“historic zone” (the village core or nucleus) would be listed on the National Register of 

Historic Places.14 By 1981, while the agricultural fields remained in the special use zone, the 

“natural zone” included 635 acres of woodlands, streams, and wildlife refuge. Ranger John 

Apel joined the staff as a trained Natural Resource Management specialist, and the park 

completed a Natural Resource Management Plan in 1981.15 Soon afterwards, the state of 

Pennsylvania designated French Creek a “Scenic River” based on its water quality, the fact that 

its waters had never been impounded, and that no one had ever developed the shoreline. The 

classification placed the river’s maintenance in the hands of the Department of Environmental 

Resources, qualifying the waterway as a “cold water fishery.”16

By the end of the twentieth century, the park cited one of its largest threats as the 

impending loss of its rural environment and natural resources. “In its heyday, Hopewell 

Furnace was an industrial island in an agricultural sea; today [the area] is a small island of open 

space endangered by a rapidly rising sea level of residential and commercial development,” 

lamented the authors of the 1994 Resource Management Plan (RMP).17

 

13 Robert Utley to File, March 25, 1976, Consolidated WASO Division, Comments on Statement 

for Management: Hopewell Village National Historic Park, April 1976, Hopewell NHS, Correspondence 

1975-, Historical Files, WASO; Disrude, “Statement for Management,” 1976. 14 Ibid. 

15 Disrude, “Statement for Management,” 1981; Natural Resource Management Plan: Overview 

and Needs. 16 Sharpe and Neff, “Water Resource Management Plan,” 3. 17 RMP, 12. 
Preserving the Rural-Industrial Landscape 

220

Agricultural Lands 

The agrarian landscape that surrounds the historic structures of Hopewell Furnace 

NHS has allowed the NPS to maintain a large buffer zone to development through a 

comprehensive maintenance program of Special Use Permits. As early as the 1940s, Hopewell 

Village leased out lands for agricultural purposes through Special Use Permits. With so many 

meadows that needed to remain open and the dilution of WPA workers, park administrators 

hoped to secure sheep to bring grass, weeds, and undergrowth under control through grazing 

permits. These permits would cover the pastures and meadow from the Baptism Creek Picnic 

Area, both sides of St. Peter’s Road, upstream on both sides of French Creek, through the 

historic village and Camp No. 4, and westerly along Joanna Road. Unfortunately, available 

documentation is unclear about whether this plan ever came to fruition.18

 

With the advent of World War II, park goals leaned more toward soil conservation and 

wartime food production programs nationwide rather than toward historic land restoration. 

The NPS sought leadership from the local County agricultural agent of the Agricultural 

Extension Service.19 By the late 1950s, the park’s policy indicated that Hopewell’s planners 

considered the preservation of the natural surroundings critical to its mission. They aimed to 

progressively restore terrain to its appearance in historic times. This task included clearing old 

abandoned fields, exposing fence rows and stone walls, replacing rail fences, farming in fields 

that had historically been farmed, and returning grazing to nearby meadows. Another way 

Hopewell administrators hoped to preserve the historic agrarian scene within the park’s 

limited funds and staffing was to negotiate adjacent lands. Finally, staff hoped to issue special 

use permits to re-establish the agricultural fields. Farmers would pay rent to the U.S. 

government based upon land evaluations. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

practices guided the content of the leases “in order to preserve the soil, prevent erosion, 

conserve the water table, lime and fertilize, clip weeds in pastures and all other good farming 

 

18 Heinrich to Regional Director, Region I, September 22, 1942, Heinrich to Regional Director, 

November 25, 1942, NMP-CCC May 1, 1940-September 30, 1942, “Hopewell Village,” General 

Correspondence 1954-66, Eastern Office, Division of Design and Construction 1954-1966, RG 79, 

NARA-P. 19 Correspondence, “W34 Service Wide Defensive Equipment Policy,” Central Files, CRM, 

HOFU. 
Preserving the Rural-Industrial Landscape 

221

practices consistent with the historic scene.” 20 The instructions also included crop rotation 

schedules consistent with those in historic times. Unfortunately, it became increasingly 

difficult to find reliable permittees to remain on plots of land (92 acres of crops and 40 acres of 

meadow and pastureland), which required a considerable amount of work to sustain.21

 In 1958 five carefully chosen recipients took advantage of the program. Unfortunately, 

because the soil in the park consists of a thin red clay that is difficult to farm, all but one, 

Eugene Beam, used the land only for grazing and growing hay. Similarly, only a very few small 

fields adjacent to the creeks of the upper French Creek Valley were farmed in historic times. In 

the late 1960s and 70s, the park issued three other land permits for two year periods to 

Raymond Peachy for cattle in the pasture of the main village, Dr. Frank Power for horses near 

Bethesda Church, and Russell Kurtz for several historic fields.22

 

Planners increasingly stressed the link between the maintenance of agricultural land to 

the preservation and interpretation of Hopewell Village NHS, and some identified it as the 

park’s most critical category of “special use.” A Visitor Use study conducted in 1979 advised 

that, “Of primary importance in issuing Special Use Permits is insuring that their use will help 

maintain and perpetuate the historic scene through use of pasture and crop land.” In addition, 

the report offered that the NPS could ensure further attention to the historic scene by issuing 

special use permits as “scenic easements” in order to provide a buffer to the southeast—where 

French Creek State Park does not act as a border.23

 

In May 1992 Natural Resource Specialist Roger Stone prepared a long overdue “Field 

Maintenance Plan” to address the effects of the farm fields, stock sizes, and animal waste on 

French Creek water quality.24 By this time, the deer population had grown so prevalent that 

their negative impact on crop production forced the NPS to issue agricultural permits without 

 

20 Regional Director Daniel Tobin to Superintendent Joseph Prentice, August 29, 1958, Prentice 

to Director, September 2, 1960, Hopewell Village 1957-64, General Correspondence 1966-68, Northeast 

Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 21 Ibid. 

22 Ibid. 

23 Elizabeth Disrude, “Visitor Use Plan: Hopewell Village National Historic Site,” September 17, 

1979, 11, Visitation, Historical Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 24 Jane M. Kennedy, Chief Interpreter, “Annual Statement for Interpretation and Visitor 

Services: Hopewell Village National Historic Site,” December 7, 1981, 4; Cook, “Statement for 

Management,” 1993, 22. 
Preserving the Rural-Industrial Landscape 

222

a fee. Recipients began converting many of the fields meant to grow crops to hay. In lieu of the 

cash fee, the permit farmer today donates some of the hay to the park.25

 

Fauna/Wildlife 

The deer population in the French Creek area has been a perpetual issue for Hopewell 

management. In addition, both the state and the federal parks are home to a substantial and 

diverse community of birds. Foxes and several other predatory animals also inhabit the area. 

Since World War II, no NPS staff member has conducted a systematic inventory of fauna 

beyond the rough estimations of wildlife that Superintendent Emil Heinrich included in his 

annual reports (the Allied sailors often helped out in this task). However, the park staff 

continued conducting informal inventories of wildlife until 1982, relying upon their positive 

relationship with the Pennsylvania Game Commission to provide most of the deer herd count 

statistics for planning purposes.26

Deer. After the transfer of French Creek lands to the State, the issue of hunting 

significantly diminished as an administrative concern, but Hopewell’s protection rangers still 

emphasized their law enforcement roles, especially during hunting season.27 In 1961 the annual 

reports recorded twenty-three deer in a Baptism Creek herd, and eighteen on nearby Mount 

Pleasure. Because cold weather made it hard for deer to forage, more of them moved into the 

surrounding countryside of the historic site. As a result, instances of “spotlighting” (observing 

wildlife at night with headlights or flashlights) rose within Hopewell’s boundaries, not to 

mention the number of “road kills” that inadvertently resulted from the activity.28 

By the late 1980s, overgrazing by huge populations of white-tailed deer, driven into the 

NHS during hunting season, had created serious problems. Superintendent Derrick Cook 

tried to solicit cooperation from nearby Valley Forge, but to no avail. In 1991 his new Chief 

Ranger, Jim Corless, who focused more on resource interpretation than protection, met with 

the regional director to address the problem. The two agreed to “display the badge,” but scale 

 

25 Chief Ranger Jeffrey Collins to Leah S. Glaser, E-mail Correspondence, May 16, 2003. 

26 Emil Heinrich, Annual Report, 1945, Annual Reports, Historical Central Files, HOFU; 

Kennedy, “Statement for Interpretation,” 1981; RMP, 4; Disrude, 1981 Annual Report, April 8, 1982, 

Annual Reports, Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, HFC. 27 Some of the actions they took to ensure the park’s no-hunting zone, such as extensive signage, 

caused problems for recreating a historic cultural landscape. 
Preserving the Rural-Industrial Landscape 

223

back activities for “nailing” illegal hunters in order not to aggravate overpopulation. The 

following year, Natural Resource Specialist Roger Stone secured funding for a deer study. He 

established plots and exclosures as a mechanism for monitoring the impact of the animals on 

forest regeneration, yet the rising numbers of deer continued to threaten the historic vegetable 

and flower gardens and prohibited the successful planting of any crops, particularly corn, aside 

from hay on the fields.29 By that time, Superintendent Josie Fernandez was able to borrow 

several law enforcement rangers from nearby parks like Valley Forge to patrol often and at 

least create the public perception that the park would not tolerate hunting on its lands. Over 

the last several years, staffing conditions have forced Hopewell to continue the practice.30

Turkey Vultures. In the 1970s Ranger and Acting Superintendent Larry Points began to 

inquire about the ample number of turkey vultures, or buzzards, within park boundaries.31 A 

flock of over 100 returned from the south around February each year and would congregate 

until November before heading south again. Park employees could rarely answer frequent 

visitor questions about the large creatures that roosted among the trees and on the fence posts. 

The birds caused problems when they clustered around the Visitor Center and maintenance 

area. They endangered resources when, as they perched in the morning sun, they would break 

the cedar roof shingles on the historic buildings. The vultures’ excrement caused even further 

damage and odor. It was not until over a decade later that the National Park Service 

commissioned a report by the Virginia Technical Institute that would assess if such vultures 

had been in the area in the nineteenth century, and the park began a monitoring program. 

Other nesting birds, such as pigeons and swallows, caused similar sanitary and preservation 

problems. Periodic target practice served as management’s primary solution for reducing the 

population. In 1987 staff drafted an Integrated Pest Management Action Plan to finally address 

the situation.32

 28 January 1961, February 7, 1961, February 1961, March 10, 1961, Annual Reports, Hopewell 

Furnace National Historic Site, HFC. 29 RMP, 4; Jim Corless, Taped phone interview by Leah S. Glaser, July 8, 2003. 30 Collins, Interview, July 24, 2003. 

31 Acting Superintendent Larry Points to National Audubon Society, December 26, 1973. 32 Disrude, “Statement of Management,” 1981, 11; “Vultures of Hopewell Village National Historic 

Site,” ca. 1988, N14 Turkey Vultures, Central Files, HOFU; Disrude, 1987 Annual Report, April 7, 1988, 

Annual Reports, Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, HFC; Natural Resource Management Plan, 

July 1988. Attached to 1994 RMP as an update. 
Preserving the Rural-Industrial Landscape 

224

Flora

Woodlands. Out of the 848 acres of land in the Hopewell Furnace National Historic 

Site, 201 were historically used for agriculture and 647 were forested (76 percent). Today, 

almost 75 percent is second growth woodland. Mixed variations of oak (chestnut oak, scarlet 

oak, black oak), black birch, yellow (tulip) poplar oak, red maple, dogwood, catapula, and 

sycamore trees visually isolate and protect the site’s historic ruins. At the same time, the 

hardwood forest provides cultural significance because it furnished the furnace’s fuel. The 

forest was the primary reason for the rural location of the ironmaking industry.33

Several discussions and efforts over the years tried to interpret the forest’s significance 

to the furnace’s operations. In 1961 Hopewell Village’s first Interpretive Prospectus and 

Vegetative Management Plan both called for the inclusion of a “typical” charcoal-cutting tract 

near the village.34 NPS naturalists considered the tract so significant to the interpretation of the 

site that they included the idea in the park’s Master Plan. The plan proposed to issue Special 

Use Permits to 95 acres for the purposes of grazing sheep (only 30 acres were under permit in 

1962), 106 acres for farming (100 acres were under permit in 1962), and an undetermined 

acreage for a charcoal-cutting tract.35 In the mid-1960s, the park cleared an area known for its 

cedar and aspen trees and bound by 1825 Birdsboro-Warwick Road, 1757 Historic Road, and 

Route 50A for its proximity to the village and the reconstructed hearth. They designated the 

area a “cedar pasture,” and ran a rail fence around it on three sides with a wire on the fourth. 

Later, maintenance reconstructed a historic fence to enclose the area. Superintendent Zerbey 

suggested the area also provide the exhibit of a charcoal-cutting tract. It would serve to 

introduce the self-guiding tour.36

 

33 Fire Management Plan for Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, July 1980, 4. Microfilmed 

copy at DSC/TIC. 34 Assistant Director Design and Construction A. Clark Stratton to Regional Director, November 

4, 1963, John A. Reshoft, Master Plan Coordination, to Regional Director, June 21, 1962, Hopewell 

Village NHS 1961-66, General Correspondence, 1966-68, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 35 Herbert Kahler, Division of History and Archeology, to Chief, Master Plan Coordination, 

September 20, 1963, “Hopewell,” Correspondence 1960-1972, Historical Files, WASO; Joseph Prentice, 

“Master Plan for Preservation and Use of Hopewell National Historic Site,” Volume III, General Park 

Information, Section E. Protection, January 1962, 2. 

36 Superintendent Zerbey to Regional Director Ronald Lee, November 15, 1963, “Hopewell 

Furnace NHS 1961-66,” General Correspondence 1966-68, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P; 

Assistant Director Design and Construction A. Clark Stratton to Lee, November 4, 1963, “Hopewell 

Village NHS 1961-66, General Correspondence 1966-68, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 

36 Kurtz, “History of Archeology,” 81. 
Preserving the Rural-Industrial Landscape 

225

His successor, Superintendent Riddle, again raised the issue when he requested a 

regional technician to mark a five-acre tract for charcoal cutting. During the summer, the 

park’s interpreters planned to have a collier cut wood for charcoal-making, illustrate stacking 

and hauling of wood on sleds, and burn a charcoal pile during visitor season in the area 

“adjacent to beginning of walking tour and interpretive trail.”37 By the next administration, 

park maintenance was still clearing the cedar pasture and, in 1976, finally restored it to its 

historic appearance with a view of the Anthracite Furnace. The annual report recorded that 

the park planned to pasture sheep there.38 Today, however, the park no longer maintains this 

cedar pasture. The fence has collapsed and the field has become overgrown.

Orchard. While restoration activities slowed down considerably during World War II, 

Emil Heinrich did not completely ignore the historic resources during his administration. To 

recreate the orchard at Hopewell from 1820-1840, he ordered apple trees from a local nursery 

in order to replicate the appearance of a historical apple orchard with 220-250 trees covering 

five acres. With all the existing apple trees in the park worm infested, Heinrich initially hoped 

to secure eighteen unbudded, wild apple trees with good root systems and trunks suitable for 

growing larger trees and budding historical apple breeds. Unable to find them, a local expert 

suggested the park make due with budded trees, but plan to rebud them with the appropriate 

historical apples.39

Superintendent Heinrich initially requested fifty apple trees from the WPA in ten 

different apple varieties, all tall enough that the fruit would be out of reach for rabbits and 

deer. Plans to offer the fruit-bearing trees to someone to tend through a Special Use Permit 

never materialized.40 In 1960 park maintenance planted another 150 trees and soon afterwards 

began an integrated pest management program involving seven sprays a year. Most research 

 36 “Hopewell Village NHS, 1960-62,” General Correspondence 1953-63, Northeast Regional 

Office, NARA-P. 37 Riddle to Regional Director. 

38 1975 Annual Report, February 11, 1976, Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, HFC. 39 Emil Heinrich to Enterprise Nurseries, October 17, 1944, Walter F. Stein, Enterprise Nurseries 

to Heinrich, October 21, 1944; Heinrich to Worley’s Nursery, October 23, 1944, Heinrich to Root’s 

Nursery, October 23, 1944; J. W. Root, Roots Nurseries to Heinrich, October 26, 1944; Heinrich to 

Root’s Nurseries, October 27, 1944, Heinrich to Cacoosing Nurseries, November 8, 1944, Heinrich to 

Stein, November 23, 1944, W File, Central Files, HOFU. 40 Acting Superintendent Emil Heinrich to Field Superintendent Alfred F. Smith, December 8, 

1942, Superintendent Elizabeth Disrude to Director William Penn Mott, “N22 Apple Orchard,” Central 

Files, HOFU. 
Preserving the Rural-Industrial Landscape 

226

indicated that the trees historically grew high, but in the early 1960s, park leadership made the 

decision to top off the trees, perhaps for aesthetic reasons, a decision that was reversed soon 

afterwards. In the summer of 1967, NPS Horticulturalist David Moffitt reported that the 

Hopewell grounds looked “great,” except for rust disease on the rhododendron outside the 

Visitor Center and field mice damage to the apple trees. He recommended chemical treatment 

but suggested reducing the spray schedule to six times a year since human consumption was 

not a necessary concern.41

 

From the time the government established the park, Hopewell’s staff advocated that 

the management of the orchard would reflect the preservation of the apple trees rather than 

that of fruit production. Visitors were free to pick apples until signs in 1981 reduced 

unauthorized fruit gathering because the activity caused too much damage to the orchard.42

 

After the park’s annual Harvest Festival, the park invited visitors to collect those apples that 

had already fallen to the ground and donated the fruit to non-profit organizations.43 However, 

in 1986 the orchards helped make up for budget cuts when the park sold $5,000 worth of 

apples (27 varieties) for $.25 a pound to any member of the public who wanted to pick them 

from September through October. Over the next three years, apple sales equaled $2,876.12, 

$3,923.75, and $6,723.67 respectively. At the same time, the North Atlantic Region developed a 

policy for marketing fruit from all of the orchards within the National Park System. In March 

1988 Natural Resource Specialist John Apel drafted an orchard management plan to consider 

historically appropriate varieties of apples that would be “most resistant to disease and 

insects.”44 The regional survey counted 174 apple trees at Hopewell Furnace in 27 different 

varieties. Two seasonal positions, one full and one part-time, would be charged with 

establishing plots of vegetation, maintaining growth control, and collecting specimens. By 1999 

 

41 Horticulturist David L. Moffitt to Regional Director, June 27, 1967, “Hopewell Village NHS 

1965-68,” General Correspondence 1966-68, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 42 Kilareski, Interview, July 25, 2003; Dale Biever, Taped interview by Leah S. Glaser, July 23, 

2003. 43 Disrude, 1982 Annual Report, Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, HFC. 44 Kennedy, “Statement for Interpretation,” 1981; Elizabeth Disrude to William Penn Mott, 

August 26, 1987, “Resource Management Notes,” April 1, 1988, James Coleman Jr. to Disrude, June 9, 

1988, “N22 Apple Orchard,” Central Files, HOFU; Prentice, “Master Plan for the Preservation,” January 

1962. 
Preserving the Rural-Industrial Landscape 

227

the park charged $.50 a pound, with volunteer and employees allowed to pick up to ten pounds 

free.45

Garden. In addition to the charcoal-cutting tract and the orchard, the 1961 Vegetative 

Management Plan proposed to restore the garden next to the Ironmaster’s House. Drawings in 

Roy Appleman’s 1936 historical survey indicated his visions of restoring the mansion’s 

landscaping. The plan documented all of the surviving vegetation and ruins, but when the 

CCC removed many of the terrace wall stones for construction elsewhere in the RDA, it made 

the garden location more difficult to mark. Under Garrison and Motz, early excavations 

focused around the Greenhouse ruins in hopes of yielding information for restoring the 

gardens and boxwood hedges.46 In 1955 the EODC sketched a “Plan of the Mansion Gardens” 

and Historian Russell Apple included them in his 1956 Historic Base Map, while Regional 

Archeologist John Cotter located the terrace walls, paths, and Ice House pit. Maintenance 

crews cleared the area, installed a stone step walkway, and planted a small number of garden 

plots. Yet even though the Mission 66 Prospectus and the 1964 Master Plan urged that 

management attention be paid to the garden, the park staff did not begin planting in front of 

the Tenant Houses and Ironmaster’s House until 1971.47 The 1973 Interpretive Prospectus 

suggested establishing the position of a gardener/farmer, especially once the Greenhouse was 

reconstructed. The request was granted the following year with the appointment of Kevin 

Ziemba. (The Greenhouse was never reconstructed, and not even stabilized until 1977). When 

Ziemba transferred to Colonial NHP in 1981, Keith Newlin and later Ronald Boice filled the 

position. In 1975 Superintendent Wally Elms ordered a plant list for Hopewell, but it is unclear 

if anyone ever generated one.48 

The park received funding in September of 1985 to conduct a flora study to identify 

plant communities in order “to establish a baseline for progressive historic scene restoration.” 

The park enlisted Rutgers University to collect samples of more than 150 different types of 

vegetation. The Philadelphia Academy of Sciences cataloged and stored them for study at a 

 

45 Elizabeth Disrude to William Penn Mott, August 26, 1987, “Resource Management Notes,” 

April 1, 1988, Resource Management Specialist Nora Mitchell to Director, July 13, 1988, “N22 Apple 

Orchard,” Central Files, HOFU. 

46 Garrison to C. M. Mishler, May 9, 1941, NMP-CCC Hopewell Village April–December 1941, 

General Correspondence 1939-1952, Hopewell Village, Region V, NARA-P. 47 EODC, “Plan of Mansion Gardens,” August 1955, DSC/TIC; Park Ranger/Interpretive 

Specialist Georjean G. Bender, “Hopewell Village NHS, Living History Report,” 1971. 
Preserving the Rural-Industrial Landscape 

228

later date. But that same year, Superintendent Disrude scaled back the park’s objectives for 

natural resources. Rather than research and document the ecosystem, protect rare, threatened 

or endangered species, and maintain water quality as discussed, the Statement for 

Management that year only promised to manage the natural environment “in keeping with the 

historic themes of the site.”49 Much of Disrude’s motivation stemmed from concerns that the 

objectives were simply not specific enough to apply to Hopewell.50 In 1988 Dr. Emily Russell 

helped establish twenty permanent plots from which to monitor over time and analyze 

vegetation data that was specific to Hopewell.51 The Reading-Berks Rose Society donated 

seventeen types of roses with pre-1867 origins to Hopewell as a gift in honor of the 

Bicentennial. Members paid frequent visits to tend to them, but more recently, problems with 

deer grazing put an end to the roses and inhibited growth of the garden. 

Environmental and Energy Awareness 

In response to environmental activism and the 1973 oil embargo, social and political 

awareness of environmental and energy sources arose as a prominent issue. The movement 

encouraged parks to develop programs within the NPS by the late 1970s, when the 

government’s Retrofit Program sought to heed President Jimmy Carter’s call for fossil fuel 

reduction. Superintendent Elms appointed Charlie Seidel as Energy Conservation 

Coordinator; however, the park produced much of its own energy for its interpretive 

programs, especially in the summertime. While the theme did not officially appear in 

Hopewell’s planning documents until the 1981 Statement of Interpretation, Superintendent 

Disrude recognized the ease with which her park, one where natural and cultural resources 

both contributed to the site’s historical significance, could comply. Besides, the park had 

 48 Superintendent Elms to Associate Regional Director, August 7, 1975, N1621 Endangered Plants, 

Central Files, HOFU. 49 Disrude to Chief, Division of Park and Resource Planning, Statement for Management, 

September 26, 1986. 50 Handwritten note on “Synthesis of Review Comments,” August 19, 1986. 51 1988 Annual Report. 
Preserving the Rural-Industrial Landscape 

229

already hired two ranger-historians to design and conduct natural history interpretation 

almost a decade before.52

Three different interpretive programs already concentrated on the use of Hopewell’s 

renewable energy resources (wood, water, and animal power) as opposed to non-renewable 

energy resources and could adapt its extant programs to further stress energy awareness. First, 

the park made its own charcoal, which fueled the hearth that, in turn, provided the intense 

heat needed for the Cast House’s pouring demonstrations. Costumed interpreters could easily 

stress energy awareness while demonstrating an industrial or domestic activity and compare it 

to what a modern power machine or appliance could accomplish. Second, the park’s ongoing 

school programs could emphasize that Hopewell Villagers exercised efficient use of their 

resources. Fourth through sixth grade students would be old enough to understand that 

technology did not always translate into progress. Third, an exhibit in the Visitor Center 

already explained the energy efficiency of cast iron stoves over the hearth. In addition to those 

examples, the Baptism Creek Environmental Study Area, formerly the Baptism Creek Picnic 

Area, provided a further opportunity to address the trends of the environmental movement. It 

could also interpret the cultural landscape relevant to the park’s goals, and it could do so in a 

manner that did not interfere with or encumber the existing preservation programs taking 

place in the village core. 

The Baptism Creek Environmental Study Area 

The CCC facilities of the Baptism Creek Picnic Area began to deteriorate by the late 

1960s, but the former picnic site received renewed attention when the NPS required its parks 

nationwide to compile information on their natural resources “for master planning 

purposes.”53 In an effort to encourage the public’s enthusiasm for environmental education, 

the Department of the Interior, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the 

National Education Association, and interested local educators joined together to design the 

National Environmental Study Area (NESA) program. Superintendent Riddle identified the 

 

52 1973 Annual Report, Hopewell Furnace National Historic Park, HFC; Regional Naturalist to 

Regional Director, August 29, 1967, Hopewell Village NHS, 1961-66, General Correspondence 1966-68, 

Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 53 Deputy Chief Scientist to Regional Directors, August 20, 1968, “A98 Development of Baptism 

Creek ESA,” Historical Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 
Preserving the Rural-Industrial Landscape 

230

Baptism Creek area as Hopewell’s contribution to this effort. Ranger Denny Beach submitted a 

report on June 23, 1968. He proposed sixty acres of Baptism Creek as an Environmental Study 

Area (ESA), an area within the national parks designated to serve the interests of 

environmental education for a supportive local school system. The area offered a landscape 

that could illustrate the impact of humans on their environment and became the park’s 

keystone exhibit of environmental interpretation and education. Over the years, the 

Hopewell’s staff had allowed the Baptist Creek picnic facilities, as well as a stone ruin known as 

the Brison House, to deteriorate. To prepare for the ESA, maintenance staff spent a good deal 

of time clearing the area of abandoned debris, repairing the original picnic pavilion, and 

restoring a water system to the area.54 In 1983 the Youth Conservation Corps stabilized the 

Brison House ruins and partially stabilized the nearby Woodlot House.55

 

At first, the ESA saw very little activity. However, as early as 1970, Seasonal Ranger 

Harry L. Hart designed a map and walking tour of the study area, laying out the trail and 

advising guides about what to discuss.56 The Hopewell Village Division of Interpretation, 

Ranger Larry Points, and Superintendent Elms, approved ESA folders as educational materials 

on May 21, 1974, after reducing the area to forty acres and expanding distribution to adult day 

hikers as well as school groups.57 A teacher’s guide, geared more or less toward fifth through 

seventh grade students, followed a few years later (1978-1981). It offered a choice of eighteen 

on-site, hands-on activities involving cultural, natural, and recreational resources for teachers 

to select as supplements to their curriculum. The study focused upon the interaction between 

human beings and nature by using multi-disciplinary ideas for incorporating the study area 

into many different subjects. It suggested students review the ecological background of the 

forested area and the impact of the furnace and charcoal pollution. In addition to natural and 

energy resources, the ESA guide featured the landscape’s man-made features like the trails, 

power lines, and the East Headrace.58

 

54 Denny Beach, Supervisory Park Ranger/Environmental Conservation Specialist, June 23, 1968, 

“Environmental Study Area Inventory,” “A98 Development of Baptism Creek ESA,” Historical Central 

Files, Bally Building, HOFU; Beach, E-mail, July 24, 2003; Seidel, Interview, July 25, 2003. 55 Disrude, 1983 Annual Report, Hopewell Furnace National Historic Park, HFC. 

56 Beach, E-mail, July 24, 2003; Harry Hart, Taped interview by Leah S. Glaser, July 26, 2003. 57 “A Guide to the Baptism Creek Environmental Study Area,” ESA folders, May 21, 1974, K3819 

ESA Guide Handout; Elms to Chief, Publications, March 13, 1974. 

58 Elizabeth Disrude to Regional Director, December 9, 1977, Environmental/Energy Awareness, 

Central Files, HOFU. 
Preserving the Rural-Industrial Landscape 

231

After the Nolde Forest Environment Center opened sixteen miles from Hopewell, 

Superintendent Elms second-guessed the amount of investment the park had made in the 

study area. “There is some feeling that Hopewell should limit use in its ESA to the level of 1972 

(71 groups, 2300 students in 1972) and concentrate its resources on the village,” he commented 

to the assistant director of operations.59 ESA visitor numbers fell dramatically the next year due 

to a teacher’s strike in a school district that normally would have scheduled the entire fifth 

grade for this tour.60 The 1980s budget cuts forced the park’s staff to downplay the ESA even 

further in an effort to limit off-site touring and focus on the park’s primary draw—the village 

structures.61 Today, the park does not include the ESA in its interpretation. However, a 1994 

revised National Register form identified the Baptism Creek area as a contributing resource 

(rather than a non-contributing resource or intrusion) to Hopewell Furnace National Historic 

Site due to its association with the New Deal era and rustic period style architecture.62

 

The Rural-Industrial Landscape 

For the short time the park interpreted the Baptism Creek Environmental Study Area, it 

helped shape visitors’ understanding of Hopewell’s rural-industrial landscape. Mining and 

ironmaking areas like Hopewell were industrial sites set in rural areas, places many people 

view today as “softer” landscapes like the “agrarian countryside or the pristine wilderness.” In 

reality, iron furnace sites were, as scholar Richard Francaviglia discusses, “hard places–where 

making a living is tough work,” where business interests tried “to outwit both nature and the 

economy,” and where workers “were constantly transforming the earth...”63 After the furnace 

“blew out” for the last time, half a century of natural regeneration camouflaged the impact the 

community had made to such an extent that the government chose the location based upon its 

beauty and recreational possibilities. Today, industrial and residential expansion again 

threatens the rural, and natural, character of the area. Throughout its history, planning at 

Hopewell Furnace NHS has tried to balance the preservation of the rural setting with planner’s 

desires to recreate the realities of a historical iron furnace community. 

 

59 Elms to Assistant Director, Operations, Northeast Region, 1972 Annual Report, January 17, 

1973, Hopewell Furnace National Historic Park, HFC. 60 1973 Annual Report, Hopewell Furnace National Historic Park, HFC. 61 “Statement of Interpretation,” 1988. 

62 National Register of Historic Places, 1985, 1994. 
Preserving the Rural-Industrial Landscape 

232

In some ways, the beauty of Hopewell’s natural setting and the NPS’s commitment to 

natural resource conservation issues compromised interpretation of an early industrial site. 

Visitors were often charmed by the pristine tranquility they felt within the village, a feeling not 

particularly appropriate to the iron furnace in historical times. In one letter, a very satisfied 

visitor conveyed his family’s very positive, but inaccurate impression of Hopewell. 

Not only was the village interesting but the setting for this quaint old iron town was so 

beautiful and serene that we were sorry to leave. Everything about Hopewell was so 

realistic we actually felt as if the clock had been turned back over a hundred years. This 

feeling was caused not only by the authentically restored buildings and charming 

countryside but also a wonderful lack of commercialism that seems to have invaded the 

surrounding areas of other historical sites on our tour.64

 

Even during the height of restoration, Superintendent Joe Prentice insisted that rather than 

creating this impression, he was trying to stay true to historical accuracy. 

If the public sees weeds and tall grass here, they should realize that in 1840 the lawn 

mower still had not been envisioned. This was a utility area. The people who worked 

here were interested in the production of iron ore—not beauty. Hopewell Village is not 

supposed to be a showcase—we’re trying to make it look like an early American ironmaking community.65

When the park staff completed the rest of the Master Plan in 1964, they elaborated on 

creating that “feeling of vitality” through the recreation of the historical scene with the 

restoration of the Ironmaster’s Garden, agricultural fields, and meadowlands, and the 

introduction of the domestic animals that grazed upon them. Natural resource 

management needed to be “in keeping with historic themes of the site.” The policy stated 

that, “most natural resource management activity involves the use of natural resource 

techniques to achieve cultural resource objectives...to maintain and further restore the 

mid-nineteenth-century appearance of all Hopewell Furnace lands.”66

 

Still, the bucolic rural setting continued to conflict with the scene of an industrial site. 

For years, the primary task of the Maintenance Division entailed mowing 35 acres of grass and 

continually painting the structures. Regional Naturalist Earl Estes complained the area was too 

well kept. He even suggested that starting a charcoal fire in the furnace would augment the 

visitors’ understanding and appreciation, and provide an appropriate and exciting backdrop 

 63 White, Organic Machine, 4-5; Francaviglia, Hard Places, x. 

64 Vincent J. Diorio, July 31, 1969, Hopewell, Correspondence 1960-1975, Historical Files, WASO. 

65 “A Visit to Hopewell,” Reading Automobile Club Magazine 36, no. 5 (July 1958). 
Preserving the Rural-Industrial Landscape 

233

for the living history presentation in the Cast House.67 Other critics in the National Park 

System offered that the park should simulate more untidy and disorderly work conditions like 

the Farmer’s Village in Cooperstown, New York.68 In support of this type of idea, the 1973 

Interpretive Prospectus stated that “restoration of the historic landscape should be given a 

high priority, because an authentic setting will add believability to the site.”69 This included 

“unnatural” exhibits like fences, outhouses, clotheslines, gardens, scattered charcoal and tools, 

and wood, slag, limestone, and iron ore piles.70 In the early 1970s, the park experimented with 

using sheep to help out with the mowing, but the interpreters complained that the animals 

were turning the Cast House into a litter box.71 While the park has adopted a policy of 

maintaining historical accuracy in recent years by scaling back the level of grooming, several 

employees were disappointed to see a less than manicured landscape and visitors often 

complained bitterly about it.72 “There was nothing left amiss,” affirmed former Seasonal 

Ranger Bill Bitler. After a four-year stay at Hopewell, Supervisory Ranger Larry Points 

concluded: 

The big problem with a place like Hopewell is every superintendent and about every 

maintenance crew and everybody wants it looking really good, and in reality that’s 

nothing like what it was like. It was hellhole—let’s face it! Ya know, no workman’s 

compensation, the place was dirty, the hills were denuded, smoke was everywhere, 

cursing teamsters. You can’t even begin to recreate that! So you give a very false 

impression to visitors who almost think that it’s so idyllic that they would have liked to 

have lived in those times, and you’d say “No! You wouldn’t.”73

Non-NPS programs, largely environmental conservation groups, have helped sustain 

the pastoral image. Six Penny and French Creek also held significance on a local level in Berks 

County. The county only allowed limited development on their watersheds and this policy 

 66 Benjamin Zerbey, “Master Plan of Hopewell Village National Historic Site,” Chapter 2, Area 

Objectives (August 1964), 7. 

67 Trip Report by Regional Naturalist and Staff Horticulturalist Earl Estes and Regional Chief of 

Interpretation and Visitor Services Frank Barnes to Regional Director, April 15, 1968, Hopewell Village 

NHS 1965-68, General Correspondence 1966-68, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 68 Visit of Rogers W. Young to Hopewell Village NHS, August 3-4, 1963, Hopewell NHS, 

Correspondence 1960-1975, Historical Files, WASO. 

69 Nan Rickey, et al., “Interpretive Prospectus,” 1973, 11. 70 Superintendent John C. W. Riddle to Assistant Director, Park Support Services, NERO. 

“A6423 Park Activity Standards and Resource Requirements Data,” 1971-72. 71 Seidel, Interview, July 25, 1003 

72 Elms, Interview, July 9, 2003; Malizzi, Interview, July 9, 2003. 

73 Points, Interview, July 9, 2003. 
Preserving the Rural-Industrial Landscape 

234

helped buffer the historical site significantly. The Natural Lands Trust, a local nonprofit 

regional land trust founded in 1961, began the Hopewell Big Woods project in 1988 to inventory 

a 110 square mile area in Chester and Berks counties, which included Hopewell Furnace NHS, 

and develop an ecological plan of protection and stewardship for the region. In 1991 a local 

landowner donated four nineteenth-century farms (which had become one property in the 

1950s) to the Natural Lands Trust. Today it is known as the Crow’s Nest Preserve, which aims 

to provide educational and research opportunities. The Natural Trust Lands organization 

continues to acquire and manage land, with a goal of securing 500 acres southeast of the site 

for conservation purposes.74

Years later, planners continued to debate about whether to conserve a bucolic and 

pastoral scene or “to preserve a representational rural-industrial landscape.”75 Preserving the 

approach to the site persisted as a significant concern for park managers, but by the end of the 

century, state park and game lands no longer provided enough of a buffer from incinerators, 

quarries, and housing developments.76 As suburbanization and industrialization continued to 

creep into the formerly rural area, superintendents of the 1980s pleaded for a General 

Management Plan to provide justification for boundary expansion by resolving the definition 

of the “historic scene.” Acting Superintendent Russell Smith argued that one of Hopewell’s 

central management problems centered around, “a basic lack of agreement about what our 

objectives are in preserving the historic scene. If the historic scene consists of only the ‘core 

village’ area, then the threats are less than if we consider the historic scene to be a broader area. 

The current discussion seems to identify the need for a GMP to define what the historic scene 

is and what our objectives are in landscape preservation.”77

In 1993 the Chief of Park and Resource Planning agreed that, “The beauty of the area is 

not true to its historic scene, when the site would have muddy areas, trees clear cut to the 

horizon for fuel, and be filthy with activities associated with the furnace and charcoal-

 

74 RMP, 6; Natural Lands Trust, “Crow’s Nest Preserve” Brochure, April 2000; Jim Thorne, 

“Summary of the Natural Resources Roundtable for Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site,” 

Elverson, PA, August 20, 2003, p. 8. 75 Cook, “Statement for Management,” 1993, 22. 

76 RMP, 12. 

77 Acting Superintendent Russell P. Smith to Associate Regional Director, MAR, March 21, 1988, 

“Threats to the Park,” N1621, Central Files, HOFU. 
Preserving the Rural-Industrial Landscape 

235

making.”78 Local community groups held their own views. Comments from the Berks County 

Planning Commission indicated that they felt the decision over how to interpret a ruralindustrial landscape rested on what would most benefit the interpretation of the site from 

1820-1840. Yet Estelle Cremers of the French and Pickering Creeks Conservation Trust did not 

see replicating an industrial environment as a particularly realistic, nor desirable, goal. The 

park’s Long Range Interpretive Plan that same year responded to such doubts. “Although the 

dirt, noise, and safety hazards of a completely authentic industrial landscape are not possible, a 

pastoral, quiet, green suburban appearance is equally unacceptable.”79

The 1993 Long Range Interpretive Plan contended that clear-cutting, carefully strewn 

handbills, stored hay, and the removal of modern intrusions like water fountains were some 

ways to correct the site’s romantic perception.80 However, whenever the maintenance crew 

allowed the grass to reach the height it would be if maintained with a scythe, visitors were 

indignant. The problem of restoring and maintaining the “historic scene” of an industrial site 

continued to conflict with the system-wide goals of the National Park Service to protect 

natural resources. 

In 1994 Superintendent Derrick Cook and his staff began a Resource Management Plan 

in response to the previous year’s management statement reaffirming the park’s commitment 

to manage “natural resources to support cultural values while protecting and preserving 

natural resources in accordance with legislation and policy.” The report advised more 

attention be paid to the threats to the cultural resources scattered outside the core village area 

as well as those outside the boundaries, including several ruins and a quarry.81 It also called for 

a “Cultural Landscape Report” as the key to enforcing these changes and solving long-standing 

interpretive paradoxes. 

 

78 Pamela E. Munroe, Berks County Planning Commission, to Superintendent Derrick Cook, 

May 12, 1993, Estelle Cremers, French and Pickering Creek Conservation Trust, June 12, 1993, SFM, 1993, 

37. 79 Cook, et al., “Long-Range Interpretive Plan,” 1993, 31. 

80 Chief, Park Planning Site Visit Report, May 23, 1989, “Threats to the Park,” N1621 Hopewell 

Village Historic Site, Central Files, HOFU. 81 RMP, 13 
Preserving the Rural-Industrial Landscape 

236

Cultural Landscape Preservation 

Cultural landscapes are defined as geographic areas that include both natural and 

cultural resources as well as animals. Historian Paul Groth traces the acceptance of the cultural 

landscape idea to John Brinckerhoff Jackson’s publication of Landscape magazine in 1951, but it 

likely gained popularity with the burgeoning environmental movement and the publication of 

Rachel Carson’s classic text, Silent Spring. Perhaps not coincidentally, it was about that time 

that the grounds surrounding the core village received considerable attention. As an agency, 

the National Park Service followed professional trends in preservation and began to recognize 

the importance of cultural landscapes in the 1960s. 

Still, the Service only began producing publications for writing cultural landscape 

reports (CLRs), and using them as planning documents in the middle to late 1980s. Most of the 

NPS’s early CLRs only contained documented references to landscape features with emphasis 

placed on social history. Robert Z. Melnick, Emma Jane Saxe, and Daniel Sponn published 

Cultural Landscapes: Rural Historic Districts in the National Park System, and articulated a 

whole new way of interpreting a site like Hopewell Furnace that could also encompass the idea 

of community.82 They defined a Rural Historic Landscape as “a geographic area that 

historically has been used by people, or shaped or modified by human activity, occupancy, or 

intervention, and that possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of areas of 

land use, vegetation, buildings and structures, roads and waterways, and natural features.”83

Throughout the 1990s, planning reports continued to stress the idea of preserving cultural 

landscapes in historical sites. A Historic Scene Report for the Hopewell Furnace’s core village 

area and “Big House” grounds in 1995 served as a supplement to Historic Structures Reports. 

Author Stuart Wells not only discussed the historical use of structures, but the environs: the 

field crops, gardens, and livestock that surrounded them.84 Still, no formal landscape 

restoration and management plan on Hopewell emerged until Kise, Franks, and Straw Cultural 

Resource Group (KFS) finally completed the task at the end of 1997. 

 

82 Robert Z. Melnick, Emma Jane Saxe, and Daniel Sponn, Cultural Landscapes: Rural Historic 

Districts in the National Park System (Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, 1984). 

83 Linda Flint McClelland, et al. “Guidelines for Evaluation and Documenting Rural Historic 

Landscapes,” National Register Bulletin No. 30, (Washington, DC: Interagency Resources Division, 

National Park Service, Department of the Interior). 

84 Stuart W. Wells, “Historic Scene Report: Core Village Area and Big House Grounds,” 

(Elverson, PA: Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, 1995). 
Preserving the Rural-Industrial Landscape 

237

The CLR compiled archeological data, oral histories, and secondary sources, as well as 

architectural information on the Greenhouse, privies, Ice-Summer House, Gardener’s 

Toolhouse, and the terrace walls and fences.85 Among many landscape preservation 

recommendations, the cultural resources group suggested conveying some of the sensory 

characteristics of the industrial environment, those that might be hard to replicate, in the 

audiovisual programs. To emphasize regional contexts outside the park’s boundaries, they 

encouraged physical connections with French Creek State Park through the road and trail 

system, as well as interpretive ones with the French Creek Charcoal Iron Belt and the 

Schuylkill River Heritage Corridor. For the village core, the consultants offered ideas for 

introducing “small scale elements” such as clothing lines and hitching posts to add life to the 

“Museum-like” atmosphere. The report also argued to expand the interpretation of the 

agricultural management zone by including the trail system, the Bethesda Church, the Thomas 

Lloyd Farm, the Church/Houck Farm, and the Harrison Lloyd Farm.86 The report made 

several comments about the historical accuracy of Hopewell’s surroundings, but while the 

park has followed several of its subtler suggestions for resource management, such as keeping 

the grass longer and maintaining the orchard, an outhouse is still the only new structure to 

appear in the village.87

As administrators hoped to preserve as many “elements of the charcoal iron furnace 

activity” during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries as possible, it became clear 

that, at Hopewell, natural resources were cultural resources through the historic iron 

production process.88 Hopewell’s early emphasis on archeological excavation forced the park 

and its limited staff to employ a multi-disciplinary approach to management that would echo 

the suggestions typically offered in the later cultural landscape reports.89 By the 1990s, the 

park’s planning team recommended employing cultural landscape preservation where 

structural preservation and living history had failed in realizing Roy Appleman’s vision of 

bringing historical Hopewell Village and Furnace “to life” for its visitors.90 For years, the 

 

85 James Kurtz, “Ironmaster’s Mansion Garden Research and Development Plan” (1991), Library, 

HOFU. 86 CLR. 

87 Collins, Interview, July 24, 2003; Hebblethwaite, Interview, July 24, 2003. 88 RMP, 2. 

89 “A Guide to Cultural Landscape Reports,” (Washington DC: National Park Service, 

Department of the Interior), 15, 20. 90 Cook, et al., “Long-Range Interpretive Plan,” 1993. 
Preserving the Rural-Industrial Landscape 

238

conservation of natural resources and the preservation of the “historic” scene were 

incompatible goals for realizing a truly accurate rural-industrial landscape at Hopewell 

Furnace National Historic Site. Whether the use of cultural landscapes as broader theoretical 

and management approaches offers something closer to the desired accuracy remains to be 

seen.
 

239

IX. Facts and Artifacts: 

Research and Collections at Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site 

Beyond the natural setting, Hopewell’s vast collections of artifacts and historical 

documents also set it apart from many other historic sites. As an early industrial history 

museum, the Henry Ford Museum was geared toward visitors’ education and entertainment 

rather than research and scholarship.1

 In contrast to that attraction, the Northeast Museum 

Services Center observed that at the Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, “[b]eyond the 

standing structures, Hopewell gained significance because it had been studied so intensively 

over the past sixty years.” 2 Hopewell Furnace NHS contains 10,000 documents dating from the 

eighteenth to the twentieth century concerning business operations of the furnace and the 

Hopewell property, photographs back to 1887 and succeeding restoration efforts, 4,000 period 

pieces, and 250,000 archeological artifacts.3

 At Hopewell, archeologists and historians had 

always sought material objects and archival materials for research purposes (in search of 

structural information) first, and the preservation of the items themselves as a secondary 

concern. 

While serving as a research leader for ironwork sites and rural industrial communities, 

Hopewell has yielded information that has brought many assumptions and past interpretations 

into debate. This study has already reviewed many of the research reports geared towards 

architectural restoration, but research about the history of the site itself often had a great deal 

of influence upon issues of development policy. Likewise, the status of the buildings and the 

collections often dictated exhibits and interpretation. The reverse is also true. The decisions 

that the park administration, historians, archeologists, and resource managers made about 

what research and collections to pursue reveal a great deal about the park administration. 

 

1

 Stephen H. Cutcliffe and Steven Lubar, “The Challenge of Industrial History Museums,” in 

“New Perspectives on Industrial History Museums,” ed. Shelley Bookspan, special issue, The Public 

Historian 22, no. 3 (Summer 2000): 14-15. 2

 Northeast Museum Services Center, Boston, Collection Management Plan (February 1998), 1. 3

 Diann L. Jacox and Joseph Lee Boyle, National Register of Historic Places-Nomination Form, 

1985. 
Research and Collections 

240

Construction over Context 

While construction was eventually the stated focus of the research, the early historians 

still spent considerable time on other matters in order to take advantage of available materials 

and aging informants. Research Assistant Jackson Kemper continued Roy Appleman’s initial 

research on Hopewell as early as 1936 when he embarked on a reconnaissance mission to dig 

out Hopewell materials from area historical societies and make them aware of restoration 

activities. Kemper was warmly received and encouraged by possible collections. Several 

ledgers, boxes of letters, and receipts from the furnace stored in the attic of the Berks County 

Historical Society, which Appleman missed during his hunt for Hopewell documents, proved 

to be Kemper’s most exciting early find. WPA workers processed and catalogued the 

materials.4

 Kemper himself compiled objects from Nathan Care’s house.5 Louis Friedlander 

and CCC Historian Russell Baker were briefly sent to assist him the following year.6

By early 1938, when it began to look likely Hopewell would achieve the status of a 

historic site, John Cowan was assigned as senior historical foreman to create a research 

program and several reports to guide planning and development and “other incidental duties 

necessary to the physical rehabilitation of the old ironmaking community to 1785-1800.” 7 These 

included tabulating visitation, reporting on the appropriate materials to include in the 

Blacksmith Shop, drafting a research report on the anthracite ruins and a stone fence, and 

inventorying objects found in existing structures. Cowan inventoried several artifacts workers 

found at the furnace site including a six-inch cast iron pipe and an iron stirrup.8

 

Some of the most valuable research the historians collected came from interviews with 

locals who remembered Hopewell Furnace or were associated with it in some way. Appleman, 

Kemper, and Cowan repeatedly interviewed and consulted several times with eighty-six-year 

old Harker Long, who passed away in April of 1941. Long had managed the furnace for its last 

blast and continued to manage wood production afterwards. He provided valuable 

 

4

 Jackson Kemper, “Report for the Month of September 1935 of the Historical Research 

Progressing at the French Creek Project,” Hopewell/HOFU Box, HFC; Appleman to Borgeson, 

November 17, 1936, File 207-01.4 Annual Reports, 1941-1951, Historical Central Files, Bally Building, 

HOFU. 5

 Kurtz, “History of Archeology,” 4. 6

 Louis Friedlander to H. K. Acting Regional Director Roberts, September 7, 1927, General File 

through September 1940, NERO-P. 7

 Cowan, “Report of John P. Cowan,” June 1938, NACP. 
Research and Collections 

241

information about the “dear old furnace and village,” including a historical sketch of the 

furnace and information on several resources and issues relating to furnace operations such as 

original property boundaries.9

 Long also introduced Kemper to original Hopewell collier 

Lafayette “Leaf” Houck, who was also a former caretaker. Houck readily agreed to perform a 

charcoal-making demonstration to illustrate the process in the winter of 1936. With his son, 

Houck moved into a collier’s hut, and even after the senior Houck fell off a ladder partway 

through the event, local residents still flocked to the site to watch the younger collier complete 

the process, which lasted several days. Kemper researched and produced a detailed report on 

“American Charcoal-making in the Era of the Cold Blast Furnace” and produced a booklet in 

1940. Kemper and CCC Project Manager Arthur Sylvester co-authored “The Making of 

Charcoal as Followed by the Colliers of the Schuylkill Valley.”10

 

9.1 Collier’s Hut, 1936, HOFU Photographic Archives. 

Gradually, Hopewell’s research program responded to the urgency many felt was 

needed in order to move forward with the restoration of the site even at the expense of 

developing a contextual or interpretive history for it. “All plans for restoration,” stated Jackson 

Kemper, “must be based on this completely documented technical, historical research, 

 8

 Appleman, August 5, 1938, Lee to Russell, January 11, 1938, Appleman to Russell, April 12, 1938, 

General Files on HOFU through September 1940, NERO-P. 9

 See Harker Long, Historical Sketch of the Hopewell Furnace. Copy at Valley Forge Archeological 

Center, PA; Cowan, “Interview with Harker Long,” April 5, 1938, NERO-P; Motz, Monthly Report, April 

5, 1941, “NMP-CCC Hopewell Village April 1, 1941 to December 1941,” Box 56, RG 79, NARA-P. 10 Jackson Kemper, American Charcoal Making in the Era of the Cold Blast Furnace, Popular 

Studies Series 14 (Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1937); Arthur Sylvester and Jackson Kemper, 

The Making of Charcoal as Followed by the Colliers of the Schuylkill Valley (Pottstown, PA: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, January 1937); Kemper to Arthur Sylvester, December 

16, 1936, Papers of Charles Hosmer, NTL. 
Research and Collections 

242

particularly when a monument or park’s interpretation depends on restoration.”11 Visiting 

Historian and Archeologist Thor Borresen added, “The suggestion that the research be 

confined, as nearly as possible, to construction details rather than to the general history of the 

town is based on the following: As long as the basic principle at present is to restore the village 

to its original condition, and while men, funds, and personnel are available for restoration, this 

must be the first consideration.”12 There would be plenty of time, he contended, to research 

issues of historical context at later dates. 

The arrival of Lemuel Garrison and Chris Motz spurred a flurry of research in 1940 

centered on the histories of the buildings more than the history of the site. Motz scaled back 

public contacts, but continued interviewing local residents, or “informants,” who remembered 

the structures.13 WPA worker Howard Gale interviewed locals, and made valuable studies of 

blacksmith tools and the Wheelwright Shop in the early 1940s before moving on in his career.14

 

Garrison also secured a historical technician position from 1940-1941 for Charles Montgomery, 

formerly of the Berks County Historical Society, under WPA money to commence title 

searching and continue the research program in industrial history.15 Montgomery, whose local 

family ties granted him access to a variety of resources, also uncovered valuable early 

Hopewell-related maps, letters, and account books from numerous local repositories and 

homes. 

Collecting 

Amidst the focus on research, park employees acquired several items of historical 

significance. Local iron furnace scholar George Schultz advised Researcher Jackson Kemper 

to solicit funds for collections rather than the charcoal project. He offered his own 

watercolors of the original furnace wood stoves, tools, cannon balls, and machinery as 

potentially relevant museum pieces. George Schultz contacted Garrison when he heard he was 

 

11 Jackson Kemper, “Hopewell Village,” n.d., HOFU. 

12 Thor Borresen, “Hopewell Community,” June 5, 1940, HOFU. A 1952 master plan would later 

criticize that the syncretism of historical and archeological research methods did not work as well as 

they might have. 13 Motz, Monthly Report, March 3, 1941, Central Classified Files 1933-49, National Historic SitesHopewell, RG 79, NACP. 14 Howard Gale, Report on the Furnishings and Equipment and Methods used in the Blacksmith 

Shop, Hopewell Village Historic Site (February 1941), NERO-P. 15 Garrison to Appleman, October 21, 1940, General Files, NERO-P. 
Research and Collections 

243

searching for Hopewell Furnace “relics.” Schultz had completed thirty watercolors depicting 

the “complete saga of iron-making” for the Department of the Interior after consulting with 

ECW Architect Gustavus Mang, Roy Appleman, and Melvin Weig in the 1930s, but funding 

was never available to purchase them.16

Meanwhile, Garrison and Motz both personally spent considerable time visiting 

antique shops and collecting “authentic” furnishings for the site.17 Unfortunately, the park had 

little money to purchase any collections, so the two had to either solicit donations or become 

skilled in the bartering trade. Most artifacts collected from the furnace and headrace 

excavations were housed in the basement of the Ironmaster’s House for inventory. Motz 

appointed himself “the unofficial guardian of Hopewell’s artifacts” and developed an elaborate 

system of record keeping.18

 

While many of the park’s artifacts came out of its archeological digs, collecting for 

village furnishings began almost by accident. As early as 1940, Chris Motz reported “people of 

the neighborhood bringing in gifts for collections.” These aged, but sometimes random, items 

included an iron pot, shovel, frying pan, and grain scoops. As a matter of policy, Motz offered, 

“Many of these items have no immediate place in the exhibits but they may be found useful in 

furnishing the buildings upon restoration. And, since we have so little to work with, as a 

matter of general policy to [sic] accept any native item of the Hopewell period which is offered 

as an unencumbered gift. Loans, unless of exceptional interest, are being discouraged.”19

Garrison and Motz were also extremely active in soliciting items they knew they 

needed, such as the loan of charcoal wagon from nearby Joanna Furnace to use as a model for 

one that Hopewell hoped to reconstruct when funds became available.20 The two hired local 

woman Mrs. Charles Derby to construct a scale model of the village for exhibit display.21 One 

of their more ambitious projects involved locating an old cannon with a Hopewell connection. 

Garrison asked George Brooke to donate a portion of a cannon someone had dug up along 

 

16 George Schultz to Supervisor, French Creek, June 4, 1940, File 10-06 Exhibits, Historical 

Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 17 Kemper to Arthur Sylvester, November 19, 1936, Motz, March 3, 1941, Papers of Charles 

Hosmer, NTL. 18 See Kurtz, “History of Archeology,” 11-15, for a full account of Motz’s activities. 

19 Motz, Monthly Report, August 1, 1940, Central Files, 1940s, Bally Building, HOFU. 20 Garrison to Mrs. Wister Morris, March 16, 1940, “File 10-06 Exhibits,” Historical Central Files, 

Bally Building, HOFU. 21 Charles F. Derby to Garrison, September 9, 1941, Garrison to Mrs. Charles F. Derby, 

September 17, 1941. “File 10-06 Exhibits,” Historical Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 
Research and Collections 

244

French Creek. Brooke’s father had also informed him that others cast at Hopewell Furnace 

were buried nearby.22

 

The most significant coup under Garrison’s tenure contributed significantly to 

increasing the size of the park’s collection. While the CCC repaired the floorboards of the 

Office-Store, Motz made an accidental, but fortunate discovery of original furnace records 

from 1785. Shortly thereafter, Motz and Garrison exhibited cunning and persistence in 

obtaining artifacts for the collections. They secured a charcoal wagon from the nearby 

Principio Furnace in Maryland by trading it for the running gear from a Conestoga schooner 

that Garrison had purchased for $20. They stored it, appropriately, in the Charcoal Shed.23

In early 1941, Motz exhibited extraordinary devotion to the restoration of Hopewell 

with one large accession in particular. Edward Brooke fell into a scalding hot bath and died 

from his injuries soon after the incident. To settle the estate, his heirs began to sell off several 

pieces of furniture that the Brookes had taken from the Ironmaster’s House when the 

government purchased the property. What Brooke furniture actually had been in the mansion 

at Hopewell remained in dispute for years, but Motz decided not to take a chance of losing 

original furnishings, especially since a restoration policy and date for Hopewell Village had still 

not been approved at the time. 

In order to secure the items for Hopewell, and without consulting with Garrison or 

confirming any other approval, Motz quickly purchased the entire Brooke furniture collection, 

along with Brooke’s unique private collection of twenty-one nineteenth-century carriages, 

with his personal funds from a recent inheritance. He stored them in the Barn and 

Ironmaster’s House, and invited former Hopewell residents to try and identify some of the 

furniture. He hoped the Park Service would someday reimburse him, though his boss 

remained pessimistic about the prospect.

Director Demaray also praised Motz’s commitment to acquiring the articles. Nearly a 

year later, Garrison and his successor Ralston Lattimore did manage to secure repayment of 

$2300 from the unused balances of disbanded CCC camps and the park took ownership of the 

 

22 Garrison to George Brooke, August 20, 1941, Brooke to Garrison, September 18, 1941, Garrison 

to Brooke, September 20, 1941, “File 10-06 Exhibits,” Historical Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 23 Garrison, Making of a Ranger, 157; Motz, October 11, 1940, “Archeological Reports,” Historical 

Central Files, HOFU. 
Research and Collections 

245

collection.24 Motz dreamed of completing the furnishings with the collection, if funds could be 

made available, and therefore making the “Big House one of those rare historic homes almost 

completely equipped with the actual pieces of furniture used there during its historic period.”25

 

Around the time of Motz’s purchase, the Brooke family also agreed to donate several 

account books and documents housed at the Berks County Historical Society to Hopewell as 

well as any “Hopewelliana” found in trunks of boxes at the Brooke’s Birdsboro mansion 

including papers, photographs, and letters. Former Hopewell historian and Brooke 

descendant Jackson Kemper kept another stash of Hopewell collectibles in his home including 

furniture, blast books, and a bell that hung in the Cast House. Kemper offered to sell the 

materials to the park, but Motz indicated in his monthly report that it was unlikely that funding 

would be available for the purchase.26

 

The Brooke Carriage Collection 

The Brooke Carriage Collection reflected many of the changing viewpoints towards 

curation and even interpretation at Hopewell Village. In his annual report in 1941, Garrison 

noted the carriage collection, on display in the Barn, was “of lasting and substantial interest” to 

visitors. It remained so until 1954 when NPS historians began to question its relevance after the 

restoration of the Barn to the “golden age” era. Administrators held concerns about 

relinquishing the items due to a moral responsibility to Motz and the protests from the Brooke 

family. Superintendent Cass even contended that the items could illustrate the rising wealth of 

the Brooke family. Irregardless of those issues however, Regional Director Elbert Cox and 

Chief Historian Herb Kahler decided that without direct relevance to the “golden age” 

interpretation period (1820-1840), the NPS could not justify decreasing the considerable 

market value of the carriages because the park had no way of protecting the collection from 

deterioration.27

 

 

24 Garrison, Making of a Ranger, 162; Motz, Monthly Report, March 3, 1941, Lattimore to 

Ronalds, April 22, 1942, “File 900-06, Museum,” Central Classified Files 1933-49, National Historic SitesHopewell, RG 79, NACP; Garrison, Annual Report, July 17, 1941, File 207-01.4 Superintendent’s Annual 

Report July 1941-June 1951, HOFU; Excerpts from Records on Carriages H3019 Historians Files, File 

H3019, Carriages-Furniture Historic Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 25 Motz, Monthly Report, March 3, 1941, NACP. 

26 Ibid. 

27 Correspondence, File H3019, Carriages-Furniture, Central Files, HOFU. 
Research and Collections 

246

Carriage expert Paul Browning believed they belonged at the Vanderbilt Estate. But 

rather than lose ownership of the carriages altogether, Superintendent Zerbey decided to take 

advantage of the newly passed Management of Museum Properties Act (July 1, 1955). The new 

law authorized the creation of a Park Service virtual “museum clearing house” where parks 

could make exchanges and acquire objects they needed without using their own funds for 

insurance. 

In 1964 Hopewell Village transferred most of the Brooke Carriage Collection to the 

Staten Island Historical Society, which was trying to start a carriage museum. While Hopewell 

Village NHS would be permitted to conduct annual inspections, Staten Island could swap 

items of historical value with Hopewell Village and eventually obtain title to the Brooke 

Carriage Collection piece by piece. Hopewell Village paid the $800 moving cost, retaining 

three sleighs. Unfortunately, Hopewell’s desired “specimens” proved difficult to locate, and 

thus the exchange process took far too long for the historical society to continue to afford 

insurance on the carriages. In 1976 the collection was transferred to Roosevelt-Vanderbilt 

NHS at Hyde Park, NY. Having no historic connection to either Roosevelt or the Vanderbilts, 

it remained in storage.28

 

Although Hopewell received a Studebaker chaise, ore wagon, several carts and a hay rig 

that served the period of its interpretation, the local community protested loudly over losing 

the prized carriage collection. Superintendent Zerbey had made his controversial decision 

based on what the park professionals had determined visitors needed rather than what they 

wanted to see at Hopewell. “I took a lot of heat on that, believe me!” recalled Zerbey over 

thirty years later.29

 

28 Heydinger, “Revision Documentation,” NARA-P; Beulah B. Fehr, “The Carriage Collection of 

Edward Brooke,” Historical Review of Berks County 52, no. 3 (Summer 1987), 117; “Memorandum of 

Agreement of December 31, 1963 Between the Department of the Interior and the Staten Island 

Historical Society, Inc. Relating to the Loan of the Brooke Carriage Collection by Hopewell Furnace 

National Historic Site,” Minutes to Meeting, Carriage Collection at Hopewell Village NHS, July 8, 1963, 

Earl Heydinger to John C. W. Riddle, January 30, 1969, “Carriages,” Historic Central Files Files, Bally 

Building, HOFU; Ralph H. Lewis, “Collections Management,” in Museum Curatorship in the National 

Park Service, 1904-1982, (Washington, DC: National Park Service, US Department of the Interior), 1983, 

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/curatorship/; John C. W. Riddle to Arnold V. Scwartz, 

Staten Island historical Society, April 13, 1972; George Isles to Don McTernan, February 8, 1974, Chief 

Ralph H. Lewis, Branch of Museum Operations to Regional Director, February 19, 1971, Carriages, 

Historical Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 29 Zerbey, Interview, July 15, 2003. 
Research and Collections 

247

Searching for Relevance after World War II 

Rather than acquire items representative of a “typical” iron community, Hopewell’s 

collection policy under Emil Heinrich’s superintendence was site specific. While he claimed 

he would not rule out any non-Hopewell specific materials, “It seems best to us to limit such 

acquisitions only to types of material which are not already represented in the collection, or 

which cannot be located with a definite Hopewell relationship. Everything we do acquire 

should help to illustrate the Hopewell story.”30 Heinrich, who paid far less attention to the 

historical collections than Garrison, had a chance to secure three stoves, but only if he could 

confirm they were actually cast at the Hopewell Furnace.31

After the war, the neglect of resources left staff with a lot of damage control and 

catching up to do, while Mission 66 continued to emphasize construction. Historian Kurjack 

and his successors Hugins, Ronsheim, and Heydinger spent most of their energy conducting 

research to help determine restorations, restoration policy, or interpretive plans for the new 

Visitor Center. At the decade’s end, Superintendent Prentice reported that because they were 

so busy attending patrons, the park historians had less time for research.32 Occasionally, 

seasonal historians like Bill Bitler and John Keiffer were able to work on cataloging the artifacts 

from the earlier digs.33

Challenging Hopewell’s Revolutionary Heritage 

The most controversial research project involved a challenge to Hopewell’s connection 

to the Revolutionary War. Superintendent Riddle assigned Earl Heydinger the task of 

determining Hopewell’s specific role in the conflict. For years, park historians and tour guides 

had propagated the idea that Hopewell had supplied cannon to Washington’s Continental 

 

30 Francis S. Ronalds to Heinrich, December 13, 1944, File 10-06 Exhibits, Historical Central Files, 

Bally Building, HOFU. 31 Ibid. 

32 June 1959, July 10, 1959, Hopewell Village NHS, 1959, General Correspondence 1953-63, 

Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 33 Keiffer, Interview, July 23, 2003; Bitler, Interview, July 25, 2003. 
Research and Collections 

248

Army. At the same time, Riddle requested archeological searches of the park to uncover 

artifacts from the Revolutionary period.34

Hopewell’s staff had searched for subterranean proof that the furnace cast cannon 

since its beginnings as a park. In 1940 visitors informed Research Assistant Howard Gale that 

their grandparents discussed the burial of a cannon and cannonballs in the bog near the dam 

during the Revolutionary War.35 About a year later, a gas company employee read about the 

cannon in the newspaper and offered his radioscope to search for a Revolutionary War-era 

cannon buried at Hopewell. The park staff excavated an area near the Blacksmith Shop, but 

had no luck in finding the cannon.36 In 1960, the park gave permission to private citizen Ivan 

Kuhns of Lancaster to explore the area with his mine detector and mark areas official NPS 

personnel might explore further. On April 19, 1962, a Mr. Wamsher of the Birdsboro Water 

Company donated the services of his pipe locator, but again, he did not discover a cannon.37

A few years later, the Northeast Regional Office assigned Historian John Luzader of the 

Denver Service Center to prepare a special history report entitled “Hopewell Village’s 

Industrial Contributions to the American Revolution.” Superintendent Elms, Heydinger and 

Points, as well as Interpretive Specialist Peter E. Baril found the findings extremely 

disconcerting and dismissive about Hopewell’s contributions. Not only did Luzader’s report 

not pull together the links between Bird and the American Revolution as requested, but worse, 

he determined cannon manufacture at Hopewell to be “non-conclusive.”38 For Hopewell, such 

a conclusion was tantamount to a crisis. 

The American Revolution was a significant part of the interpretive program and 

literature of the park. Bicentennial construction projects and events especially played up the 

production of cannon, and Superintendent Elms worried, “No one wants to perpetuate a 

myth.” The report, he stressed, “...completely contradicts information that has been accepted 

 

34 John C. W. Riddle to Regional Director Henry G. Schmidt, April 7, 1972, Hopewell NHS, 

Correspondence 1960-74, Historical Files, WASO; M. D. Roshong to Superintendent W. P. Moll, Valley 

Forge State Park, February 14, 1968, D6215 Cannon, etc.- Bicentennial, HOFU. 35 Howard Gale, November 8, 1940, Archeology Reports, HOFU. 

36 Motz, Monthly Report, May 5, 1941, Central Classified Files 1933-49, National Historic SitesHopewell, RG 79, NACP. 37 November 2, 1956. Ronald Lee to Superintendent, November 25, 1960, Prentice to Lee, 

November 29, 1960, Archeologist Leland Abel to Superintendent, April 20, 1962, Riddle to Cotter, 

December 22, 1966, H2215 Mine Detector Exploration, Historical Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 
Research and Collections 

249

by Park Historians since the park was established. The conclusion made in this paper would 

seriously affect our interpretive program and our credibility with the local community and 

make all of our programs suspect in the minds of the visitor.” 39 Even more importantly, 

Hopewell’s staff insisted they had plenty of evidence to strongly support the idea that the 

furnace cast cannon.40

Meanwhile, staff in Washington grew concerned about Hopewell’s enthusiasm for its 

revolutionary connections, and the doubts in Luzader’s report delayed several development 

plans. Chief Historian Harry Pfanz refused to approve a press release entitled “Hopewell 

Village Role in American Revolution is a Daily Happening for Bicentennial Visitors,” because it 

categorically stated that Hopewell had cast cannon. Pfanz also worried over Hopewell’s 

decision to reconstruct a casting pit based on questionable evidence.41

Regional Director Chester Brooks agreed that the report raised plenty of questions and 

disagreements regarding Hopewell’s significance and interpretation. For a second opinion, 

the region solicited the temporary employment of University of Pennsylvania Professor 

Charles Funnell as an objective third party who might resolve some of the disagreements. 

Based upon a reference from Historian Earl Heydinger, Funnell had tracked documentation of 

large production cannon casting by Mark Bird through Naval documents and the Robert Treat 

Paine Papers at the Massachusetts Historical Society. The latter collection contained a letter 

that documented a cannon-testing on May 2, 1776. Furthermore, Funnell reinterpreted 

geological and archeological data to explain the lack of material evidence previous 

archeologists had found at Hopewell, and supported the park’s assertions that Hopewell 

would have been the only furnace in which Bird could have cast cannons.42

 38 Regional Director Chester L. Brooks to Merrill Mattes, Denver Service Center, December 27, 

1974, Superintendent Wallace Elms to Regional Director Chester Brooks, December 11, 1974, Hopewell 

NHS, Correspondence 1960-1975, Historical Files, WASO. 39 Peter E. Baril, December 11, 1974, Lawrence J. Masters to Elms, December 11, 1974, Elms to 

Brooks, June 16, 1975, Brooks to Manager, Denver Service Center, December 17, 1974, Elms to Regional 

Director, December 11, 1974, H2217 “Hopewell in Revolution Luzader and Funnell,” Historical Central 

Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 40 Elms to Brooks, December 11, 1974, H2217 “Hopewell in Revolution Luzader and Funnell,” 

Historical Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 41 Harry W. Pfanz, Chief Historian to Chester Brooks, Regional Director. June 4, 1975, 

“Hopewell.” Section 106 Files, NERO-P. 42 Charles Funnell of the University of Pennsylvania, January 15, 1976; Brooks to Pfanz, June 11, 

1975, H2217 “Hopewell in Revolution Luzader and Funnell,” Historical Central Files, Bally Building, 

HOF; Brooks to Mattes, July 16, 1975, “Hopewell,” Section 106 Files, NERO-P. 
Research and Collections 

250

Unfortunately, the retirement of Earl Heydinger and his replacement by a resource 

manager limited historical research for several years. A summer program in 1979 and 1980 

hoped to bring in specialized seasonal employees and assign them research projects.43 Lee 

Boyle, (1981-1990), Dona McDermott (1990-1992), James Kurtz (1992), and Frank 

Hebblethwaite followed Heydinger as supervisory historian at Hopewell. However, by the 

time Hebblethwaite applied in 1992, the title was largely meaningless. While the job 

description hoped to attract those with a strong historical background, 98 percent of the job 

involved the supervision of other rangers rather than historical research.44 The 1993 Statement 

for Management and the Long Range Interpretive Plan still hoped to encourage scientific and 

historical research to inform management practices, promote knowledge through publication, 

extend educational outreach, increase cooperative activities, and even enter the “mainstream 

of scholarly interaction.”45

Protection and Care of Collections 

Student Louis Friedlander assisted Jackson Kemper in cataloging the small museum 

collection housed in the Ironmaster’s House, but Garrison and Motz found very little of it 

needing particularly heavy protection during the impending war years. “Aside from collection 

of documents concerning early Hopewell operations, none of our possessions seem to us to be 

irreplaceable. We believe that, in case of a national emergency as mentioned in your 

memorandum, our location is such that items here would have good protection.”46

 

The care of the collections made considerable progress under Superintendents Gibbs 

and Cass. In 1947 Historian Dennis Kurjack moved the artifacts out of the second floor of the 

Office-Store and spread the objects across the shelving and floor of the basement of the Barn 

in order to better organize them. Other artifacts remained in cardboard boxes in the basement 

 

43 Kennedy, “Statement for Interpretation,” 1981. 

44 Hebblethwaite, Interview, July 24, 2003. 

45 Cook, “ Statement for Management,” 1993; Cook, et al., “Long-Range Interpretive Plan,” 1993, 

21. 

46 Garrison to Director, August 21, 1941, File 10-06 Exhibits, Historical Central Files, Bally 

Building, HOFU. 
Research and Collections 

251

of the Ironmaster’s House. Superintendent Gibbs soon realized they would require the aid of a 

curator.47

The Park had neither funds nor a trained technician, such as a museum curator, to treat 

the objects with updated scientific practices and prepare them for long-term preservation. As 

for temporary fixes, staff removed rust from metal objects before treating them with paraffin, 

applied linseed oil to wood and leather for moisture. Fabric and regular dusting helped 

protect furniture to a certain extent (the lack of electricity prohibited vacuuming), and they 

stored clothing with mothballs. Gibbs cited “thoughtless visitors,” particularly during the war 

years when staff rarely tended to the village core, as the most serious perpetuators of artifact 

damage. Since the war, the park had closed the Ironmaster’s House to the public who often sat 

on the furniture, added cases to the Office-Store, and roped off the carriages in the Barn.48

 

Soon after the park complained about its situation, the regional director authorized Hopewell 

to send its historical objects to Colonial National Historic Park for treatment in March of 

1950.49 Later that summer, the new historian, Dennis Kurjack, reorganized the photographic 

files.50

In 1948 the War Assets Administration transferred a steel Quonset hut to the Park to 

serve as additional storage.51 While the Quonset hut relieved some of the burden, the 

Ironmaster’s House stored many of the artifacts. They were later stored in an old CCC 

structure known as the Block House until they were moved to the second floor of the OfficeStore. The lack of storage had become so severe that Superintendent Prentice began to 

advocate artifact disposal, but never received permission to do so.52

Vandals broke into the Ironmaster’s House in 1955, but fortunately took no significant 

items.53 Artifacts and archival materials finally moved out of the basement and attic storage of 

century old buildings and found adequate preservation conditions in the office of the new 

 

47 Kurtz, “History of Archeology,” 34-35; Kurjack, “Brief for the Research Program on the 

Physical History of the Furnace Group,” June 1, 1948, Papers of Charles Hosmer, NTL. 

48 Gibbs, Superintendent to Regional Director, July 22, 1949, W File, Central Files, HOFU. 49 Regional Director to Superintendent, March 29, 1951, General Files, Hopewell Furnace 

National Historic Site, NERO-P. 50 Dennis C. Kurjack, Monthly Narrative Report, October 1950, November 2, 1950. 51 Elms to Regional Director, June 16, 1975, Bethesda Church, Central Files, Visitor Center, 

HOFU. 52 Kurtz, “History of Archelogy,” 70. 

53 Earl Heydinger, December 20, 1955, A7633 Vandalism, Central Files, HOFU. 
Research and Collections 

252

Visitor Center in 1958. However, storage space and care problems continued to plague some 

park administrators, while others focused on other issues of management. 

The 1964 Master Plan treated collections and archives as secondary, but the regional 

and Washington offices stressed Hopewell’s dire need for specimen preservation assistance. 55 

In 1968 the NPS hired temporary employee Mrs. Nancy Prine as a museum aide to treat and 

catalog backlog specimens. She gave top priority to the furnishings in the Office-Store, 

Springhouse and Tenant Houses, then the iron, tinware, copper artifacts on display, and lastly 

archeological pieces (since they already had specimen numbers assigned to them). Museum 

Curator Harold Peterson of the Harpers Ferry Center paid a visit to Hopewell Village NHS in 

March of 1969 to advise her as well as Junior Park Historian Jane Henzi for reasons of 

continuity (Prine was ill on the day of his visit). Peterson worried about the structural stability 

of the Ironmaster’s House due to infestations by powderpost beetles and mice. He advised the 

park staff to adopt resident tabby cats as a solution to the latter problem. In addition to their 

hunting abilities, cats were low maintenance, relatively inexpensive to care for, and would join 

the domesticated farm animals in adding “life.” The park eventually adopted a cat named 

Midnight, and today a tabby named Felix roams the grounds.56

By the 1970s, the steel Quonset hut had deteriorated. The artifact room in the 

Maintenance Building flooded, leading experts to recommend Hopewell stop collecting 

unidentified iron objects (Many of which were pulled from the recent archeological 

excavations). With no permanent person to regularly process and catalog artifacts, problems 

with the lack of storage space persisted until 1976 when Superintendent Disrude decided upon 

a most creative, and eventually controversial, solution for ridding the park shelves of its many 

unidentified artifacts. 57 After she suggested burying them in a pit, someone offered an idea 

gaining popularity in object preservation circles. The park could save such items by 

submerging them in a clean septic tank for reasonable protection for study at some later date. 

After gaining approval from the regional office, the park stored and buried several “unknown 

 

55 Earl Estes to Regional Director Lemuel Garrison, November 8, 1967, Hopewell NHS, 

Correspondence 1960-75, Historical Files, WASO; Zerbey, “Master Plan,” 1964. 

56 Ralph H. Lewis to Regional Director, February 11, 1969, Superintendent Riddle to Chief, 

Branch of Museum Operations, WASO, March 10, 1969, Peterson to Regional Director, March 12, 1969, 

Riddle, to Director, “Annual Information and Interpretive Services Report,” Hopewell Village, HFC. 57 Kurtz, “History of Archeology,” 90. 
Research and Collections 

253

and unidentified” iron objects, identifiable metallic objects, and glass and ceramic objects in a 

clean septic tank near the maintenance area in September of 1976. 58 Unfortunately, the 

experiment proved disastrous when staff under Superintendent Derrick Cook opened it a 

decade later (1988) and discovered it was full of water, and sediment covered all of the 

artifacts.59

 

The 1973 Interpretive Prospectus instructed the park to treat archeological collections, 

move museum objects from the Visitor Center to the maintenance facility, and to continue to 

build a stronger more relevant collection by soliciting annual donations. In 1974 Charles 

Tremer, an archeologist at Muhlenberg College, received a $3,200 grant to develop a 

conservation program for the park’s large collection of artifacts. However, processing and 

cataloging the collection left no funding for their preservation.60 The collections received their 

first bit of attention in over a decade with the employment of professional Museum Technician 

James Kurtz in 1984. Kurtz drafted a one hundred page comprehensive and detailed history of 

archeology and artifact “curation” at Hopewell. Kurtz argued that only when the park’s 

superintendents had academic or professional backgrounds in history was attention paid to 

the collections, especially to archeological artifacts.61 He concluded that even though 

Archeologist Chris Motz had developed a system of collection and treatment for objects found 

during Hopewell excavations, he was the last full-time archeologist the park employed. 

Subsequent superintendents were inclined only to keep artifacts “suitable of exhibit 

purposes.” Meanwhile, short-sited archeological programs relied heavily on untrained 

historians with many other research and interpretation duties.62

Finally, in 1985, the park hired Emily Feldman to stabilize archeological artifacts. 

Feldman processed, inventoried, accessioned, updated, reorganized, and treated several more 

archeological collections, including one found by Audrey Marie in her 1978 excavation of the 

Ironmaster's House basement. Feldman also completed a draft of the Hopewell Furnace NHS 

Storage Collection Plan. With the help of an intern, she worked to improve the conditions of 

 

58 Elizabeth Disrude to Chester Brooks, December 17, 1975, Hooper W. Morrow to 

Superintendent, May 19, 1977, Disrude to Files, March 1, 1977. 59 Derrick Cook to Associate Regional Director, October 27, 1988, D6215 Artifact Repository, 

Central Files, CRM, HOFU. 60 John L. Cotter to Regional Chief Michael Koper, February 11, 1974, Historic Central Files, Bally 

Building, HOFU. 61 Kurtz, “History of Archeology.” 

62 Kurtz, “History of Archeology,” 97. 
Research and Collections 

254

the storage room, which had become crowded in spite of new storage equipment over recent 

years. She found at least three artifact collections missing, and urged the need for a 

computerized system to track all of the components associated with each excavation to ensure 

accurate records management.63

A Scope of Collection Statement in 1990 resulted in a thorough survey and a draft of a 

guide to the park’s archival, archeological, and furnishing holdings. That same year, park staff 

installed a prefabricated storage facility designed by the Bally Company. The “Bally Building” 

continues to serve as Hopewell Furnace’s artifact storage facility. The pre-fabricated structure 

was constructed on top of the remains of the old SP-7 CCC Mess Hall, which like most of the 

other CCC buildings, was demolished in the 1940s and 1950s.64

Eight years later, the Northeast Services Center produced a Collection Management 

Plan in February of 1998. Recommendations included suggestions for a new floor plan and 

rearrangement of the Bally Building, the reclassification of cultural history collections by 

discipline (archeology, history, archives) and type (furnishings, tools, etc.), and the 

clarification of natural, archeology, and history collection plans. In 1993 the park hired 

Rebecca Ross from Independence NHP to fill the vacant position of the museum technician, 

formerly held by Diane Cram from 1989-1991. In 2001 Ross became the Cultural Resource 

Management Specialist, as recommended in the 1994 Resource Management Plan, in order to 

focus attention on the collections and compliance issues associated with section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act. 

As the interpretive programs suffered from lack of funding, management began to place 

more importance on protecting and cataloging the park’s collections. The park has used new 

technologies for the preservation of collections and archival materials. The 1993 Statement for 

Management recognized that these antiques, artifacts, and archival materials had 

“contribut[ed] greatly to the value of other park resources by allowing for expanded 

understanding of the site, the industry, and the society of such a “representative” community 

of pre-urban America.”65 However, today the park development, preservation, and 

interpretive programs have largely been based on the research performed from the 1930s to the 

 

63 Associate Regional Director John W. Bond to Disrude, March 15, 1985, Mid-Atlantic Region, 

Northeast Philadelphia Records Center, NARA; "D6215 Curatorial Reports- Feldman," Central Files, 

HOFU. 

64 Regional Director to Superintendent, October 9, 1990, “Assessment of Artifact Storage 

Building Construction and Impact on CCC-Era Features,” Section 106 Files, NERO-P. 
Research and Collections 

255

1960s, “severely limiting the potential of park programs to relate to today’s visitors.”66 Since 

that era, some park officials have expressed a desire to emphasize Hopewell as a representative

example of industry and technology, over the history of the individual site itself. Future 

research and new exhibits emphasizing this broader topic will likely contribute a great deal to 

this goal. 

 65 Cook, “Statement for Management,” 1993. 66 RMP, 17-18. 
 

256

X. “From a Village to a Furnace:” 

Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services at Hopewell 

In the summer of 1968, most visitors to Hopewell Village National Historic Site would 

receive a small informational folder and a self-guiding map. Upon entering the Visitor Center, 

one would likely begin his or her Hopewell experience with a visitor-activated slide and audio 

presentation that described iron manufacturing techniques and the significance of the site.1

 The 

Visitor Center and its exhibit space reflected the “National Park Modern” style consisting of the 

“heavy, solid, informative look—nine 4 by 9 foot built-in cases, five panels, two auxiliary module 

cases.” The exhibits themselves elaborated on technically-oriented topics. Enlarged 

photographs took up much of the exhibit space with a few artifacts relegated to serve as 

background items. These items included stoves, a sample of iron “hollow ware,” protective 

sandals, and samples of pig iron. Visitors might enjoy the panoramic view of the village through 

the Visitor Center’s large picture window, a view that one hundred years before would have 

included Mrs. Clement Brooke’s garden of flowers, herbs, and leafy greens.2

The tour of the village itself invited the twentieth-century visitors to “step back in time.” 

It began at the Charcoal Shed and then continued at the Anthracite Furnace. Audio-recordings 

offered detailed information on many of the resources. If they were lucky, a group might catch 

Elmer Kohl reviving the collier’s craft of charcoal-making. At the waterwheel they might pause 

to “hear the swoosh of air as it is forced into the furnace by the blast mechanism.” 3 An ore pile 

by the side of the tour path invited them to study one of the substances used to make iron. 

Usually to their delight, Hopewell’s guests would also be treated to a new and growing living 

history program and, according to promotional materials, “catch a glimpse of long ago with its 

merits of simplicity and closeness to the earth” with casting presentations and demonstrations 

of cooking, candle-making, and soap-making.4

 It was through this mode of interpretation that 

Hopewell Village National Historic Site received the most attention, attracted the largest 

 

1

 Irwin Richman, “Exhibit Review of Hopewell Village National Historic Site,” Technology and 

Culture 9, no. 2 (1968), 213-217. 

2

 Joseph E. Walker, “A Summer Day at a Charcoal Iron Furnace,” Historical Review of Berks 

County 32, no. 4 (Autumn 1967), 125-128; 142-143. 

3

 Riddle to Director George P. Hartzog, Annual Information and Interpretive Services Report, 

January 29, 1970, Annual Reports, Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, HFC. 4

 Ibid., “Hopewell Alive with Demonstrations,” June 26, 1970, Press Releases, Historical Central 

Files, HOFU. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

257

numbers, and came closest to becoming the “revitalized village” Roy Appleman had first 

envisioned.

Appleman’s dream remained alive for several years, but “the vision was never fulfilled”5

except during the summer months of the late 1960s and 70s, The interpretation program at 

Hopewell historically struggled to define its purpose and to find its role in bringing the village 

“to life” and recreating the “historic scene.” Not surprisingly, it followed the same pattern of 

indecision and experimentation that characterized the park’s development plans. As long as the 

period of interpretation remained vague and uncertain (not to mention the period of 

restoration), rangers and interpreters conducting tours “had a wide latitude and managed to 

generally cover the entire spectrum from early stove production to pig iron production.”6

 Over 

the years, exhibits, pamphlets, and guides told visitors multiple stories about the Bird and 

Brooke families, technology, craftsmanship, labor, slavery, everyday rural community life, social 

relationships, farming, gender roles at Hopewell, and about the regional iron industry in 

general.7

 

Low funding and personnel shortages further crippled the program. The bulk of 

restoration and reconstruction activities took well over thirty years and during that time, the 

park’s limited staff assigned only one or two employees to visitor services hoping to “let the 

town itself tell its story,” the initial goal of the park. Burdened with multiple duties, these 

employees (usually the park historian) were forced to introduce exhibits and publications early 

in the park’s life to contextualize the ruins for visitors. The “living history” program from 1968 

through the mid-1980s would dramatically change the site’s appeal to visitors, but budget cuts 

and changing attitudes toward interpretive techniques gradually placed less emphasis on the 

program and limited the number of events and demonstrations. In recent years, the park has 

stressed the development of programs that appeal to diverse audiences, but many visitors still 

miss the former activity and variety of demonstrations of the 1970s and early 1980s summers. 

 

5

 Cook, “Statement for Management,” 1993, 6, 7. 6

 Beach, E-mail, July 24, 2003. 

7

 Summary Report, Bruce Bomberger, Anne Knowles, Randall Miller, Phillip Scranton, “Hopewell 

Furnace National Historic Site Historians’ Roundtable,” Elverson, PA, June 17, 2003, NERO-P. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

258

Making Hopewell “Visitor-Friendly” 

In February 1940 Chief Historian Ronald Lee advised Superintendent Lon Garrison to 

develop an operating plan.8

 Garrison and Motz established visitor services that summer, largely 

to accommodate those people who wandered over to the historical village ruins from the 

recreational area. Historic site markers were needed to direct and entice people to the village.9

Since it was off to the side of the Birdsboro-Warwick Road, a state highway, a motorist’s first 

point of contact was the Office-Store. There, visitors could pick up maps and other printed 

material in preparation for a tour. In place of a separate orientation museum, the Store itself 

exhibited artifacts, documents, and included a popular exhibit about archeological methods. 

The Charcoal House housed a second exhibit where visitors could view the furnace machinery, 

study schematic drawings of its mechanics, and examine photographs of functioning furnaces 

from a temporary railed platform. In addition to seeing the resources themselves, visitors 

witnessed restoration in progress, including the work done at the Blacksmith and Carpenter 

Shops. Superintendent Garrison explained that allowing the public to see the restoration of the 

furnace and the archeological excavations would not only be interesting to visitors, but would 

help them to understand the park’s development plans and the reasons behind them. 

Furthermore, these activities offered a sense of vitality, “rather than the atmosphere of 

abandonment and decay.”10

 

Since markers or any interpretive signage were scarce in the early years, most visitors 

viewed the village through guided tours. CCC workers, under strict NPS supervision and 

instruction, conducted many of them. The CCC guides found that conveying Hopewell’s stories 

to the public was both fun and challenging. Company 3304’s newsletter, The Hopewell Iron 

Master, reported that “all the guides seem to have had a pretty good time, but its [sic] no mean 

task to deliver the equivalent of a complete college education in six months.” From May 

through October of 1940, 2,334 visitors received information and 1,755 took the guided tour of 

the site. The CCC guides accepted credit for the skyrocketing number of visitors the following 

 

8

 Lee to Garrison, February 20, 1940, “Hopewell National Historic Site,” Box 7, Series 5, Papers of 

Charles Hosmer, NTL. 9

 White to Ronalds, February 14, 1940, “Hopewell Village [2] 1936-1952,” Hopewell Village, Region 

1, Central Classified Files 1936-1952, RG 79, NARA-P; Borresen Report, October 15-17, 1940 (Copy at 

HOFU), Papers of Charles Hosmer, NTL. 10 Garrison to Kahler, June 29, 1940, W File, Central Files, HOFU; Motz, Monthly Report, April 5, 

1941, “NMP-CCC Hopewell Village,” April 1, 1941-December 1941, Ronalds to Appleman, July 6, 1940, 

Region 5, General Correspondence 1939-1952, RG 79, NARA-P. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

259

year. In the month of July alone, Hopewell Village saw a 230 percent increase in visitors, 

particularly local ones, while visitation to the RDA increased only 13 percent. “That’s quite a 

feather in all of our caps,” boasted the newsletter.11 Then the local newspapers began to run 

positive stories about the services, activities, and benefits of the park. As the CCC guides left to 

fight the war, Chris Motz had to abandon many of his other duties to give occasional lectures 

and conduct tours.12 Winter hindered visitation somewhat, but oftentimes people stopped by 

because they had a special connection to Hopewell that they wanted to share with the staff.13

After Hopewell lost its CCC workforce and already limited NPS personnel to the 

military, Superintendent Ralston Lattimore, the janitor, and the seasonal ranger conducted 

tours only “whenever necessary.”14 Likewise, Superintendent Emil Heinrich and his limited 

support staff performed little to no progress in the restoration and interpretive programs, 

focusing instead on the recreational features of the then consolidated park. Heinrich informed 

Coordinating Superintendent Francis Ronalds that Hopewell Village NHS could no longer 

maintain a guide service. Laborers George Clouser and Frank Lucas needed to attend to other 

tasks and could only offer interpretive services on a “pinch-hit” basis.15

Increasingly, interpretive planning at Hopewell tried to provide materials to encourage 

self-guidance to make up for the loss of personnel. Without the benefit of human guides and a 

substantial self-guided tour, visitors had no choice but to rely upon the two temporary 

museums: one at the Barn that housed models of the furnace machinery, and the Office-Store, 

which contained objects and material culture of the iron community. 

 

11“Iron Furnace Restoration,” Hopewell Iron Master (November 1941), 10; Carl Hill, March 17, 1941, 

W File, Central Files, HOFU. 12 Travel Report, August 7, 1941, “NMP-CCC Hopewell Village,” April 1, 1941-December 1941, 

Hopewell Village, Region 5, General Correspondence 1939-1952, RG 79, NARA-P; Kurtz, “History of 

Archeology,” 25. 13 Motz, Gale, Monthly Reports, Early Archeology Reports, Historical Central Files, Bally 

Building, HOFU. 14 Superintendent Ralston Lattimore, “Monthly Statistical Report on Interpretive Services in 

Historic and Archaeological Site,” July 1942, “File 101-04.1b,” Historical Central Files, Bally Building, 

HOFU. 15 Superintendent Emil Heinrich to Coordinating Superintendent Francis Ronalds, March 23, 1945, 

“File 101-04.1b,” Historical Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

260

The Question of a Museum 

For a long time, Hopewell’s planners debated whether the park should have any museum 

at all. In 1940 Archeologist Thor Borresen first reviewed the situation. He agreed with Roy 

Appleman’s original belief that the village would serve as a museum unto itself, rejecting the 

notion of the Advisory Board that all sites needed a separate museum.16 The document received 

substantial attention from all the reviewing parties of the NPS, but several people disagreed with 

Appleman and Borresen. Regional Architect Orin M. Bullock reasserted his belief that a separate 

museum was necessary to illustrate the “broad picture of the iron manufacturing industry.” 

Historian Melvin Weig also agreed that a small museum facility would be necessary in order to 

place Hopewell into a larger context. He even mentioned an idea of the region’s Assistant 

Historical Technician Ralston B. Lattimore (and future Hopewell superintendent): transferring 

the steel industry’s exhibit from the New York World’s fair to Hopewell for display near, but 

out of sight of the village. It would not only prove interesting to visitors, but place Hopewell 

into that larger context by visually illustrating why places like Hopewell had faded away and 

what had replaced them.17 Weig felt Hopewell Village NHS could benefit from a museum in the 

same fashion that the museum enhanced visitor experiences at the Morristown National 

Historical Park. “Somewhere or other the story [of early ironmaking] needs to be told ‘in a 

nutshell.’” Weig also advocated a study center. “I do not know how any live historical program 

could possibly get along without accumulating considerable material and having need for a good 

many books of its own.”18 While not much happened during his administration due to the war, 

Superintendent Heinrich advocated the importance of a museum as well. “We believe that the 

creation of a museum is essential, he claimed, and that no structure in the Village can properly 

 

16 Thor Borresen, “Hopewell Village,” June 5, 1940, HOFU; Garrison to C. M. Wishler, May 9, 1941, 

“NMP-CCC Hopewell Village April 1, 1941-December 1941,” Hopewell Village, Region 5, General 

Correspondence 1939-1952, RG 79, NARA-P. 17 Orin Bullock, September 4, 1940, Melvin Wieg, June 19, 1940, Hopewell Village, Region 5, 

General Correspondence 1939-1952, RG 79, NARA-P. 18 Weig to Ronalds, October 4, 1943, General Correspondence 1939-1952, Region 5, RG 79, NARAP. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

261

take its place.”19 Heinrich and Weig’s superiors concurred that the administration building 

should contain a museum “if we are ever going to adequately interpret the area.”20

After the war, Historian Dennis Kurjack admitted that most observers found the remains 

of Hopewell Furnace impressive, but not even a park with a more familiar aspect of history 

could tell its story without “auxiliary means.” Most people were not familiar with the historical 

context of Hopewell, and the park needed to provide them with a frame of reference. Hopewell 

Village NHS had to address the progression of events within a time span. Leaflets and guide 

service offered only the extremes. One option delivered too little information and the other 

proved too obtrusive for guests who would prefer to follow interpretive markers on the model 

of Williamsburg. Comprehensive self-guide literature would have to avoid discouraging length 

and “to mark every feature would be aesthetically undesirable for it would tend to disturb the 

harmony of the historic scene.”21 Kurjack acknowledged the exhibit efforts in the Office-Store, 

but pointed out the absence of presentation, organization, and space. And he was not optimistic 

about future resources. Even the scale model of the machinery lacked an operating mechanism.22

 

A 1947 planning committee of regional and park staff had overall praise for the progress of 

Hopewell Village’s development, but they all agreed with Kurjack that the layout of the museum 

in the Office-Store and Barn seemed crowded and disorganized. They determined that by 

opening the west room of the Office-Store’s second floor, which served as artifact storage, each 

room of the building could be dedicated to a specific period of Hopewell history.23 Visitors 

enjoyed viewing the collections after the reorganization, but park managers still lamented that 

the “relics” failed to communicate much about Hopewell’s story. 24

 

The 1952 Master Plan Development Outline, which argued that the village’s restoration 

aim for the date of the final blast (1883) and reflect the entire life of the furnace, agreed that an 

administration building and small museum would help provide better visitor orientation. 

 

19 Heinrich to Ronalds, November 11, 1943, NMP-CCC Hopewell Village, General 

Correspondence 1954-56, Eastern Office, Division of Design and Construction, 1954-1956, RG 79, NARAP; Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age, 606. 20 Ronalds to Taylor, November 10, 1943, File 600-03 Development Outline, Central Classified 

Files 1933-49, National Historic Sites-Hopewell, RG 79, NACP. 21 Dennis Kurjack, “Report on the Hopewell Village Interpretative Program,” June 29, 1948, File 

621 Interpretative Program, General Correspondence 1939-1952, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P; Acting 

Regional Director Elbert Cox to Superintendent, July 26, 1948, W File, Central Files, HOFU. 22 Ibid. 

23 “Planning, 1947,” W File, Central Files, HOFU. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

262

Meanwhile, Historian Walter Hugins drafted a prospectus to accompany the Master Plan and 

formalize the existing interpretation program on a temporary basis until the plan was approved 

(it never was). He likely did so out of necessity because visitor services were becoming 

increasingly difficult to handle. 

In spite of the closure of the Baptism Creek Picnic Site in 1950, visitors surged into 

Hopewell Village NHS, with the summer months hosting 58 percent of the visitors. One 

permanent interpretive and one seasonal staff could hardly accommodate the numbers in tours, 

nor could the program rely completely upon park literature.25 Visitors could not enter any of the 

buildings except the Blacksmith Shop and Office-Store, which both had barriers. During the 

summer, a seasonal ranger like Bill Rowland could serve as their guide. Rowland remembered 

that prior to the removal of the Birdsboro-Warwick Road, he and Historian Hugins would sit in 

their offices in the bottom floor of the Barn and watch for cars to pull up and then go out and 

greet the visitors. The clearly intrusive road through the village core remained a solid 

impediment to securing the aura of a “bygone” age that the park’s advocates so long described 

and desired. Rather than personnel, historic buildings greeted visitors and travelers alike before 

they pulled into a parking space in the area in front of the Barn, where they were greeted by the 

historian or historian-ranger, at least during the summer months. If visitation remained at a 

manageable number, Rowland would ask them to sign a register, give them a free folder and 

offer a brief orientation talk. On the weekends, the only organized tours were conducted with 

Hugins, while Rowland directed the usually heavy traffic headed for Hopewell Lake.26

Through the prospectus, Hugins hoped to reorganize the interpretive program to allow 

self-guiding rather than tours. With a high concentration of resources in a small area, a museum 

environment could relate the “functioning elements of an integrated social and industrial 

complex.”27 It would complement the village “for most elements in the park story are best 

explained by exposing the visitor to original objects exhibited in an integrated and dramatic 

 24 Master Plan Development Outline, “General-Information,” 6, “Interpretation,” January 1952, 4-

11. 25 Walter Hugins, “Museum Prospectus for Temporary Museum and Information Center, 

Hopewell Village National Historic Site,” January 5, 1952, Museum, Hopewell Village General 

Correspondence 1939-1952, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 26 Bill Rowland, Taped interview with Leah S. Glaser, July 24, 2003. 27 Ibid. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

263

manner. Then, virtually only then, will the area as a whole become meaningful.” 28 While adding 

some trailside exhibits, Hugins organized the Office-Store into the following displays: 

1. Iron in the History of Western Civilization—museum case 

2. The Colonial Iron Industry in Pennsylvania—pictorial label and map 

3. Hopewell Village: A Typical Iron Plantation—panel 

4. The Iron Empire of Mark Bird—panel 

5. Ironmaking at Hopewell Furnace—museum case 

6. The Lost Art of Charcoal Making—museum case 

7. The Iron Industry and the American Revolution—panel 

8. Hopewell Furnace in the Nineteenth Century—museum case 

9. The Story of Stove—panel 

10. Other Hopewell Products—museum case 

11. Hopewell’s Decline—panel 

12. Historical Areas in the National Park Service—label and map29

Dennis Kurjack (now at Independence NHP) challenged Hugins’ assertion that 

Hopewell’s interpretive context could all be established within the space of the Office-Store. He 

insisted upon further discussion about the interpretative problems inherent in only telling the 

story of the Hopewell furnace itself. “The park story is less about Hopewell Village than about 

the early American Iron Industry,” he insisted. Only time and geography, he claimed, allowed 

more of Hopewell to survive than other, similar ironworks. In order to tell a full story, and 

create a full context for Hopewell Furnace, the museum would have to include the history of the 

early iron industry in America. Although they must have realized that Hugins’ ideas were meant 

to be temporary, Kurjack and NPS Regional Museum Specialist J. Paul Hudson likely used this 

argument to continue to advocate, and perhaps even strategize, the construction of a separate 

museum for exhibits, apart from the Office-Store.30 

However, Superintendent Cass maintained a less aggressive, or perhaps, simply more 

practical view that until the NPS built Hopewell a separate museum, the site needed a temporary 

solution.31 The one outlined by Hugins, he claimed, “will go far in solving our interpretive 

problems.” For the time being, he explained to Regional Director Thomas Allen, the park did 

 

28 Ibid. 

29 Ibid. 

30 Kurjack to Cass, February 18, 1952, Hudson, Museum Specialist, January 31, 1952, Hopewell 

Furnace, General Files, NERO-P; Acting Regional Director Lisle to Cass, March 24, 1952, Museum, 

Hopewell Village General Correspondence 1939-1952, Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 31 Cass to Allen, March 17, 1952, Museum, Hopewell Village General Correspondence 1939-1952, 

Region 5, RG 79, NARA-P. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

264

not need to tell the whole story of the American Iron industry. It just needed to provide visitors 

with an orientation. Besides, as the Master Plan Development Outline and Roy Appleman’s 

original report explained, the primary exhibit is the village itself, as a living museum: 

The historic village, after all, is and should remain the chief attraction rather than a mere 

backdrop or picturesque setting for a detailed chronicle of the story of iron from cave 

man to Carnegie. We feel that the exhibits proposed in our museum prospectus will, in 

conjunction with the restored village, tell a story, attractively and coherently, of the 

humble but ingenious origins of modern industrial enterprise. That, we believe, is the 

essence of the Hopewell story.32

About a year later, an NPS Museum Specialist visited Hopewell to offer advice via the 

regional historian in the summer of 1953. He spent hours with Hugins reviewing exhibit plans 

and praising the park’s overall external appearance. He concluded that Hugins’ plan was “an 

excellent one, and calls for exhibit units, which will interpret the Hopewell story in an 

interesting and colorful manner.”33 He especially liked the trailside interpretive exhibit showing 

sketches of original structures and a clear explanation of the ironmaking process. 34

 

Superintendent Cass encouraged additional cast iron signs and markers to identify selected 

buildings in the village, and Prentice updated many of the wayside exhibit signs in 1958.35

Fortunately, during the 1950s and 60s, local and regional staff introduced programs that 

allowed visitors to “step into the past” and at the same time illustrate the long life of the furnace 

and its changes over time. Rangers like Bill Rowland, Ron Maitland, and Bill Sigafoos and 

Seasonal Interpreters Bill Bitler and Charlie Diechert were only available to answer questions as 

they arose. Except for special groups, the visitor should have been able to tour the village 

without guidance (other than literature, exhibits, and signage). However, the NPS and the park 

returned to the same questions over and over: “What is this place all about?” and “What will 

bring this now quiet village to life once again?”36 Mission 66 planning requirements forced 

Hopewell administration to search for comprehensive and consistent answers to these 

questions. 

 

32 Ibid.; “Master Plan Development Outline,” 1952. 33 Museum Specialist to Regional Historian, August 3, 1953 re visit to Hopewell July 23, 1953, 

Hopewell Furnace, General Files, NERO-P. 34 Ibid. 

35 Cass to Regional Director, January 24, 1950, May 13, 1955, W File, Central Files, HOFU; Cook, 

“Statement for Management,” 1993, 20. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

265

Interpretation under Mission 66 

According to the Mission 66 Prospectus, the development of Hopewell Village National 

Historic Site would surround two historical stories illustrated by existing resources as well as 

supporting facilities: The technical (early American iron production as told through the 

Charcoal House, Furnace, Bridge House, Cupola, Molding Sheds, and waterwheel) and the 

social (life at Hopewell Village as told primarily through four Tenant Houses, the Ironmaster’s 

House, the Office-Store, the Blacksmith Shop, Barn, community Bake Ovens, Springhouse, 

Smokehouse, Lard Kitchen, Stables, Wheelwright Shop, Cobbler’s Shop, and Schoolhouse). 

Conveying these stories would possibly even involve two separate self-guiding tours. 

The visitor to this historic site should be able to grasp the fundamentals of early American 

ironmaking processes during his trip through the buildings comprising the furnace group. 

Informational literature and interpretative exhibits will provide more information on the 

processes involved for more who wish it. The visitor will watch the waterwheel and blast 

machinery in actual operation. He may walk the ramp through the bridge house and 

visualize toiling men pushing the heavy ore buggies to the furnace head. He may even 

look into the open top of the furnace and see the hearth far below. In the cast house he 

may see the sand “pig” beds and visualize their being filled with hot molten metal of the 

furnace in blast. 

As he follows the tour route he will visit the wheelwright shop, the Blacksmith Shop, the 

office and store, each building furnished with the authentic tools of the trade. Two of the 

oldest tenant houses will be furnished with exhibits of homecrafts practiced in the 

dwellings. One would be used as the cobbler’s shop, the other to house an exhibit of the 

weavers’ art. In these homes he may visualize the lives, comforts and way of life of the 

laboring classes. In the Ironmaster’s House he will see the contrasting way of life of the 

wealthy and influential.37

While the village restoration would reflect the village from 1820-1840 (casting ended 

about 1840), Hopewell Village still would tell the entire “park story.” Planners provided the 

following outline to explain what resources would tell what piece of this story. 

1. Need for iron production in America: Museum exhibit 

2. Conditions favoring the manufacture of iron in America: Museum exhibit 

3. History of Hopewell ironmasters, workers, life as an individual community, manufacture of 

iron: Museum exhibit 

4. Techniques used at Hopewell: Site 

5. Products produced at Hopewell: Site 

6. Labor and management at Hopewell: Museum exhibit 

 36 Dennis Kurjack, “Report on the Hopewell Village Interpretive Program,” June 29, 1948, “K1819 

Interpretation-General,” Historical Central Files, HOFU; Cook, et al., “Long-Range Interpretive Plan,” 

1993, 5. 37 “Mission 66 Program-Hopewell Village NHS,” Hopewell NHP, Correspondence 1943-1957, 

Historical Files, WASO. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

266

7. Life in an agrarian village: Both 

8. New process which doomed Hopewell - incorporated into 2 and 338

According to the Mission 66 and Visitor Center prospectuses, the role of the museum 

was to explain the village’s national significance and educate visitors about an aspect of 

American History with which they were probably not familiar.39 The Visitor Center, the 

keystone of the Mission 66 interpretive program, officially opened on April 18, 1959.40

Personnel did not install the final exhibit into the building until June 25, three days 

before the dedication. The first guests spent quite a while in the new museum space and 

generally approved of the text. Robert Ronsheim’s prospectus for the Visitor Center included a 

museum layout. According to the prospectus, “Exhibits in the museum will give the background 

necessary to the understanding of Hopewell’s significance and will focus on stories which are 

scattered or only partially told in the village.”41 Permanent installations, and one temporary 

space for rotating exhibits, would provide a background and outline for visitors to prepare them 

for the village.42 Ronsheim suggested that the museum exhibits address the following seven 

essential “elements of interpretation:” 

1. The rise of the American iron industry 

2. The history of Hopewell 

3. Ironmaking techniques at Hopewell 

4. Hopewell products 

5. Management and labor 

6. Life in an agrarian community 

7. Techniques which doomed Hopewell43

A renovation in 1998 laid new carpeting, re-painted inside and out, and rearranged the greeting 

and sales areas to allow for a much easier visitor flow. Exhibits in the Visitor Center had 

 

38 Robert Ronsheim, “Conditions Influencing Museums Development: The Park Story,” ca. 1957, 

File D6215 Museum Exhibit Plan (Visitor Center), Historical Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU 39 “Justification for a Visitor Center at Hopewell,” D6215 Museum Exhibit Plan (Visitor Center), 

Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 40 Acting Superintendent Ronsheim to Regional Director, “Report of the First Quarter Operation 

of the Visitor Center at Hopewell Village NHS,” HOFU 34134 Archives Found during Renovations at 

Hopewell Furnace, Accession 890, Box 1, Bally Building, HOFU. 41 Ibid. 

42 Ronsheim, “Conditions Influencing Museums Development: The Park Story,” HOFU. 43 Unfortunately, Ronsheim admitted that the park had neither the adequate amount of research, 

nor the staff to complete the research necessary to create these exhibits. He suggested soliciting the help 

of graduate students (See research section of this chapter). Robert Ronsheim, “Prospectus for the 

Hopewell Village NHS Visitor Center,” 1957. Copy at HOFU. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

267

remained essentially unchanged since they were first installed, but new exhibits were installed 

beginning in 2004. 

It was difficult for those rangers stationed at the front desk to assess the Visitor Center’s 

impact on an average visitor, who was unfamiliar with the whole concept of a Visitor Center in 

the first place. Many parks, Hopewell included, required explicit signage to lure visitors through 

the doors. The location provided a nice view through a picture window, which worked 

especially well for groups arriving by car, but it was a considerable distance for people walking 

in from French Creek State Park. The hill in particular discouraged the elderly. The Historian 

and seasonal rangers manned the desk, handed out literature, and offered tours to those who 

chose to enter the unfamiliar terrain. Often a visitor’s length of stay depended on how crowded 

the exhibit space became. School groups spent a considerable amount of time at the restrooms. 

Acting Superintendent Ronsheim described the Visitor Center’s success as “not as well as we 

hoped, but better than expected.” He reported mostly positive comments and affirmed that the 

museum helped people understand the village as a community rather than only as a cluster of 

buildings. However, he contended, ideally more research should have preceded its opening.44

While the Visitor Center exhibit space told a story, the outdoor exhibits would conform 

to the village layout. These included iron displays, photographs, and restoration of the slag 

piles. Since buildings were restored to a specific period of time, he suggested illustrating the 113-

year life of the furnace by talking about changes and additions to these structures over time. The 

carriage collection, which did not fall into the period of restoration, could recall the period after 

the furnace blasted out for the last time. Similarly the Anthracite Furnace would be used to 

describe management decisions and reasons for Hopewell’s downfall. Houses would illustrate 

social stratification. These wayside exhibits were essentially completed in 1958. 45

In 1967 Interpretive Specialists Earl Estes and Nan Rickey of the Washington office came 

to the park to discuss updating the prospectus with Superintendent John Riddle and Historian 

Earl Heydinger. Further suggestions included enlarging the Visitor Center’s audiovisual room, 

adding other Hopewell-made items to the stove display, and completing the furnishing plans per 

 

44 Ronsheim, “Report of the First Quarter Operation of the Visitor Center at Hopewell Village 

NHS,” HOFU 34134 Archives Found during Renovations at Hopewell Furnace, Accession 890, Box 1, 

Bally Building, HOFU; April 1959 Monthly Report, May 14, 1959, “Hopewell Village NHS, 1959,” General 

Correspondence 1953-63, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 45 Robert Ronsheim, “Prospectus for the Hopewell Village NHS Visitor Center,” 1957. Copy at 

HOFU. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

268

the 1964 Master Plan for the following structures: the Charcoal House, Cast House, Barn, 

Ironmaster’s House, and the Blacksmith Shop.46

 

Furnishings 

Rather than the Visitor’s Center, Historian Ronsheim planned to have the majority of 

artifacts exhibited in the appropriate buildings as furnishings. Each restored or reconstructed 

building would include relevant and appropriate furnishings as dictated by well-researched 

reports. Administrators hoped to have as much completed as possible by the time of the 

Bicentennial.47 Furnishing plans would greatly improve the current exhibits in the interior of 

many of the village structures. As one reviewer criticized, “The newly reconstructed Cast House 

was too new and too clean,” and the Cleaning Shed, Blacksmith Shop, and Office-Store were 

“barren and lifeless... The blacksmith shop is furnished with security rather than accuracy in 

mind, and the recently restored office-store is also lifeless abetted by use of paper maché or 

plastic bacon slabs and hams.”48 

Ideas for bringing “living” effects to the office store included scattering sugar and grain 

particles across on counter, spreading out canal schedules, newspapers, and open ledgers, and 

dispersing charcoal and slag about the floor.49 Architect Norman Souder chose the furnishings 

for the Tenant Houses, which a park historian later praised as “an excellent example of explicit 

care and taste used to create a particular mood and/or period and to tell a story and to provide 

for proper interpretation.”50 Many of his colleagues praised the “live-in look” that Souder had 

achieved through small, subtle details, such as live plants and an apron hanging from a hook.51

 

46 Of these structures only the Ironmaster’s House and kitchen had a furnishing plan as of 2003. 

Earl Estes to Regional Director, November 8, 1967, Hopewell NHS, Correspondence 1960-75, Historical 

Files, WASO. 47 Regional Museum Curator Horace Wilcox to Regional Director Garrison, May 10, 1967. 

Willcox to Garrison, March 14, 1967, “Hopewell Village NHS 1965-68, General Correspondence 1966-68, 

Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 

48 Irwin Richman, “Exhibit Review,” 213-217. 

49 Barnes to Regional Director, August 25, 1967, Hopewell NHS, Correspondence 1960-75, 

Historical Files, WASO. 50 Appleman to Allen, October 9, 1947, HOFU; Ronald F. Lee to Superintendents, Northeast 

Region, November 2, 1962, Hopewell Village NHS 1953-62, General Correspondence 1946-63, Northeast 

Regional Office, NARA-P. 51 Chief Branch of Museum Operations Ralph Lewis to Regional Director, March 28, 1966, 

Hopewell Furnace NHS-Furnishing Plan 1961-1966, General Correspondence 1966-68, Northeast 

Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

269

Even more essential than the barn’s restoration was its interpretation through Paul 

Downing’s draft of the furnishing plan. Visual and audio exhibits would convey part of the 

interpretation, but selective refurnishing would serve as the most important impression. 

Regional Director Ronald Lee explained: 

The refurnishings of the barn are to help the visitor understand an early ironmaking 

community, 1820-40. The barn had an important role in the community, but if the barn 

was refurnished to interpret the role in a narrow sense, it would add but a little amount to 

the visitor’s understanding. It might so strengthen the visitor’s understanding of a 

peaceful rural farming community that it would harm his understanding of Hopewell. A 

complete refurnishing of the barn is somewhat impractical. On the other hand, the role 

of the barn leads directly into various aspects of the Hopewell story, which are vital to an 

understanding of the site.52

While the NPS did not want to confuse visitors by highlighting structures associated with a farm 

rather than a furnace, the park needed the Barn to address the interpretive themes that the other 

structures could not: transportation, agriculture, and the scope of Hopewell agrarian 

community. Most importantly, the Barn housed animal teams critical for the transportation or 

Hopewell products to the markets.53

 

For its part, the Ironmaster’s House would ideally serve to illustrate the contrast between 

the wealth of Manager Clement Brooke and the quality of life for workers living in the Tenant 

Houses. Three of the rooms in the Ironmaster’s House were completely redecorated including 

the parlor, which became the ironmaster’s office. After a visit to the Union Manufacturing 

Company in Boyertown, Heydinger prepared the draft report for the Cast House furnishings in 

accordance with colors and sensory elements.54

To supplement the Visitor Center, Historian Robert Ronsheim introduced Hopewell 

Village’s first Interpretive Prospectus in 1961. In consultation with Acting Regional Director 

George Palmer, Ronsheim offered useful and creative ideas that included self-guidance with 

pamphlets, some additional signage, markers, wayside exhibits, and seven to eight audio 

 

52 Regional Director Ronald Lee to Director Conrad Wirth, December 11, 1962, Hopewell Furnace 

NPS-Furnishing Plans 1961-1966, General Correspondence, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 53 Lee to Wirth, December 11, 1962, Hopewell Furnace NPS-Furnishing Plans 1961-1966, General 

Correspondence, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 54 Regional Museum Curator Horace Wilcox to Regional Director Garrison, May 10, 1967. 

Willcox to Garrison, March 14, 1967, “Hopewell Village NHS 1965-68,” General Correspondence 1966-68, 

Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

270

devices.55 Ronsheim stressed the importance of conveying a unifying theme to the visitor, rather 

than worrying about communicating every detail. “We are in the position of the playwrite [sic] 

or novelist who eliminates some of his best material or laugh lines...because the material or 

laughs interfere with his main purpose.”56 

Audiovisual Program 

Primarily a construction program, Mission 66 largely encouraged interpretation through 

preservation and progressive restoration. Its flagship resource, the Visitor Center, housed 

important exhibits while furnishings embellished historic structures, but the Hopewell Village 

staff still worked to make the site resemble the living history museum Roy Appleman had 

envisioned. The park tried to add life to the village through sounds, but it was beset with 

problems. In 1963 a site inspector found only four out of eight audio stations located at a 

handful of the building sites to be functioning. Although he appreciated the content of the 

slideshow, he also noted that the Visitor Center’s machinery never functioned properly.57

Visitors occasionally complained that the volume of the audio stations disrupted the tranquility 

of the historic scene. In addition to reworking the slideshow for better sound and more 

“aesthetic cohesiveness,” the 1973 Interpretive Prospectus called for a twenty minute, color 

motion picture documenting a typical worker’s day.58

 

Plagued with technical problems, Superintendents Elms and Disrude spent much of their 

administration updating the audio program at ten locations in 1973. A new slideshow to be 

shown at the Visitor Center arrived for the Bicentennial, and in October 1986 Hopewell Furnace 

NHS started showing homemade films starring the park’s personnel that introduced the 

historical processes of charcoal making and iron casting to visitors who missed out on the 

 

55 Robert Ronsheim, Interpretative Prospectus (study document vs. plan), 1961, File K1817 

Interpretative Prospectus Hopewell Village NHS, Acting Regional Director George Palmer to Director, 

May 24, 1961, File K1817 Interpretative Prospectus Hopewell Village NHS, Central Files, HOFU. 

56 As quoted in Junior Historian Charlotte Fairbairn, January 8, 1964, Principal Naturalist Gunnar 

Hagerlund to Chief Naturalist, “K1817 Interpretive Prospectus,” Central Files, HOFU. 57 Rogers W. Young, “Visit to Hopewell Village National Historic Site, August 3-4, 1963,” Ingham 

to Regional Chief of Interpretation and Visitor Services, October 26, 1965, Correspondence 1960-1975, 

Historical Files, WASO. 

58 Riddle to Director, January 29, 1970, Annual Reports, Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, 

HFC; Nan Rickey, et al., “Interpretive Prospectus,” 1973, 8. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

271

summer demonstrations. (The park made similar ones in the 1960s.)59 During the summers, 

however, Hopewell would find a new type of interpretive service that did not rely on 

electronics. 

Living History 

Hopewell Village could convey a new reality to visitors by tapping into all of their senses, 

an idea practiced by many of the historic villages that had inspired Hopewell. “Without activity,” 

criticized Arthur Hazelius, founder of the first outdoor museum in Sweden, “open-air museums 

are dry shells of the past.”60 Arguing for the effectiveness of living history interpretation, 

folklorist Jay Anderson likens outdoor museums to a “time machine,” an effective tool for 

transporting people to another age and allowing them to envision life in the past.61 Based upon 

the success of “live interpretation” at Colonial Williamsburg, even academics like Herbert Keller 

of the McCormick Historical Association called for a series of living museums to illustrate the 

agricultural past of each region of the country as early as the 1940s.62 Several parks had always 

included some live human activity as part of their interpretive program, but the agency began 

heavily promoting the interpretive technique in the 1960s. 

In spite of deficiencies in funding and personnel, Acting Superintendent Russell Gibbs 

tried to introduce demonstrations at Hopewell years before living history became a popular 

trend at American historical sites. Throughout the summer of 1949, Gibbs advocated the use of 

this historic site to host the annual Pennsylvania Guild of Craftsmen Fair. Not only would the 

event complement the goals of Hopewell Village, but it would also offer significant publicity and 

attract new visitors from across the state. All parties, from the regional office on up to Director 

Newton Drury, expressed considerable enthusiasm for the partnership, but following 

discussions about business concession permits and the lack of electricity in the village core, the 

group’s president, John Butler, declined the offer. While Butler saw many benefits of the site 

 

59 Disrude to Office of Public Affairs, November 7, 1985, January 3, 1987, “A2623 Semi Annual 

Report to Congress,” HOFU. 60 Anderson, Time Machines, 20. 61 Ibid., 10-11. 

62 Ibid., 35. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

272

facilities and setting, “I dread the red tape of doing business with a government agency.”63 The 

park would lose the opportunity of live interpretation for another decade. 

Demonstrations 

In the 1956 NPS-wide guide Interpreting Our Heritage, Freeman Tilden challenged 

rangers and interpreters to ‘people’ their sites: “Architecture and furnishings are much; we 

admire and draw conclusions from them, but we must find the art to keep them from seeming to 

have been frozen at the moment of time when nobody was at home.”64 Although his tenure 

focused primarily on construction, Superintendent Joe Prentice and his wife Mary Ann began to 

actively endorse and foster living history as part of Hopewell’s interpretive programming 

beginning in 1957 with the first celebration of Establishment Day. Hopewell Village NHS 

celebrated its anniversary on August 3 with craft demonstrations. The event attracted a crowd 

of over 4,000 people. Most visitors came from within fifty miles to witness women in 

nineteenth-century clothing (including Mrs. Prentice and the wives of many seasonal rangers) 

bake bread and churn apple butter. They watched the blacksmith and the candle maker 

perform almost extinct crafts. Each year thereafter, new artisans added to the activity. Visitors 

even had the opportunity to see a special presentation where demonstrators poured molten 

metal into sand casts and fed visitors fresh bread from the bake ovens (in some years, the chief 

ranger picked up bread from the local bakery which he the heated in the ovens).65 Two to three 

rangers directed traffic into the park to accommodate what would be close to 6,000 people over 

the next several years, pushing the limits of Hopewell’s resources. Cars would fill the fields to 

capacity, as well as the orchard and entrance road.66

 

63 Superintendent Gibbs to Director Newton Drury, July 11, 1949, Regional Director Thomas Allen 

to Gibbs, July 21, 1949, Gibbs to Allen, August 8, 1949, Drury to Allen, November 4, 1949, Acting Regional 

Director Elbert Cox to Gibbs, November 25, 1949, Gibbs to Allen, November 29, 1949, File 833 Museums, 

Historical Central Files, HOFU. 

64 Anderson, Time Machines, 36. 

65 Larry Points, “Costumes and Crafts to Usher in Summer Season at Hopewell Furnace,” August 

5, Press Release, Correspondence 1960-1974, Hopewell NHS, Historical Files, WASO; August, 1960, 

September 13, 1960, Monthly Reports, “Hopewell Village NHS, 1960-62,” General Correspondence 1953-

63, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 66 Bitler, Interview, July 25, 2003. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

273

10.1 Establishment Day, George Buck Demonstrating Molding under the 

Connecting Shed, 1963, HOFU Photographic Archives. 

The annual Establishment Day celebration earned praise from regional and national 

offices. “These activities have top interpretive value as an informal vehicle to transport the 

modern visitor back in time and give him the vicarious experience of participating in a native 

craft,” commented Rogers Young, the staff historian from the national office.67 Young had 

criticisms as well. Afraid observers would not fully understand all of the processes 

demonstrated, the park had provided information sheets, but Young considered them 

distracting and unnecessary. He lamented about how many of the activities, the blacksmith 

demonstration in particular, had been removed from their original context to other locations in 

order to allow more room for visitors to see. Young’s most telling comments were those that 

addressed the amateur presentation by people who were essentially volunteers (they received 

small token payments). He called for the funding of professional interpreters from the 

ENPMA.68 

As such demonstrations became increasingly popular attractions for preserving and 

celebrating the nation’s rural heritage, NPS Director George Hartzog began to take notice. 

When the NPS decided to acquire the Hubbell Trading Post, Robert Utley later recalled that 

 

67 Rogers W. Young, “Visit to Hopewell Village National Historic Site, August 3-4, 1963,” 

Correspondence 1960-1975, Historical Files, WASO. 68 Ibid. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

274

Hartzog “caught everyone by surprise by vowing not to have another dead and embalmed 

historical area.” Hoping to take a leading role in establishing a string of parks, the Washington 

office mandated that all parks with historical components experiment with “period dress” in 

1967, and Hopewell Village NHS jumped head-first into the “living history game.”69 

Following a highly successful summer in 1968, Superintendent Riddle requested funds to 

expand the program to the following summer season and increase the number of seasonal 

personnel to include a molder and molder’s assistant with costumes and a blacksmith for eight 

weeks, five days a week. He also asked for two more blacksmiths on weekends. The ENPMA 

provided money for a storekeeper. Finding the program still low on interpreters and 

performers, Riddle visited schools to recruit local teachers and requested additional manpower 

from the Student Conservation Corps, a conservation program aimed at exposing high school 

and college students to natural and cultural issues.70

In 1969 “living history” went into full swing at Hopewell Village NHS as new personnel, 

more volunteers, new demonstrations, and special programs joined established traditions, 

familiar demonstrations, and experienced seasonal employees. These included YCC (Youth 

Conservation Corps) and SCA (Student Conservation Association) workers and park aides. 

Throughout the summer season, “round the clock, seven days a week,” at least three costumed 

rangers (among them Bill Bitler, Charlie Diechert, Clair Lau, Harry Hart, Mike Kilareski, and 

Dale Biever) and six to eight costumed interpreters engaged in third person conversation with 

visitors each day. Those who conducted tours occasionally used Joseph Walker’s new book on 

Hopewell Village as somewhat of a “bible,” but as teachers, they interpreted the information to 

their own strengths. Most guides highlighted the isolation of the village, the making of iron, and 

the transportation of the iron products to urban markets like Philadelphia.71

 

 

69 Superintendent Elms to Roy Garybill, July 16, 1973, Office of Environmental Education 

Hopewell, Correspondence 1960-1975, WASO; Barry Mackintosh, “Living History” in Interpretation in the 

National Park Service: A Historical Perspective, (Washington, DC: History Division, National Park Service, 

Department of the Interior, 1986) 

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/mackintosh2/directions_living_history.htm (accessed 

October 4, 2002). 70 In a few years, the Park would also gain help from internships, college work-study programs 

through a State of Pennsylvania Program, and volunteers. Superintendent Riddle to Regional Director, 

January 10, 1968, Acting Regional Director Thomas E. Whitcraft to Director, January 16, 1968, R 

Superintendent iddle to Regional Director, March 24, 1969, A98 Living History Correspondence, Central 

Historical Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 71 Biever, Interview, July 23, 2003. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

275

Activities aimed to transport visitors by tapping into each of their senses. When park 

administrators discovered that Bill Bitler had worked in the Birdsboro foundry, they enlisted 

him and others to man the furnace and Cast House, demonstrating molding and eventually 

casting on a regular basis. Diechert, Biever, and a ranger remembered only as “Jack” alternately 

served as the blacksmith.72 “The smoke from the chimney and the banging of the anvil were 

great for the ambiance in the village,” recalled Denny Beach. Bitler often served as the resident 

carpenter, copying many of the artifacts in the park’s collection with hand tools. Another 

interpreter worked at the village store and sold a variety of items, including the popular rock 

candy. Eventually the park offered Ronald Palmer of St. Peters a Special Use Permit to conduct 

horse drawn wagon rides, much to the delight of guests, especially school groups. Complaints 

about horse droppings and an accident that put Palmer’s successor in the hospital eventually 

ended the activity.73

 

10.2 Wagon Rides in front of Cast House, ca.1975, HOFU Photographic Archives. 

 Demonstrations addressed the domestic side of village life as well. Chore boys tended to 

three smoking fires in the restored Bake Ovens, Springhouse, and Tenant House fires. 

“Housewives” and hired girls (played by five to eight Student Conservation Corps workers) 

cleaned the Tenant Houses, baked bread (in the Bake Ovens on Establishment Day), prepared 

stew, and fried fritters, which visitors frequently sampled. They tended to a nearby produce 

 

72 Ibid. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

276

garden, which, unfortunately, the raccoons enjoyed as much as the visitors. Often under the 

direction of local Houck family descendant Anna Witman, other costumed female interpreters 

dyed cloth or made soap and candles, as “spinsters” spun wool and flax on a loom. Some sat on 

the Ironmaster’s House porch to show “guests” inside, and on one candlelight tour, Nancy 

Brown played the harpsichord.74

Training for seasonal interpreters even involved a “live-in” in 1972 in order for staff to 

adjust to their historic roles and feel more like a “rustic, isolated,” nineteenth-century 

community “untouched by the intrusions of modern day living,” leaving most of the participants 

“dirty, tired, and cranky.”75 During these years, Establishment Day and the Fourth of July were 

“packed,” and exhausted employees would celebrate the days’ success by roasting a pig and 

partying at the Duplex, where Chief Ranger Points, and later Larry Masters, resided.76 Lastly, 

campfires featured environmentally geared speakers as well as re-enactors to demonstrate 

Revolutionary era weapon firing. The highly publicized talks attracted locals, French Creek 

campers, and tourists. “I tell ya, they packed the place,” insisted Dale Biever.77

 

But while the demonstrations grew in popularity, many within the Park Service worried 

about relying on this interpretive tool too heavily and abandoning not only historic accuracy, 

but also the message of the individual parks themselves. Marcella Sherfy of the History Division 

in Washington cautioned that while craft demonstrations can illustrate processes, “they do not 

show a way of life...At bottom, there are significant misjudgments of what a demonstration or 

craft is capable of conveying and of our ability to “recreate” a historic setting or society.”78 Frank 

Barnes of the Park Service’s Northeast Region publicly expressed his concern that “[o]ur 

 73 Mr. Michael Phillips received the permit the following year, but did not return after he was 

injured. Elms to Assistant Director, Operations, January 17, 1973, February 11, 1976, Annual Report, 

Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, HFC; Biever, Interview, July 23, 2003. 74 Bender, “Hopewell Village NHS, Living History Report,” 1971; Miscellaneous sheet of typed 

recipes, “Hopewell Village,” HFC; Disrude, “Statement of Management,” 1976. Beach, E-mail, July 24, 

2003. 75 Points, Interview, July 9, 2003; “Hopewell Village NHS Begins Summer Program,” Press Release, 

June 30, 1972, Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, HFC; Larry Points, Press Release, “Costumes and 

Crafts to Usher in Summer Season at Hopewell Furnace,” June 23, 1973, Correspondence 1960-1975, 

Hopewell NHS, WASO. 

76 Points Interview, July 9, 2003. 

77 Riddle, 1969 Annual Report, January 29, 1970, Annual Reports, Hopewell Furnace National 

Historic Site, HFC; Beach, E-mail, July 24, 2003 Bitler, Interview, July 25, 2003. 

78 Marcella Sherfy, January 21, 1975, “Correspondence 1975-,” Hopewell NHS, Historical Files, 

WASO. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

277

currently over-stressed living history activities may just possibly represent a tremendous failure 

on the part of our traditional interpretive programs—above all, a cover-up for lousy personal 

services.” Such critics also felt a responsibility toward accuracy. Barnes considered the 

“charming” agrarian setting at the Booker T. Washington National Monument one of the site’s 

greatest infractions because it gave “no indication of the social environmental realities of slave 

life.” Similarly, he criticized the pastoral environment of Hopewell Village NHS as “too clean” 

and implied the living history activities “conveyed an impression of fun” rather than everyday 

life and work. NPS staff worried the military and weapons demonstrations at battlefields failed 

to evoke the “horror and tragedy” of war and conditions of military camp life. In recognition of 

the Bicentennial, Harry Hart recalls wearing eighteenth-century dress, while performing 

molding activities typical of the nineteenth century. Former Hopewell Historian Robert 

Ronsheim (who later worked at the Plimoth Plantation, which was long known for its living 

history) questioned the foundation of the whole idea of “bringing the past alive.” “The past is 

dead,” he pointed out, “and cannot be brought back to life.” Even long-time costumed 

interpreter Mike Kilareski tried to tell his enraptured audiences that while the demonstrations 

offered an idea of the past, “the good ol’ days weren’t all that good.”79 NPS personnel on the 

regional and national levels simply feared the expensive celebrations detracted from Hopewell 

Village’s purpose and theme: ironmaking.80

In spite of such sentiments, the Hopewell staff earned high praise, as living history 

became the centerpiece of the summer interpretive program. “Your recent report on 

demonstrations reveals that you have taken the bull by the horns and forged a program that is 

both stimulating and instructive,” gushed Bill Everhart, Assistant Director of Interpretation. 

Everhart was a staunch supporter of living history as an innovative approach “to make history 

come alive... [enhance] visitor appreciation, and “substantially [improve] the quality of NPS 

interpretation.”81 While the private sector proved to be a stronger champion of the living history 

 

79 Anderson, Time Machines, 59, 65, 73; Mackintosh, “Living History;” Cook, et al., “Long-Range 

Interpretive Plan,” 1993, 6; Hart, Interview, July 26, 2003; Kilareski, Interview, July 25, 2003. 80 Ronald Lee expressed a similar concern about the living farm at the George Washington 

birthplace. Barry Mackintosh, Interpretation in the National Park Service; “Craft Demonstrations at 

Hopewell Village,” “Misc.,” Hopewell Village, HFC; “Hopewell Village Will Observe Establishment Day 

August 3,” The Coatesville Record (August 1, 1958), “Establishment Day, HOFU 34107, Bally Building, 

HOFU; August 1961, September 13, 1961, Monthly Reports, “Hopewell Village NHS, 1960-62,” General 

Correspondence 1953-63, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 81 Assistant Director Bill Everhart, Interpretation, to Superintendent Riddle, January 8, 1969, A98 

Living History Correspondence, Central Historical Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

278

movement throughout the years, forming an umbrella organization named the Association for 

Living Historical Farms and Agricultural Museums (ALHFAM) in 1970, the NPS also heavily 

promoted living history as an effective interpretive tool in many of its parks. That same year, the 

agency published a brochure listing all of the areas practicing living history and William Kay’s 

twenty-eight page Keep it Alive: Tips on Living History Demonstration. Four years later, Gordon 

Hilker’s The Audience and You: Practical Dramatics for the Park Interpreter instructed employees 

on how to design the most engaging performances. By the middle of the 1970s, Hopewell Village 

NHS was one of about a hundred farms, historic parks, battlefields, and forts nationwide that 

featured strong living history programs directed under Park Service guidelines. Until the mid1980s, it served as a preeminent and nationally known living history program rivaling 

Williamsburg, Plimoth Plantation, and Sturbridge Villages in the minds of visitors and 

professionals alike.82

Chief Ranger Larry Points also had an answer for those who questioned the value of 

living history for its tendency to “beautify,” “simplify,” “romanticize,” and “misrepresent” 

history. He acknowledged that craft demonstrations should not be the primary draw of a 

historic site. However, “[f]or ten months of the year, Hopewell visitors get recorded message 

[sic] and a mini-folder while in the village. They look through windows of locked doors at the 

shadows of their past and they peer across barricades at room [sic] adequately furnished but 

barren of the warmth and realism only a human can offer.” He argued that 

...living history can be theorized, talked and written about, hashed and rehashed, but one 

must see the enthusiasm on summertime faces at a place like Hopewell to really gain 

appreciation of it. A thousand years from now no one may really care to see a candle 

dipped, a collier at work, or bread baked. I rather suspect, however, in that far away 

push-button world, man will still appreciate where his hands have been and what they 

have done...It is my hope that the park service will still be there to show him how...and 

why.83

 Probably the most relevant of the park’s demonstrations, charcoal-making at Hopewell 

came about as a stroke of good fortune. One day when Superintendent Benjamin Zerbey was 

out walking with his friend Harry Hart, he mentioned his desire to find someone who could 

demonstrate how to make charcoal and direct a burn like the one exhibited by Lafayette Houck 

back in 1936. Hart, a schoolteacher, remembered that one of his students (as part of an 

 

82 Nancy Brown, Taped phone interview by Leah S. Glaser, July 9, 2003; Points, Interview, July 9, 

2003; Elms, Interview, July 9, 2003. 

83 Larry G. Points to Loretta Neuman, August 16, 1973, “A98 Living History Correspondence,” 

Central Historical Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

279

assignment) interviewed a man in the mountains above Hamburg who made charcoal for 

laboratories at the Bethlehem Steel Company. Zerbey and Hart found Elmer Kohl having a 

drink at the local tavern and talked him into coming to Hopewell for a couple of weeks. Kohl 

continued to return to the park each summer after that to perform one of Hopewell’s most 

popular attractions for several years.84

Larry Points worked out a cooperative agreement with the ENPMA to fund the 

production, merchandizing, and distribution of wood at the charcoal site seven days a week 

during July and August, as well as the collier’s government salary. Before he retired, Collier 

Elmer Kohl passed on the trade to Ted Ziegler of the park’s maintenance crew.85 Federal funding 

would cover clean-up, with the General Service Administration disposing of excess charcoal. 

Sometimes the collier bagged the charcoal and sold it to visitors. In 1971 he produced 1,020 bags 

(over four tons).86

 

10.3 Charcoal Burn, ca.1975, HOFU Photographic Archives. 

 

84 Hart, Interview, July 25, 2003. 

85 Theodore Ziegler apprenticed and took over as collier in 1972. Annual Report, January 17, 1973, 

HFC. 86 Assistant Director to Regional Director, October 6, 1967, Regional Chief to Associate Regional 

Director, July 12, 1967, June 29, 1967, A98 Living History Correspondence, Historical Central Files, Bally 

Building, HOFU. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

280

The 1973 Prospectus hoped to increase the charcoal burning activity from a three-week 

event, to four times a year, but usually burns averaged around two.87 In 1980 a reconstructed 

Collier’s Hut became part of the permanent exhibit structures.88 With the encouragement of 

Chief Ranger Jim Corless, Collier Ted Ziegler began the apprentice program in 1991. When 

Ziegler died unexpectedly in October of 1993, Farmer-Demonstrator Dick Lahey took over the 

program, which continued to regularly perform the craft.89 Lahey and seasonal employee Rich 

Pawling also revived “ghost interpretation,” known as “first person present,” as a way for 

costumed interpreters to relate the site’s past activities to modern-day visitors.90 (Photos 10.4-6). 

The Living History program offered a great deal of continuity, camaraderie, and 

community feeling to Hopewell Village. While superintendents and permanent rangers came 

and went with job promotions, most of the seasonal interpreters were locals, many who fondly 

remembered swimming at Hopewell Lake and visiting Hopewell Village as children. As the 

front line faces of Hopewell Village NHS, they enjoyed working with the public and one 

another. Many of them returned year after year offering advice, skills, jokes, publicity, and 

experience to newcomers of the park, whether they watched from the front or worked behind 

the scenes.91 The regular summer program at the park, beginning around the first of July, did 

achieve many of the goals of revitalizing “everyday life” in Hopewell Village that NPS staff had 

anticipated for the site since the 1930s. 

 

87 Rickey, et al., “Interpretive Prospectus,” 1973, 26. 

88 Diann L. Jacox and Joseph Lee Boyle, National Register of Historic Places-Nomination Form, 

1985. 

89 When Lahey left the park, other staff members took over his duties. As of 2003, Secretary 

Barbara Gergle handles the scheduling and creates a newsletter known at the Collier’s Courier. About 25 

volunteers participate in the one-two week burns, ideally three times a year, in shifts. Susannah Brody, 

“Diary of an Apprentice Collier,” Collier’s Courier (May 2002); Gergle, Interview, July 24, 2003. 90 Corless, Interview, July 8, 2003. 

91 Hart, Interview, July 26, 2003. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

281

10.4 Cooking, 1975, HOFU Photographic Archives. 

10.5 Parlor of Ironmaster’s House, ca.1975, HOFU Photographic Archives. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

282

10.6 Moulding demonstration in Cast House, ca 1975, HOFU Photographic Archives. 

Farm Animals at the Furnace 

Live animals contributed to the living history program as much as the demonstrators. As 

suggested in the 1964 Master Plan, they conveyed “the feeling of Village life.” 92 Unfortunately, 

they also overemphasized the idea that the iron industry was a rural one. Many visitors might 

expect typical farming activities upon seeing a barn or visiting a rural park, Ronald Lee 

emphasized, but that “does not mean it is appropriate for Hopewell.” 93 Answering an inquiry 

from a girl scout who referred to Hopewell as a “historical farm,” Superintendent Disrude 

explained, 

The name of our park is misleading; it should be Hopewell Furnace since the park was 

established by congress because of its association with the colonial industry...We do not 

actually operate a living farm. We have a few animals—horses, cows, sheep, and poultry, 

but they are used primarily as background to help us “set the scene” for our visitors... We 

have a few small demonstration garden plots, but no major agricultural pursuits are 

carried on at the park.94

 

It was therefore more accurate to house work horses rather than riding and carriage horses, 

hauling devices like charcoal wagons and sleighs rather than carriages and agricultural supplies. 

 

92 Bender, “Hopewell Village NHS, Living History Report,” 1971. 93 Lee to Director, December 11, 1962, Hopewell Furnace NPS-Furnishing Plans 1961-1966, General 

Correspondence, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, HOFU. 94 Disrude to Girl Scouts, April 23, 1976, Living History, Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

283

Yet for a long time, Hopewell Village NHS could not even provide appropriate facilities 

or care for animals.95 This problem was amply illustrated by the struggle to make a home for 

Gypsey Prince, a purebred Morgan colt. When in July of 1941, Hopewell Village’s first 

superintendent, Lon Garrison, heard that the George Washington Birthplace National Historic 

Site had a surplus one-year-old colt, he wrote the site’s superintendent, Philip R. Hough. In his 

letter, he expressed a more practical intent for the addition of horses to the park than just 

exhibits. He explained his desire to relocate the historic roads and eliminate traffic through 

Hopewell Village. He hoped to breed a string of coach horses to pull visitors around on tours 

using the ample number of Brooke carriages saved by Chris Motz. He promised the park had 

planted hay and could give the animal the necessary barn space and pasture. 

Hough promptly agreed to the transfer, describing the yearling’s wonderful disposition 

and superior pedigree. Colonial Williamsburg’s benefactor John D. Rockefeller Jr. had donated 

Gypsey Prince’s father, Gypsey King, and two mares to George Washington Birthplace to “add 

life and background.” Acting Associate Director Hillory Tolson readily approved the 

arrangement and Gypsey Prince came to Hopewell by the end of the month.96 Soon afterwards, 

Garrison left Hopewell Village for his Washington promotion with what he assumed to be a last 

success in establishing an interpretation and development program. 

Considering the quick acquiescence of Hough and Tolson, the reaction of Garrison’s 

successor, Ralston Lattimore, seems surprising. Shortly after assuming his post, Lattimore wrote 

his predecessor in October to tell him the budget had no money to care for Gypsey Prince, the 

CCC commander felt they could not justify the assignment, and Regional Director Thomas 

Allen wanted him declared surplus. However after learning the rarity of the breed, Lattimore 

was “not at all anxious to part with Gypsey Prince.” He and then Inspector Emil Heinrich 

worried more about providing the proper shelter than funding for care, especially in the 

wintertime. To put a further crick in Garrison’s plan, Coordinating Superintendent Francis 

Ronalds wanted to send Hopewell Village’s carriage collection to the Vanderbilt Mansion, and 

Lattimore thought that maybe Vanderbilt could also house Gypsey Prince, “a very gentle” and 

“perfect specimen.” When those at Vanderbilt Mansion admitted their facilities were not 

 

95 Cook, et al., “Long-Range Interpretive Plan,” 1993, 38. 

96 Garrison to Superintendent Hough, George Washington Birthplace, July 1, 1941, Hough to 

Garrison, July 5, 1941, Garrison to Acting Chief of Engineering, July 7, 1941, Acting Regional Director Fred 

Johnston to Hough, October 6, 1942, Hough to Regional Director, October 8, 1942, Administrative History 

Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

284

appropriate either, Lattimore kept looking. Saratoga National Historic Park offered to take the 

animal as a saddle horse, and again, Tolson approved the transfer in February of 1942.97

Gypsey Prince’s adventures with Hopewell carried over into the Heinrich 

administration. Having grown up with thoroughbreds, self-proclaimed horse lover Heinrich 

expressed a particular understanding for the horse’s needs and found a way for Hopewell 

Village to keep him a little while longer. On October 22, 1942, he sent the horse to a farmhouse 

and adjoining barn at neighboring Hickory Run Recreational Demonstration Area. WPA 

workers reassigned the RDA’s handyman, former U.S. Cavalry officer John J. McGinley, to care 

for the horse full-time. Hopewell Village would pay for his food, while the RDA would provide 

Gypsey Prince with the appropriate training and care until the historical site could develop 

something comparable. After a successful winter, Heinrich spoke with Superintendent Hough 

about continuing Garrison’s original plans and securing Gypsey Prince a mate of the same 

caliber by 1943 or 1944. He described to Hough all the attention and admiration that the local 

Mennonite farmers bestowed on the stallion.98 Yet in spite of the dedication of several 

superintendents, the Regional Office insisted the historic site either put Gypsey Prince to use for 

patrolling (so the budget could write off the cost of his care as wartime gas and rubber 

conservation) or declare him surplus property. Reluctantly, the NPS solicited bidders, sold the 

horse to Mr. D.T. Switzler of Carrolltown, Pennsylvania, and abandoned the idea of raising 

carriage horses at Hopewell Village.99

 

 

97 Lattimore to Garrison, October 22, 1941, Lattimore to Hough, October 23, 1941, Ronalds to 

Lattimore, October 31, 1941, Lattimore to Garrison, Ronalds to Superintendent Cooper, November 6, 1941, 

October 31, 1941, Lattimore to Superintendent Warren F. Hamilton, Saratoga National Historical Park, 

January 29, 1942, Lattimore to Director, January 30, 1942, Tolson to Lattimore, February 10, 1942, Central 

Historical Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 

98 Heinrich to Regional Director, October 20, 1942, Heinrich to Hough, April 13, 1943, Hough to 

Heinrich, April 16, 1943, Heinrich to Hough, April 21, 1943, Central Historical Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 99 Hough to Joseph Plick, April 27, 1943, Hough to Heinrich, April 27, 1943, Regional Director 

Oliver Taylor to Heinrich, September 17, 1943, Taylor to Director, April 15, 1944, Heinrich to Coordinating 

Superintendent, June 12, 1944, Heinrich to S. M., August 2, 1944, Heinrich to Ranger Brady, August 16, 

1944, Central Historical Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

285

10.7 Gypsey Prince, ca.1942. HOFU Photographic Archives. 

Horses and other farm animals did not return to Hopewell Village until at least the 1960s. 

Although his arrival is not documented, at some point a Morgan horse named Sonny moved to 

Hopewell Village. Until then, the NPS rented pasture to a farmer to graze his horses in order to 

emphasize the “rural scene” to visitors. Once the park acquired Sonny, the superintendent 

allowed a farmer to pasture his cows by special permit.100 The Chief Ranger and maintenance 

staff usually shared duties of feeding and caring for all of the animals. 

The 1973 Interpretive Prospectus suggested carefully introducing more livestock as long 

as they did not detract from the workers’ activities at the furnace. Superintendent Disrude only 

hoped to use horses as “part of the interpretive scene and maintained as exhibits” during the 

Bicentennial. The park sold sixteen-year-old Sonny when “skittish” Buck and Jane arrived from 

Harpers Ferry NHS in 1976. Disrude humorously described their distinct personalities and 

contribution to the living history program. “Since Buck was less amenable to actual work, he 

was ridden frequently, and Jane did the major work in the harness such as hauling firewood, hay 

and other Village supplies. After each charcoal burn, she also hauled the fresh charcoal to the 

cooling shed on a stone sled fitted with a box.”101 Philadelphia lawyer Charles Weisman 

 

100 Zerbey, Interview, July 15, 2003. 

101 Disrude, 1976 Annual Report, March 10, 1977, Annual Reports, Hopewell Furnace National 

Historic Site, HFC. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

286

volunteered to help the rangers break them in so that the pair would be more willing to stand 

closer to visitors when they were out to pasture.102

At the height of the living history program in the 1970s, the staff also hoped to actually 

use animals as a way to convey the “less manicured” and more realistic landscape discussed in 

Chapter 8. Instead of mowers, they brought in sheep, which not only contributed to the park 

visually, but their grazing kept the grass from growing too high. The idea created a tremendous 

amount of work and hassle for the park’s managers. Their tendency to make a nightly “mess” on 

the porch of the Ironmaster’s House or escape into the woods led to a significant reduction in 

the flock. Sheep management entailed exchanging rams every couple of years to avoid 

inbreeding while limiting their numbers and protecting them from stray dog attacks. Staff also 

had to keep children away from one ram because he had a tendency to butt and break down 

fences.103 For the Bicentennial, the park secured Leicester sheep, popular in the Revolutionary 

period, but soon after her arrival, Disrude replaced them with Merino sheep, a rare breed of 

which the furnace was known to have at least one of in 1838. She transferred several of the 

Leicester sheep to George Washington’s Birthplace and three became part of the village’s 

cooking demonstration the following year.104 Rangers next introduced guinea hens, which not 

only made a tremendous amount of noise, but also became attractive midnight snacks for area 

foxes. Foxes caused further harm to Hopewell’s beasts when a fox hunter killed one of two 

Belgian draft horses, meant to offer wagon rides, with a bow and arrow.105

 

In 1978 management began requiring all the animals to stay inside at night due to the 

weather and hunting season, but wild dogs and foxes still managed to attack a few the following 

year.106 By 1981 other programs ensured animal safety. Maintenance removed plants on site that 

they knew to be harmful to the livestock and constructed coops and pens to protect them from 

 

102 Elizabeth Disrude, “Volunteer Helps Train Horses for National Park Duty,” Press Release, 

February 23, 1978, “Press Releases,” Central Historical Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 103 Disrude to Elaine Clouser, January 15, 1979, Derrick Cook to Pennsylvania Department of 

Agriculture, April 24, 1989, Farm Demonstrator to Lutz, Morrow, and Johnston, June 14, 1978, June 16, 

1978, File A98 Livestock, Central Files, HOFU. 104 “Sheep at the Furnace,” Hopewell Furnace, National Park Service, Department of the Interior; 

Elizabeth Disrude, 1976 Annual Report, March 10, 1977, Annual Reports, Hopewell Furnace National 

Historic Site, HFC. 105 Points, Interview, July 9, 2003; Brown, Interview, July 8, 2003. 106 Kevin Ziemba to I&RM Staff, October 16, 1978, File A98 Livestock, Central Files, HOFU. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

287

predators.107 The Pennsylvania State University Agricultural Extension Office provided advice 

and assistance for the interpretive farm.108

 

To address worries about safety, the operation costs of veterinarian bills, additional staff 

chores, and appropriate shelter, the park finally hired Farmer-Demonstrator Kevin Ziemba to 

care for two horses, two Devon cows, two oxen, eight sheep, ducks, geese, chickens, and a 

“friendly pig” named Fredericka that had joined the Hopewell Village community. 109 Another 

pig named “Horatio” briefly joined the village family to provide his services as a “disposal unit 

for Village cooking leftovers” (He was followed by “Petunia” in the 1980s.)110 In 1978 a Devon 

Steer named “Red” came to Hopewell Village from the George Washington Birthplace to 

replace two “unmanageable” ones sold in 1976. Disrude arranged to have the two cows 

artificially inseminated so the park could train their calves and use them as oxen, but there is no 

evidence this plan came about.111

Since the mid-1980s, several people, including former Acting Superintendent and 

Regional Chief of Interpretation Russell Smith seriously questioned the need for farm animals in 

light of the expense, the confusion over the park’s significance, and the other problems 

associated with them. Hopewell is home to fewer animals today, but many still continue to 

argue the benefits of their presence. The cows, horses, chickens, sheep, and even the cat amuse 

visitors and in absence of costumed interpreters throughout the park, continue to give Hopewell 

Village its much desired “life.”112

 

107 Kennedy, “Statement for Interpretation,” 2. 

108 Interpretive Statement, 1981. 

109 Bender, “Hopewell Village NHS, Living History Report,” 1971; Chief Nathan B. Golub, Division 

of Maintenance, to Regional Director, June 27, 1967, Hopewell Village NHS 1965-68, General 

Correspondence 1966-68, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P; Disrude, “Statement of 

Management” 1976. 110 Unfortunately, Horatio returned to his owner the following fall, plump and ripe for butchering. 

Disrude, 1976 Annual Report, March 10, 1977, Annual Reports, Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, 

HFC. 111 Disrude to Superintendent, GWBNM, October 19, 1978; Disrude to Ridge Shinn, October 6, 

1976, Living History folder, Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 112 Corless, Interview, July 8, 2003. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

288

Regular Special Events 

In addition to Establishment Day, the costumed interpretation program ended each 

summer with the (Apple) Harvest Festival in September.113 Other special event programs at the 

park helped to maintain year-round visitation and good community relations, since many 

wintertime visitors lived within fifty miles of the park. Beginning in the early 1970s, the park staff 

offered the “Candlelight” program in July and August, based loosely on a tradition in the early 

republic that celebrated the reading of the Declaration of Independence. This highly popular 

event involved guided walks conducted with about 1000 visitors carrying their own candles. In 

justifying the program to the Regional Director, Superintendent Wallace Elms argued that while 

the park’s plans never involved depicting nightlife at the furnace and the candles involved 

obvious safety hazards, this tour enabled “visitors to see living history program in action since 

Hopewell operated on a 24 hour basis and lanterns were common.” Furthermore, the program 

was extremely popular with the locals and important to community outreach. However, safety 

concerns soon got the better of Elms and he discontinued the program. 114

The annual Christmas celebration, begun in the Bicentennial year of 1976 as a “thank 

you” to employees, volunteers, neighbors and friends took advantage of the park amidst 

snowfall. The park staff hosted a tree-trimming at the Visitor Center, and a local garden club 

(Elverson) decorated the Ironmaster’s House for the season every year. In recent years, a 

volunteer hosts a historical music program at the Bethesda Church featuring violins, guitar, and 

harp music.115

 

The Bicentennial 

The 1973 Interpretive Prospectus mentioned connections to the colonial era only briefly, 

but the park’s interpretive program for the Bicentennial relied upon its connection to the 

American Revolution. Harpers Ferry assisted with several Hopewell Village projects. The 

Harpers Ferry Center’s Chief of Historic Ordnance supplied cannon tubes for discharging in a 

 

113 “Harvest Festival at Hopewell Village,” Press Release, September 17, 1981, Hopewell Furnace 

National Historic Site, HFC. 114 Superintendent Wallace Elms, Annual Report, 1973, Annual Reports, Hopewell Furnace 

National Historic Site, HFC; Disrude, “Statement of Management,” 1976. 115 Elizabeth Disrude, “A92 Park Christmas Activities Packet, December 1985,” Historical Central 

Files, Bally Building, HOFU; Elizabeth Disrude, “Christmas Celebration at Hopewell Village,” Press 

Release, December 10, 1982, HFC. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

289

cannon-testing demonstration and secured four broken cannon tubes, actually cast at Hopewell, 

from Valley Forge State Park.116 Harpers Ferry Historian and Interpretive Specialist Nancy 

Hornick would write a social and cultural history for a Bicentennial folder entitled, “The Life at 

Hopewell.”117

The Bicentennial inspired several changes and projects, and sometimes the park reaped 

the rewards of outside interest. Staff sought ways to illustrate Hopewell’s activities and portray 

the site as if it was actually in the midst of war production. The charcoal demonstrations 

provided the coal, and the limestone was easily affordable, but the park lacked any way of 

affording the proper amount of raw iron ore on display at furnace the bank. After a heartfelt 

solicitation, the Bethlehem Steel Company donated 250 tons of iron ore, a gift estimated at about 

$5,000.118 In March 1976 staff remodeled the lobby of the Visitor Center relocating the 

information desk and sales area to the western side to improve the area’s flow pattern. A new 

slideshow was introduced in August. The Hopewell Maintenance Division constructed a not so 

accurate reproduction of a cannon barrel, which they mounted on a restored carriage. They 

also restored a red, white, and blue Conestoga Wagon and a one-horse open sleigh, both of 

which greatly enhanced the transportation theme at Hopewell. The Eastern National Park and 

Monument Association funded a special exhibit highlighting the furnace’s connections to the 

Revolution, and upgraded audio visual equipment park-wide. 119

Seasonal Ranger Dale Biever offered the services of his re-enacting group to help 

Hopewell commemorate the Bicentennial. Beginning on July 4, 1971, and for several 

Independence Day celebrations thereafter, a dozen site personnel and a group of volunteers 

dressed as Revolutionary War soldiers. Calling themselves the First Continental Regiment of 

Foot, they marched to the furnace to a fife and engaged in rifle and musket practice. Acting as 

Mark Bird, one read the Declaration of Independence to visitors/villagers from the porch of the 

Ironmaster’s House. In 1973 they hoisted a flag from the American Revolution Bicentennial 

Commission and accepted a Certificate of Official Recognition from the commission. The 

 

116 Chief Curator Harold Peterson, to Allan L. Montgomery, July 16, 1975, D6215 Cannon, Etc.- 

Bicentennial, Historical Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 117 Historian Nancy Hornick, Harpers Ferry Center to Chief Historian Harry Pfanz, January 9, 

1975. 118 Wallace Elms to Charles Taylor, Domestic Ore Mines, March 13, 1974, Elms to Regional 

Director Chester Brooks, April 29, 1974, H2215 Iron Ore, Central Files, HOFU. 119 Disrude, 1976 Annual Report, March 10, 1977, Annual Reports, Hopewell Furnace National 

Historic Site, HFC. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

290

volunteers would also interpret military life and stress the importance of iron for war munitions. 

The event delighted 3,700 visitors who spent the rest of their day attending demonstrations. The 

event’s success ensured repeat performances in subsequent years; one year even allowed for a 

military encampment. Hopewell held its Bicentennial celebration on the 200th anniversary with 

a cannon blast on May 2, 1976. The park invited Mark Bird’s seventh generation descendant, 

Colonel Daniel Bird of Alexandria, Virginia, up for the occasion.120 While extremely popular, 

critics have questioned the integrity of allowing such performances. “Nothing like that (the 

firing of the cannon, etc.) ever happened at Hopewell Furnace, but it sure was a good show!” 

commented Ranger Frank Hebblethwaite. 

As a park already in question about its Revolutionary era significance, Nancy Hornick 

accused Hopewell’s staff of romanticizing its past and class relationships in particular. 

Concerned that Hopewell be judged within its own historical context, the staff objected to the 

use of terms like “feudal” and “low wages,” as well as references to “drunkenness” and 

“accidents.” “This is at least the third attempt by this office in recent years to get out a 

satisfactory publication for HVNHS [Hopewell Village National Historic Site],” Hornick 

complained in a memo to Chief Historian Harry Pfanz.121 During the Bicentennial Development 

Program, Pfanz had grown concerned that Hopewell Village, as well as many other Bicentennial 

parks, seemed to be stressing the years between 1776 and 1783 over other interpretation periods 

even if the American Revolution was not the chief era of significance. NPS planners intended 

that parks merely reexamine their themes in light of the goals of the Revolution, “not that they 

turn their interpretive programs completely around.” Pfanz conceded that while one should not 

judge the past too harshly and understand the historical context of working conditions, 

Hopewell, by its very setting, fed into visitors’ romantic biases about rural life, “particularly 

when those times are portrayed by girls in graceful long dresses and brawny men proving their 

 

120 Biever, Interview, July 23, 2003; Bender, “Hopewell Village NHS, Living History Report,” 1971; 

Larry Points, Press Release “Costumes and Crafts to Usher in Summer Season at Hopewell Furnace,” June 

23, 1973, Correspondence 1960-1975, Elms to Chief, Naval Material, June 9, 1975, Hopewell NHS, 

Correspondence 1975-, Hopewell NHS, Historical Files, WASO; Elizabeth Disrude to Regional 

Superintendent, May 4, 1978, “A8215 Bicentennial Correspondence,” Disrude to Colonel Daniel Bird, 

December 10, 1975, D6215 Cannon, Etc.-Bicentennial, Historical Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU, 

Disrude, 1976 Annual Report, March 10, 1977, Annual Reports, Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, 

HFC. 121 Historian Nancy S. Hornick, HFC, to Harry Pfanz, December 27, 1974, Hopewell NHS, 

Correspondence, 1975-, Historical Files, WASO. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

291

strength in a hot furnace...We are obligated to interpret a site like Hopewell in ways that will 

counter this unwarranted romanticism.”122

 

When Bicentennial celebrations ended, budgetary constraints took care of the many of 

the concerns Pfanz and Hornick raised. The 1986 Gramm–Rudman bill severely shrank the 

summer program until only Establishment Day, the collier’s apprenticeship, and the cast and 

molding demonstrations (limited to three times a week in the summertime) survived.123 In the 

1980s park administrators like Chief Ranger Lee Boyle increasingly turned their energies back to 

the management of resources. Unfortunately, the lack of funding for living history programs 

(first throughout the year, and then even during the summertime) forced the park to rely on a 

small number of paid staff and volunteers to keep the living history program active, especially 

for special events. Eventually, as funds and enthusiasm dwindled even further in the 1990s, live 

interpretation, given by paid staff, decreased to only two to three days a week during the 

summer. An audiovisual program was used during other times of the year. The latter program 

could provide the sights and sounds of summertime Hopewell, but it unfortunately lacked the 

smells, the tastes, and the interaction of live human beings. By the 1990s, visitation to the park 

had dropped significantly, and summertime living history demonstrations were limited to the 

molding and casting and, if someone volunteered, cooking at one of the Tenant Houses. When 

Karen Guenther, a three-year seasonal employee in the 1980s, later visited Hopewell, she was 

stunned. “There were no people! It was empty! It was like people forgot it was there—even on 

Establishment Day it wasn’t busy!”124

All in a Name 

The living history program and special events like the Bicentennial solved many visitor 

services issues, but complicated the larger questions of the site’s significance. For years, both the 

park rangers and visitors regarded the Ironmaster’s House as the focal point of the village. The 

unapproved 1972 Master Plan and the 1973 Interpretive Prospectus first raised the issue. 

Interpretive Specialists from the new Denver Service Center and regional office directed 

Hopewell staff in drafting the reports.125 The Master Plan pointed out the issue of setting. 

 

122 Pfanz to Hornick, January 9, 1975, Correspondence 1975-, Hopewell NHS, WASO. 

123 “Statement of Interpretation,” 1988, 11. 

124 Karen Guenther, Taped phone interview by Leah S. Glaser, July 9, 2003. 125 Superintendent Bill Riddle, Franklin Collins and Nan Rickey of the Denver Service Center. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

292

“Within the 846+ acre remnant of this once active industrial community a rural almost bucolic, 

atmosphere pervades...It is historically misleading. While the Hopewell community was 

historically a rural rather than an urban complex, it was industrial rather than agricultural. Its 

smells were those of smoke and charcoal-smelting iron; its sights were those of charcoal, dust, 

smoke, and ash; its sounds were those of clanking iron, blasting furnace and billows.126 In 

contrast, in the twentieth century, 

The furnace is cold; the ironmaster’s mansion and tenant houses are empty; the once 

stripped hills are now reforested; the air is clean and clear. The sights and sounds of 

industry have been replaced. Even the living history programs in the village emphasize 

the rural domestic activities rather than the industrial. A sense of the birth of an industry 

is lost.127

Hopewell Village NHS should no longer serve as a reminder of the colonial period, insisted Nan 

Rickey and her staff, but as a “forerunner of our modern iron and steel industry...”128

Hopewell’s planning team argued that the site interpretation needed to stress the 

furnace, not the Ironmaster’s House and accompanying domestic community, as the focus of 

restoration and interpretive programs. Interpretation programs would emphasize the 

technology of iron, American dependence on iron and the iron industry, and the processes 

involved in iron production including the large groups of labor required for the tasks. One 

reviewer accused the park managers and planners of basing the site’s development “less on 

objectives than on momentary reactions to programs or situations in progress.”129

Both planning documents offered a dramatic, but simple solution to begin this shift to a 

technological and economic focus as the primary interpretive theme: changing the name of the 

Park from Hopewell Village National Historic Site to Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site. 

The change would, first and foremost, alter visitor expectations of the site. Second, as 

Superintendent Elizabeth Disrude explained in a statement to the press, “Historically, the area 

was never known as Hopewell Village.” In fact, during the era of furnace operations, the 

industrial complex was referred to on maps as “Hopewell Furnace” or “Hopewell.” To ensure 

 

126 Denver Service Center, “A Master Plan: Hopewell Village National Historic Site,” Draft, 

Washington, DC: National Park Service, Department of the Interior, November 16, 1972, 4. Copy at 

HOFU. 127 In 1961, Rogers Young reported that the park had begun burning materials in the furnace to 

produce smoke, thus interpreting through smell as well as sight. Staff Historian Rogers Young to Chief 

Historian, June 27, 1961, K1817 Interpretive Prospectus,” Central Files, HOFU; Denver Service Center, 

“Master Plan,” 1972, 7. 128 Nan Rickey, Master Plan: Hopewell Village National Historic Site, 1972, 8. 

129 “Some Thoughts on the Hopewell Interpretive Prospectus,” January 21, 1975, Correspondence 

1975-, “Hopewell NHS,” Historical Files, WASO. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

293

this emphasis, the park’s name needed to change from “Hopewell Village” to “Hopewell 

Furnace.” Since the area was never historically known as “Hopewell Village,” only “Hopewell 

Furnace” or “Hopewell,” the name, “Hopewell Village,” actually reflected the preservation 

trends of the 1920s and 30s. The term “village” connoted a built environment, and the policies of 

Hopewell Village National Historic Site focused almost exclusively upon the stabilization, 

restoration, and reconstruction of the structural ruins from the old furnace complex. In 

addition, “the term ‘village’ emphasizes social and economic factors rather than industrial ones.” 

As particularly evident in Joseph Walker’s book, Hopewell Village, it evokes a community of 

workers, farmers, craftsmen, managers, and merchants.130 Further exacerbated by the barn and 

the farm animals, the term often created an image of a pastoral sense not in keeping with a 

thriving ironmaking complex 

While a key component in the interpretation and image of the park, this 

recommendation was not realized until 1985, and with little fanfare, when U.S. legislators simply 

slipped it into the omnibus bill that year.132 By the time Secretary of the Interior Don Hodel 

ordered the re-designation of the park with the new name in November of 1985, many staff 

members had already begun referring to the site as Hopewell Furnace for close to a decade.133

 

Robin Wade Design Associates 

In spite of the push to emphasize the technical aspects of the site, Superintendent 

Disrude and her staff aimed to infuse Hopewell Village’s exhibits with a greater emphasis on the 

workers. This inclination was in response to the growing emphasis on social history as 

described in Joseph Walker’s research. Park staff suggested the exhibits include references to 

the racial, religious, and ethnic origins of its workers and draw parallels to today’s worker. In 

1977-78 Hopewell Village entered a contract with a British company, Robin Wade Design 

 

130 Walker, Hopewell Village, 13. 132 “National Park Service Area Name changed to ‘Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site,’” 

Press Release, November 1, 1985; Memo, Director Roger Kennedy to Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the 

Interior, August 23, 1995. The similarities in the names Hopewell Furnace NHS and Hopewell Culture 

NHP still confuses people, often within NPS offices, who frequently mix up the files. 133 Disrude, “Statement for Management,” 1981, 6. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

294

Associates, through the Harpers Ferry Center to redesign the exhibit space of the Visitor Center, 

which was considered outdated in both content and design.134 The fact that Saugus Ironworks in 

Massachusetts had also retained the services of the same company for technical exhibits may 

have contributed to the park’s desire for something different. 

The Robin Wade design team had much to say about the physical inadequacies of the 

Visitor Center. In addition to the outdated exhibits, the administrative level and audiovisual 

room were far too “small and cramped” for their purpose.” They proposed several physical 

changes including expanding the building by no more than 2,000 feet, widening the lobby to the 

north, separating the welcome and exhibit areas, and installing sliding doors in order to allow 

visitors onto the viewing balcony in the summertime. As for exhibits, they offered up six points: 

1. Pennsylvania served/serves as the largest center for the biggest American Iron and 

Steel Industry in the world. Hopewell Village embodied its origins. 

2. Hopewell Village is not unique, but typical of eighteenth century Pennsylvania iron 

sites 

3. The “iron plantation” specialized in castings 

4. With the aide of water power [sic], iron was made from local iron ore, limestone, and 

charcoal, with waterpower 

5. Places like Hopewell hosted a close-knit community of the Ironmaster and his 

workforce 

6. Depending on demand and type of transportation, Hopewell Furnace’s main 

products were castings and pig iron 

A fifteen-minute film would convey the stress of life at Hopewell, only briefly touching upon the 

ironmaking process.135

While the firm may have felt they understood the type of site, performing similar and 

concurrent work at Saugus, the proposal did not distinguish Hopewell as administrators hoped. 

Acting Regional Director and Former Hopewell Village Superintendent Benjamin Zerbey 

expressed disappointment with the proposed design and never approved it. While he agreed 

with the six elements of interpretation, Zerbey charged that the “grandiose” architectural 

changes the company proposed would overwhelm the natural setting as well as the individual 

story of Hopewell by, for example, introducing gigantic views of Bethlehem Steel.136

 

134 Disrude to Robin Wade, September 7, 1978, “D6215 Museum,” Central Historical Files, Bally 

Building, HOFU. 135 Robin Wade Design Associates, “Interpretive Proposals for Hopewell Village near Birdsboro, 

Pennsylvania (Stage 1 Concept Plan)” (February 1978), HFC. 

136 Acting Regional Director Benjamin Zerbey to Marc Sagan, April 28, 1978, “D6215 Museum,” 

Historical Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

295

Hopewell Furnace as Microcosm 

In more recent years, the interpretation program has focused less on Hopewell itself, and 

more as a representative place to tell a larger story. Rather than tell a static story of centered on 

Hopewell Furnace, as was the goal of many early administrators, the Hopewell Furnace 

National Historic Site of later years aimed to describe the furnace to visitors as a microcosm for 

larger historical issues and trends. During his short stint as Acting Superintendent at Hopewell, 

Regional Chief of Interpretation Russ Smith scheduled the park for a new comprehensive 

interpretive plan. By a July 1992 meeting, the NPS had a revised statement of significance: 

“Hopewell Furnace exemplifies the state of the iron industry in the developing United States, 112 

years as a microcosm of American social, political, economic, and technological development.”137

The Long-Range Interpretive Plan drafted in 1993 picked up on these themes of Hopewell 

Furnace as “representative” of the iron industry and of an era. The plan relegated the American 

Revolution to a sub-theme, and returned to the idea that “Hopewell should be a [multi-sensory] 

experience far beyond a history lesson in facts and dates.”138 It should reflect a larger context of 

social, economic, political, and technological change. 

While iron is important, so is change. Hopewell represents an important transition from 

agriculture to industry. Old transportation networks and iron-making technologies are 

replaced with the new. Traditional values and lifestyles are challenged by new ideas...It is 

a story of a whole industry, but more importantly of individual people and how they 

adapt or get passed by. It is a story of the past and yet as current as the daily newspaper 

headlines.139

As a sub-theme, Hopewell Furnace NHS would illustrate that life at an ironworks was 

challenging, but offered opportunity for an ethnically diverse group of working men and 

women. The site illustrated changes in technology, transportation, transportation networks, 

and used the raw materials of rural Pennsylvania to operate the furnace and sustain the 

community. Visitors would understand the relationship between rural landscapes and industrial 

economy. 

Hopewell’s Long Range Interpretive Plan still aimed to enlist “sensory perception” to 

make visitors feel as though they were entering another world. “Visitors should feel as if the 

historic residents are simply out of sight and may appear at any moment,” the report explained. 

However, planners also realized that they would have to do more to help the visitor connect the 

 

137 Cook, “Statement for Management,” 1993, 6, 7. 

138 Cook, et al., “Long-Range Interpretive Plan,” 1993, 6. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

296

resources.140 When interpreted creatively, the structures could bring the village to life to tell a 

story of how technological progress both created the site and later made it obsolete. To convey 

this point, exhibits and programs needed to work together to communicate co-dependence of 

industry and agriculture, the connection of rural industry to urban markets, and the social 

distinctions created in the community that supported the furnace operations.”141 Both the new 

interpretive plan and the Statement of Management re-established or amended interpretive 

themes, and both went a long way in collecting adequate funding for a variety of projects to be 

enacted at the end of the twentieth century.142

Exhibits at Hopewell Furnace NHS generally remain unchanged since their original 

installation. However, when reconstructing the Cast House steeple in 1996-97, Superintendent 

Josie Fernandez and Chief Ranger Jeffrey Collins provided pamphlets and ranger talks that 

explained the purpose of preservation at Hopewell and the National Park Service in general. 

This effort not only explained to visitors why the site’s chief attraction was not accessible to 

them, but on a grander scale it expanded the significance of the park and transformed it into an 

exhibit on historic preservation. Fernandez argued that such an approach created “a sense of 

stewardship” in visitors who would gain a further understanding about the function of the 

National Park Service.143

 

Visitation at the Park 

Prior to the mid-1960s, visitors found themselves at Hopewell for reasons that had little 

to do with visitor services or interpretive programs. Since the day of its establishment, the 

proximity of French Creek has always influenced visitation to the historic site. The data 

gathered during the period of consolidation (1942-46) did not discriminate between those who 

sought recreational facilities at the RDA and those who came to Hopewell to see the historic 

village located near Hopewell Lake. Yet even taking that system into account, it is hard to rely 

on the numbers. Park administrators found them difficult to estimate due to the highway that 

 139 Ibid., 16. 

140 Ibid., 4. 

141 Ibid., 6. 

142 Corless, Interview, July 8, 2003. 

143 Fernandez, Interview, August 28, 2003. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

297

ran through village until 1956.144 Statements in annual reports differ from the official site numbers 

(see Appendix D). There were virtually no standards for counting visitors until 1971, when a 

Visitor Use Plan declared that the “Management of the Park” was dependent upon its ability to 

control visitor access.145

Visitation had just begun to rise dramatically before World War II, when numbers fell 

sharply. Staff noticed larger crowds in September of 1940 than in the previous months, 

concluding weather and publicity contributed to the attention. “Many days of clear weather 

was [sic] undoubtedly a factor in bringing more visitors during the last month than any other 

previous month. The small pamphlet we have been giving to each visitor has resulted in a 

number of parties coming from the Philadelphia area. I know this because several parties 

showed me a copy given to them by some neighbor or friend who had visited HVNHS,” a tour 

guide commented to Chris Motz.146 During the years 1942 and 1943, visitors held at just above 

20,000 annually according to official statistics.147 According to monthly reports issued at the 

time, a low rate of travel among the general population combined with a lack of guide services 

(due to low staffing) likely explained that only 692 visitors came to view the historic site in the 

summer of 1942, with just ninety attending orientation lectures, received tours, and viewed the 

museum.148

 

Staff were surprised when 4,350 people, who found Hopewell “a haven for mental and 

physical relaxation” during wartime, unexpectedly arrived between July 1 and July 4, 1944. The 

three employees dropped all of their other work to collect data on visitors, guide them around, 

answer questions, unsnarl traffic, and locate additional table facilities at Baptism Creek Picnic 

Site. Near the end of the war, hints of post-war tourism appeared in Emil Heinrich’s count of 

over 63,000 visitors in 1944149. However, he admitted that most of the patrons hailed from nearby 

communities. One Sunday in August of 1945, the superintendent counted about 3,000 people at 

just the lake and the picnic area. The crowds left the staff no time to explain to visitors about the 

 

144 Ronsheim, “Conditions Influencing Museums Development: The Park Story,” HOFU. 145 For specific numerical data on visitor use until 1979, see Disrude, “Visitor Use Plan,” 12. 

146 Richard Rarick to Motz, October 2, 1940, Historical Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 147 National Park Service, “Public Use Statistics,” http://www2.nature.nps.gov/stats/. 

148 Superintendent Ralston Lattimore,“Monthly Statistical Report on Interpretive Services in 

Historic and Archaeological Site,” July 1942, “File 101-04.1b,” Historical Central Files, Bally Building, 

HOFU. 149 Heinrich’s annual report for 1944 indicates 63,000 visitors, while the number is closer to 69,000 

according to official NPS statistics (see Appendix D). 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

298

site. Visits to the village and requests for tours began earlier, and requests for short-term permits 

began to increase.150

 

After French Creek split off from the historic site in 1946-47, Acting Custodian Catherine 

Fritz claimed that as the size of the historic site decreased, visitation to the village actually rose, 

due to interest from historical associations, chamber of commerce fraternal orders, and other 

clubs and organizations.151 Indeed, it was the recreation facilities and their promotion to local 

towns and cities that attracted thousands of visitors to the Hopewell area after the war.

The eastern extension to the Pennsylvania Turnpike in the 1950s helped direct passersby to the park.152 The state’s highway department renewed entrance and directional signs and 

even designed two new bronze historical markers.153 Summer numbers soared, remaining close 

to ten thousand each month.154 Publicity helped raise those numbers even higher. In 1951 

visitation rose to 10,992 in the month of June alone compared to the 9,411 of the previous 

summer. Administrators credited an article published in the June issue of Esso Road News, 

“Early Ironmakers: Hopewell Village, Cradle of Iron Industry, Has Helped Make the Nation a 

Leader in the Battle for Freedom.”155 Improved facilities in the French Creek State Park also 

likely contributed to the increase. At the same time, however, Hopewell staff “felt frustrated by 

the seeming lack of interest in the park by both [the] NPS and the general public. We had very 

few visitors except on weekends and even then, the numbers were low,” recalled Ranger Bill 

Rowland.156

Mission 66 required the park to analyze visitation statistics in order to plan for the 

requirements of the Visitor Center. The NPS designed the Visitor Center concluding that, not 

surprisingly, most people came to Hopewell on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. By 1955 

attendance reached a low of just under 50,000 with a Sunday peak of 1500 in the summer. The 

park estimated a 25 percent increase after that and designed the Visitor Center to accommodate 

 

150Heinrich to Regional Director, July 5, 1944, “Annual Reports,” Heinrich, April 18, 1945, 

“Bridges;” Heinrich to William H. Basset, November 25, 1944, “Roads,” Heinrich, Superintendent’s 

Annual Report, 1946, “Annual Reports,” Historical Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 151 Acting Custodian Catherine Fritz, “Superintendent’s Annual Report, 1947,” Historical Central 

Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 152 Demaray to Thomas Evans, Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, April 25, 1949, NARA-P. 153 Gibbs, Monthly Report, 1949, Gibbs, Superintendent’s Annual Report, 1947, Historical Central 

Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 154 Dennis C. Kurjack, Monthly Narrative Report, October 1950,” November 2, 1950, W File, 

Central Files, HOFU. 155 Walter E. Hugins, Monthly Narrative Report, June1951, July 5, 1951, W File, Central Files, HOFU. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

299

5,000-8,000 people on Sundays in the future. Most guests traveled under sixty miles to the site, 

so they assumed repeat visitors would skip the museum. Before the construction of the Visitor 

Center, the average person stayed at the village anywhere from 15 minutes to four hours, with 75 

percent within the half hour to hour and a quarter range, but planners predicted the Visitor 

Center would extend that stay.157

The year the Visitor Center opened (1959), visitation reached the highest numbers on 

record, at least 20 percent over the year before.158 A cool April that year lowered visitation 

overall, but Sunday attendance still jumped 80 percent. Between the new museum facility and a 

handful of living history demonstrations, more people than ever before were drawn to 

Hopewell. By July, the park broke its monthly visitation records at 21,083 due in part to the press 

coverage of the park’s charcoal manufacturing. Efforts to contact hikers with signage at the 

visitor shelter and information desk in French Creek State Park, and conducting community 

talks to local organizations also took some of the credit. Hot and rainy Augusts followed by bad 

winters from 1960-1962 once again brought the numbers down.However, the numbers in June 

of 1962 passed the 1959 record at 14,234. 159

 

After that, visitation continued to climb. July 1974 broke records in monthly visitation at 

34,801, and more people visited Hopewell during the Bicentennial than ever before.160 The 

activities of Establishment Day and July 4th attracted the largest crowds with numbers reaching 

three to five thousand.161 Soon after the Bicentennial and the cessation of the military 

encampment and demonstrations, the Fourth of July failed to attract significant crowds, but the 

living history activities throughout the summers of the 1970s sustained high seasonal attendance. 

Seasonal workers reported regular arrivals of Grayline Bus Tours during the summer months.162

 

 156 Letter, Bill Rowland to Leah S. Glaser, August 3, 2003. 

157 Ronsheim, “Conditions Influencing Museums Development: the Park Story,” HOFU; Disrude, 

“Statement for Management,” 1976. 

158 Monthly Reports, June 1959, December 1959, “Hopewell Village NHS, 1960-62,” General 

Correspondence 1953-63, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 159 Monthly Reports, January 1959, March-May 1959, July-August 1959, January-April 1960, JuneAugust 1960, Dec 1960, January-February 1961, May 1961, “Hopewell Village NHS, 1960-62,” General 

Correspondence 1953-63, Northeast Regional Office, RG 79, NARA-P. 160 February 7, 1983, N1621, “Threats to the Park,” CRM, HOFU; Disrude to Regional Director, 

December 11, 1978, File K2621, Historical Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 161 Disrude, “Visitor Use Plan,” 5-6. 

162 Hart, Interview, July 25, 2003; Gergle, Interview, July 24, 2003. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

300

A Visitor Use Plan in 1979 aimed to extend the summer numbers year round by 

expanding the site’s interpretive themes. With the funding for the living history program in the 

summer diminishing, the park needed to expand upon the visual effects of its resources. Most 

people stayed at Hopewell for 1.5 hours, but some did not even get out of the Visitor Center. 

The self-guiding tour followed a logical progression, but the Bethesda Church, Thomas Lloyd 

House, Nathan Care House, and the Baptism Creek Environmental Study Area remained 

beyond the experience of most.163 The report added five primary objectives for each visitor to 

understand: 

1. Significance of iron-making process to development of industry in America 

2. Pervasiveness of iron in Western culture and man’s dependence upon it 

3. Relationship between furnace operation and a network of craftsmen 

4. To stimulate thinking about America’s work ethic and its effect on the free enterprise system 

5. To compare 19th and 20th century energy sources emphasizing renewable resources 

Annual numbers began to plateau at between 140,000 and 160,000 by the middle of the 

1980s leading the park to request a visitor profile study, which was conducted by Clemson 

University.164 The study was hardly that surprising, but it would serve as a baseline profile for 

future analysis. It concluded that 70 percent of visitors came from May through October, and 

primarily on the weekends. Most were day-trippers or part of organized groups, and usually 

local on the weekends. Fifty-three percent of summer visitors were first-timers, while about 23 

percent had been to the park at least twice. Eighty-three percent of the people spent less than 

two hours at the park. Forty percent identified resources as their favorite part, and 35 percent 

cited the living history as what they would remember. Only one percent mentioned the Visitor 

Center in this category. Forty percent also enjoyed French Creek State Park as part of their 

Hopewell experience. This statistic is supported by the most recent park study as well.165

As the economy continued to suffer, numbers continued to fall, and in 1990 the park 

attendance did not even clear 100,000. Immediately following that year, numbers improved 

only slightly due to an expansion of school programming to all grades. In addition to the 

economic issues, the 1993 Statement for Management blamed several factors on the dwindling 

numbers, including inadequate signs on Pennsylvania Turnpike, which required state approval 

 

163 Disrude, “Visitor Use Plan.” 

164 All annual visitation numbers are close, but they do not always agree between documents. 

Kennedy, “Statement for Interpretation,” 6; Cook, “Statement for Management,” 1993, 17. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

301

and state bureaucracy to correct. (The State revamped their sign program in 1968 and eliminated 

many Hopewell directional markers.) Route 100 displayed equally poor signage. The thinning of 

the living history program had also taken its toll on maintaining public interest and encouraging 

repeat visitors. In order to get back real numbers and introduce the type of interest in Hopewell 

that the living history program had generated, Hopewell Furnace needed to significantly 

strengthen its interpretation program.166 Former Chief Ranger Larry Points blames the visitor 

drop on the name change asserting that “village” has an appeal to most tourists, while “furnace” 

and other references to technological history is a “turnoff.”167

In the year 2000, the park conducted another visitor analysis finding statistics consistent 

with previous years. Again numbers followed seasonal and weather patterns, but spiked with 

special programs, predominantly living history. Eighty-five percent of Hopewell’s visitors came 

between April and October, 28 percent in the fall and Harvest Day, and only 6 percent in the 

winter. Sunday remained the busiest day, and Tuesday the lightest (Wednesday proved heavy 

for school groups).168 Establishment Day, Harvest Day, and Sheep Shearing Day remain popular 

times to visit.169

Carrying Capacity 

As the administration worried over declining visitation, they also needed to balance 

protection of the resources with the desire to provide as much accessibility to the public as 

possible. However, Superintendent Disrude pointed out that the fragility and size of Hopewell’s 

resources, the inadequate parking, and the open space in the Visitor Center certainly limited the 

carrying capacity of the park. People walking the site’s paths brought slag into the structures, 

which in turn cut into the wooden floors. Crowds ducking in from the rain, especially during the 

brief summer storms, also strained the structures.170

 165 “Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site Visitor Study, Report 139 (Park Studies Unit, 

University of Idaho, Summer 2002), 29. 166 Cook, “Statement for Management,” 1993, 27. 

167 Points, Interview, July 9, 2003. 

168 “Visitor Management-Resource Protection Assessment Program,” 2000, Visitor Center, 

Central Files, HOFU. 

169 Gergle, Interview, July 24, 2003. 170 Disrude, “Statement for Management,” 1976. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

302

Fees 

There has rarely been any agreement over whether national parks should charge fees to 

their visitors.171 Controversial debates over park ownership have accompanied the decision, but 

more frequently, politics and economics have determined parks’ fees. At many places like 

Hopewell, the pattern of visitation often weighed upon the decision.172 In 1940 Supervisor of the 

Branch of Historic Sites Ronald Lee, Morristown and Coordinating Superintendent Francis 

Ronalds, and Hopewell Village Superintendent Lon Garrison never bothered debating the issue 

of visitor fees because they all assumed they would have them. Lee and Ronalds even instructed 

Garrison to charge a $.10 fee to cars parked at the historic site even before the CCC completed 

the by-pass road. However, in July of 1940, the Secretary of the Interior Ickes had not yet 

approved fees for Hopewell Village.173 The park assumed that so many people wandered over on 

trails from French Creek that it charged no visitor fees until March of 1987. Any fees collected 

were sent to the federal treasury, and the activity placed an additional workload on a shrinking 

park staff. “A very large, but undetermined, number of walk-in visitors come through from 

camping and day use of the State Park, increasing the workload of Hopewell’s limited staff,” 

commented Disrude.174

Visitor Profile 

Hopewell’s visitors mainly fell into three groups that remained consistent at least 

through the 1970s: the casual spur of the moment majority seeking recreation or urban escape to 

the countryside, the interested (curious about progress, like historic sites) and students in school 

 

171 For more on the issue of visitor fees Service-wide, see Barry Mackintosh, Visitor Fees in the 

National Park System: A Legislative and Administrative History (Washington, DC: History Division, 

National Park Service, Department of the Interior, 1983) http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/

mackintosh3/. 172 Disrude, “Visitor Use Plan,” 12. 

173 Ronald F. Lee to Garrison, February 20, 1940, Papers of Charles Hosmer, NTL; Ronalds to 

Garrison, Ronalds to Director, June 12, 1940, Ronalds to Lee, June 27, 1940, Arthur E. Demaray, Acting 

Director to Ronalds, July 25, 1940, File 208-01.3 Fees, Central Classified Files 1933-49, National Historic 

Sites-Hopewell, NACP. 174 Elms, Annual Report, 1972, HFC; Disrude, “Statement of Management,” 1976; Disrude, “Threats 

to the Park,” 1987, Boundary Issue and Threats to the Park, etc. 1988, Hopewell Furnace National Historic 

Site, NERO-P. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

303

groups.175 The 1964 Master Plan categorized them as families, school groups, and 

miscellaneous.176

While the economy had some impact, and living history clearly attracted high interest, 

the primary factor consistently determining attendance numbers was the weather. This was 

logical due to the park’s natural setting and nearby recreational facilities in French Creek State 

Park. Numbers dipped when it was cold, rainy, or especially humid, and numbers skyrocketed 

in late spring and summer, rising again with the fall foliage. Its location in a rural area with no 

public transportation leading to the park would seem to limit visitation to Hopewell Furnace 

NHS. (The Park made several unsuccessful attempts in the 1970s and 1980s to encourage Berks 

County to extend its bus line).177

Special Population Programs 

Influenced by the diverse array of visitors, the 1981 Statement of Interpretation 

encouraged tours tailored to individual or group needs based on prior arrangements made with 

an NPS staff member. Specifically, school groups, the physically disabled, and minority groups 

all required programming that addressed their specific needs and interests.178

 

Special Needs 

For other special needs audiences, the park ensured parking, drinking fountains and 

building access met handicapped accessible regulations. Special printed material was available 

for the blind, who could also take advantage of an audio tour.179

 

175 Ronsheim, “Conditions Influencing Museums Development: the Park Story,” HOFU; Disrude, 

“Statement for Management,” 1976. 

176 Benjamin Zerbey, “Master Plan of Hopewell Village National Historic Site,” “Chapter 1, Basic 

Information: The Land, The Visitor” (1964), 3. 177 Kennedy, “Statement for Interpretation,” 1981, 4. 

178 Disrude, “Statement of Interpretation,” 1981, 9. 

179 Elizabeth Disrude, “Annual Statement for Interpretation and Visitor Services: Hopewell Village 

National Historic Site,” March 11, 1981. Copy at HOFU. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

304

Children/School Group Programs 

From the beginning, schools served as an important contingent of visitors who received 

special attention. Some visited independent of any NPS outreach. As early as 1940, visitor and 

teacher Clara E. Zerr asked permission to bring her students from a one room country school, 

Kahler’s School of Robeson Township. After a two hour tour, Miss Zerr was delighted. “My 

pupils have learned more today by visual education,” she exclaimed, “than I could have taught 

them in several days using text books.” 180

That same year, the park submitted an interpretive program for schools as a way to 

recruit year-round visitors and convince administrators and teachers that the Hopewell site had 

important educational value. Interpretive activities hoped to encourage public school audiences 

from elementary to high school level, emphasizing technological processes, and examination of 

community appropriate to the grade level. The program was designed for students, assuming 

they stayed in the school system, to return to the park every three years and receive instruction 

appropriate to their age and grade level. Upon each additional visit, the students would refresh 

their memory about the basics of the park, and then gain insight on another aspect of the park. 

The children enjoyed an hour-long tour during their visits to Hopewell. The following 

described the emphasis for each grouping of schoolchildren (Grade groupings based on a 1938 

publication by the Superintendent of Public Instruction): 

Grades 

 1-3 Man’s effort to make a living as represented by and at Hopewell 

 4-6 Social-industrial conditions and processes in a pioneer community in contrast to modern 

 7-9 Cooperative integrated community, merging plantation South with Industrial north 

 10-12 Relationship to national scene of historic and economic trends, Hopewell as democratic 

process.181

This design for public school group interpretation persisted throughout the rest of the 

park’s turbulent history. Superintendent James Cass reported that school group visitation had 

risen steadily in the late 1940s and early 1950s. About a decade later, Mrs. Fritz Klopfenstein 

wrote and published a Junior History guide, entitled “The Story of Hopewell,” in 1962. ENPMA 

funded the successful project, which tried to illustrate the realities of life in the ironmaking 

village and convey the point to young visitors that Hopewell was not always the “quaint” place 

 

180 “Proposal for Public School Interpretation of Hopewell Village National Historic Site, 

November 28, 1940, File 101-06.7 Exhibits, Historical Central Files, Bally Building, HOFU. 181 Ibid. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

305

that they see today. Unfortunately, the park staff was often too small to accommodate large 

school groups, frequently of 75-80 children. Even though Chief Ranger Denny Beach 

encouraged teachers to pre-arrange their tours, many buses frequently arrived unannounced.182

Management and planners did not mention school programs again until the 1973 

Interpretive Prospectus, which called for a separate facility to allow attention to these groups 

without interfering with regular visitors, and mentioned a slideshow or panels for instruction 

with any hand-on decoration as examples.183 By the early 1990s, the park still lacked “a strong 

outreach program” for the local schools.184 Chief Ranger Jim Corless, who arrived in January of 

1991, led the development of a curriculum-based program he collected from over fifteen area 

school districts. The program “Molders, Miners, and Maids” prepared students to study the 

roles of Hopewell workers and residents before they toured the park.185

Cultural Diversity 

Prior to 1981, public and internal documents disclose no real analysis of minority or 

cultural information beyond some handouts on the role of minority workers at Hopewell. Even 

after Joseph Walker’s work elaborated on the role of minority workers, including both slaves 

and free blacks, interpretation turned more toward the emphasis of technology and the 

environment. While the average visitor was a member of a nuclear (usually Caucasian) family, 

peer group, or organized tour, a visitor analysis in 1981 recorded two percent black, one percent 

non-English speaking, one percent handicapped. In addition to environmental programming, 

the Statement for Management that year called for special programs in order to broaden 

Hopewell’s appeal.186

The appointments of Superintendents from 1976 through the 1990s (Elizabeth Disrude, 

Derrick Cook, and Josie Fernandez) indicated an NPS decision to take Hopewell development, 

interpretation, and community outreach in a new direction. The living history program in the 

1970s incorporated women’s roles at the site, albeit usually more accurate to the period 

celebrated by the Bicentennial than to the site’s period of interpretation. A Pennsylvania State 

 

182 Cass to Regional Director, November 14, 1952, W File, HOFU; Beach, E-mail, July 24, 2003. 

183 Rickey, et al., “Interpretive Prospectus,” 1973, 9. 

184 Cook, “Statement for Management,” 1993, 20. 

185 Corless, Interview, July 9, 2003; Gergle, Interview, July 24, 2003. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

306

initiative to increase the recognition of women’s history reintroduced women into Hopewell’s 

interpretive program. 

The site manager of Frederick Douglass Home NHS in Washington, DC, before 

transferring to Hopewell, Derrick Cook was almost returning home. As a Philadelphia native, 

he had spent time in French Creek as a little boy. By choosing Cook for his interpretative focus 

on heritage and black history, the NPS hoped to respond to the demand for cultural diversity in 

historical interpretation and the public's growing interest in social and African American 

history. Aside from augmenting the story of African Americans at Hopewell documented by 

Joseph Walker, with special attention to the Mount Frisby Church, Cook hoped to stress 

genealogy, family, and community ties by incorporating living memory into interpretation 

programs and plans to weave in issues of the environmental as well.187 Starting in 1988, the 

administration of Derrick Cook instituted an annual recognition of Black History Month with a 

film series (beginning with the documentary Eyes on the Prize) and lectures (i.e. the 

Underground Railroad), a new site bulletin about black employees at the furnace, and the 

exhibit “Black Iron.” Cook also recruited several African American students to interpret at the 

site and establish a presence in the village and the living history program. At the same time, the 

site showed similar films and lectures about women in celebration of National Women’s History 

month in March.188

On the tails of multiculturalism promotion in the classroom, the 1993 Interpretive Plan 

raised the issue for the first time by discussing outreach to Spanish-speaking and African 

American audiences as potential visitors. The plan cited the diversity of the Hopewell 

community as a sub-theme (along with women), specifically mentioning the contributions of 

African Americans and women to work at the furnace. In addition to multidisciplinary 

educational programs, the Interpretive Plan suggested replacing the molder/casting exhibit in 

the Visitor Center with one on African Americans or women.189 Under Josie Fernandez, Frank 

 186 Walker, Hopewell Village, 304-317; Kennedy, “Statement for Interpretation,” 1981; Disrude, 

“Statement of Interpretation,” 1981, 9. 

187 “New Superintendent at Hopewell Village Focuses on Heritage, Black History of Area,” 

Newspaper Clippings, Hopewell Village, Reading Public Library. 188 Cook, 1989 Annual Report, March 8, 1990, 1991 Annual Report, March 6, 1992, Annual Reports, 

Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, HFC. 

189 Cook, et al., “Long-Range Interpretive Plan,” 1993, 17. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

307

Hebblethwaite commemorated Black History Month with a public interview of an older African 

American iron furnace worker.190

Congress declared National Hispanic Heritage Month in 1988 (a 1968 law had established 

a National Hispanic Heritage Week in 1968). From September 15 to October 15, 1997, Hopewell 

opened “Peruvians and Hidalgos–Potters and Privateers,” a temporary exhibit about Spanish 

and pre-Columbian metal smelting and metal-working based on research by Seasonal Ranger 

Stephen Shore. The exhibit also contributed to the park’s efforts, aided by the appointment of 

Josie Fernandez in 1996, to reach out to the rising Hispanic population in the nearby city of 

Reading. Fernandez and ranger Frank Hebblethwaite, who spoke Spanish as well, spoke at 

schools about the national parks in general and specifically about Hopewell Furnace, translated 

brochures and gave tours in Spanish to school groups with predominantly Hispanic children. 

Fernandez even became a regular on a local cable access program called “Minority Voices” 

where she frequently spoke about Hopewell or the contributions of minority groups in general 

to the industrial history of the United States. That summer, a volunteer from Grenada, Spain, 

encouraged visitation by translating the exhibit and advertising the display in Spanish 

newspapers.191 “If you do enough research, you can find a connection to every kind of people or 

event especially at a park about everyday people like Hopewell,” marveled Fernandez.192

From the beginning, Hopewell’s advocates and planners were convinced that if they 

restored the remains of the furnace and filled the village and workspace with characters, the 

park would “speak for itself” and further interpretive programs would be unnecessary 

mediators between the structures and the visitors. Roy Appleman had predicted that “an 

elaborate museum such as is necessary to bring a battlefield to life will not be needed here, for 

the restored Village will represent the Hopewell story more graphically than any series of exhibit 

cases could...the historic Village will become an authentic and inspiring museum in itself.”193

After the intense structural restoration from the 1950s into the 1970s, personnel at Hopewell 

Furnace fought against the assumption that the park was “finished” and received scant funding 

and attention throughout the 1980s from local and national supporters. Aside from the name 

 

190 Hebblethwaite, Interview, July 24, 2003. 

191 Jeffrey Collins, “Hispanic Privateers and Ancestral Metallurgists in Hopewell Exhibit,” in 

“Exploring Hispanic Heritage and Culture: A Dynamic Field,” CRM: Cultural Resource Management 20, 

no. 11 (1997): 56; Frank Hebblethwaite to Ron Greenberg, E-mail Correspondence, August 13, 1997. 192 Fernandez, Interview, August 28, 2003. 193 “Master Plan Development Outline,” “Introduction,” 3. 
Interpretive Programs and Visitor Services 

308

change, interpretive programs during the post-Bicentennial period “drifted farther and farther 

away from the scheme outlined by [the] early planning documents.”194 But in order to fulfill that 

original “vision” of Hopewell, the 1993 Statement for Management stressed, “Hopewell needs to 

not be a finished park, but a dynamic interpretive resource that speaks freshly and meaningfully 

to every new and returning visitor, today, tomorrow, and in perpetuity.”195

 

 

194 Cook, et al., “Long-Range Interpretive Plan,” 1993, 6. 

195 Cook, “Statement for Management,” 1993, 6-7. 
309

XI. Conclusion 

In this park it is difficult to get funding and difficult for visitors and others to see the 

relevance. This didn’t happen July 3, 1863; George Washington didn’t sleep here. It’s an 

everyday place, and that everyday aspect of it—although its a selling point to visitors and a 

selling point to the reason that this became a park—it’s a common place that’s no longer 

common. That aspect has not helped us get attention because with the whole Park Service 

having funding troubles, when it come to fixing something...[Administrators have to ask] 

“Do I fix the monuments at Gettysburg, or that leaking roof at Hopewell?” We don’t stack 

up well, we never will and so the commonness of it has been our problem. 

Jeffrey Collins, Chief Ranger1

Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, July 2003 

Hopewell Village was a pet project for many of the earliest historians in the National 

Park Service, and few questioned its qualifications and national historical significance. 

Historian Charles Hosmer emphasized that while other parks had a tumultuous beginning, 

“Hopewell Village was a rare instance where the staff of the Park Service discovered, saved, and 

planned the development of a National Historic Site.”2

 However, a site that seemed so obvious 

for preservation and so perfect for an historic park would produce several problems around the 

issues of significance, setting, preservation and interpretive techniques, and limited 

administrative resources that influenced its development in later years. Recognizing these issues 

will help guide management decisions for the Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site in the 

future. 

Significance 

As Chief Ranger Collins articulates above, the issue of significance arose almost 

immediately as a barrier toward realizing goals for the park’s development and restoration. 

Because no extraordinary event occurred at the site, articulating the park’s importance has 

vexed planners for decades. Along with the problems of interpreting an everyday place came 

the issue of emphasis. Is the National Park Service preserving a colonial village or the 

ironmaking process of the time? The NPS established Hopewell Village as a colonial site. 

According to a recent study, nostalgia has made and continues to make colonial sites among the 

most popular of all the historic parks because of their “human scaled communities, artisanal 

 

1

 Collins, Interview, July 24, 2003. 

2

 Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age, 714. 
Conclusion 

310

work, and an organic connection between both people and nature, features that are viewed as a 

mission in modern life.” Industrial sites, on the other hand, are and have been the least popular 

of the historic parks according to a 1995 survey in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, by independent 

scholars.3

 Hopewell resembles the many other colonial villages developed for tourism at about 

the same time, but such villages focused upon the socioeconomic aspects of people and 

communities, rather than technology. Hopewell’s advocates at first clung to the furnace’s 

colonial roots, but at the same time planners knew Hopewell was even more significant for its 

longevity as a community and an economic venture, as well as an example of ironmaking and 

changing technology over several decades of the industrial era. Research revealed that a focus 

on the colonial era would provide neither the most accurate restoration nor the most dynamic 

interpretation. Restoration and development policies changed every few years and grew 

increasingly complex as planners tried to reconcile how to recreate a specific time and place and 

yet, at the same time, illustrate issues of long term technological progress and change. Planners 

continually had to ask themselves, “What was more important, the village or the furnace?” 

Following principles of historic preservation, planners ultimately let the resources 

dictate the final result. Hopewell Village was restored as a nineteenth-century village with 

colonial significance. National preservation policies and attitudes, the success and growth of 

the living history program, and Bicentennial celebrations of 1976 helped to complicate further 

the question of significance for the site. It forced administrators to revisit the hard decisions 

that their predecessors had made and emphasize, if not over-emphasize, the colonial era. 

Administrators, consistently unclear about the park’s significance or development policy, 

constantly debated restoration policy, which stalled the completion of Master Plans. The lack of 

a firm planning document until 1964 allowed for continuous development changes and no 

cohesive interpretive program even though it seems that Hopewell has been striving for the 

same vision of a revitalized village for over sixty years. With no approved planning document 

developed since that time, the trend has continued. The vision of Roy Appleman’s “revitalized 

Village” remained constant, but the park and its leadership lacked the focus and persistent 

policies for getting there. Such elasticity of purpose opens the door for questions. 

 

3

 Catherine M. Camerojn and John B. Gatewood, “Excursions in to the Un-remembered Past: 

What People Want from Visits to Historical Sites,” in “New Perspectives on Industrial History 

Museums,” ed. Shelley Bookspan, special issue, The Public Historian 22, no. 3 (Summer 2000): 122-127. 
Conclusion 

311

Lessons in Preservation and Interpretation 

While “Hopewell the site” strives to convey change over time, “Hopewell the park” 

offers a useful case study for historic site development due to its early designation and its 

reflection of academic trends and NPS preservation policies. For example, the NPS supported 

reconstruction and living history as appropriate preservation and interpretive tools. As the park 

developed, both of these tools came into question. NPS Historians Richard Sellars and Dwight 

Pitcaithley observed that, “While the ‘Williamsburg syndrome’ of the late 1920s and 1930s 

constituted the popular approach to historic preservation for several decades following 1927, the 

preservation community at large, both in the United States and in Europe, has grown to 

recognize the inadvisability of recreating our structural past.”4

 Hopewell Furnace National 

Historic Site, however, challenges many of their criticisms. Sellars and Pitcaithley have 

maintained that reconstructions lack historical integrity because they are built with modern 

techniques. At Hopewell, the park hired a crew of Amish laborers to use tradition and historical 

techniques in the reconstruction of the Cast House and Village Barn. Barry Mackintosh even 

qualified some of his objections to reconstruction at Appomattox by observing that at Hopewell 

Furnace, the reconstructions “fill key gaps in a historic complex...Most of the village’s other 

structures are original, so visitors can still feel they are among authentic historic surroundings.” 

Considering the complex as a whole, what has been done at Hopewell is not reconstruction but 

restoration (defined in part as the replacement of missing elements).5

 Some would even argue 

that Hopewell has been restored to an extent, but it still maintains the “impression” of ruin 

through slag piles, exposed foundations, and peeling paint. 

Lastly, in spite of the success of Hopewell’s living history programs, there also exists the 

danger that such popular visitor events nurture the inaccurate idea that all historic villages were 

agrarian in economy and nature. Site specific demonstrations like the charcoal-making and cast 

molding programs are certainly exceptions and should be continued, advertised, and exploited 

for attracting visitors. Unlike Hopewell Furnace NHS, Living History Farms in Iowa is able to 

illustrate historical and technological change over time, but it does so by dividing 

demonstrations across four areas of non-historical space. At Hopewell, the treatment of the site 

as a “vitalized village” distracted visitors from what many believed to be a true understanding of 

the industrial reality and technological lessons of Hopewell Furnace. In our industrial society, 

 

4

 Sellars and Pitcaithley, “Reconstructions,” CRM Bulletin 2, no. 4 (1979). 
Conclusion 

312

the rural landscape reinforces “humble” beginnings. Associated with words like “quaint,” 

“humble,” “simple,” “picturesque,” “pastoral,” it is void of unsanitary conditions and complex 

relationships.6

 Yet, the park cannot go too far with industrial interpretation without losing sight 

of the “rural” setting and much of the park’s appeal. “For Hopewell, landscape is both a blessing 

and a curse,” observed former Chief Ranger Jim Corless. Replicating the industrial-rural 

landscape of the Hopewell Furnace and its community with historical authenticity and accuracy 

is unfortunately not a realistic goal. As plentiful as they are, the resources alone cannot tell the 

full history of Hopewell Furnace and historic sites like it. 

Conflict of Setting and the “Historic Scene” 

Unlike many other outdoor museums in Williamsburg, Virginia, and Winston-Salem, 

North Carolina, Hopewell did not run into many of the problems associated with preserving a 

site within the confines of a functional municipality. Viewed as historic districts, many historic 

enclaves are subject to laws and restrictions of that city. In contrast, Hopewell remains rural and 

isolated, thanks to programs inspired by the conservation movement. However, its location 

within the borders of a state park created some particularly vexing issues. Recreational and 

conservationist goals conflicted with those of historic preservation, and ultimately broke apart 

federal lands, setting up an adversarial relationship between the historic site and the eventual 

French Creek State Park. The recreational activity promised by the French Creek Recreational 

Demonstration Area threatened preservation and restoration efforts, in addition to spurring 

administrative and boundary changes. Should Hopewell Furnace NHS reflect the history of 

remains at this place in Pennsylvania, or should the park commemorate the entire and rich 

history of the rural site including federal conservation efforts? Competition over resources like 

water, and common problems regarding wildlife and land conservation have forced reactive, 

rather than proactive, cooperation between the two adjacent parks. 

The inherent contradiction of industry in a rural setting is, however, fundamental to 

American heritage. America’s attraction to natural and pastoral settings has always existed 

alongside her admiration for science and technology. Many times they have coexisted, as seen 

 5

 Mackintosh, “The Case Against Reconstruction,” CRM Bulletin 13, no. 1 (1990). 6

 See Barthel, “Back to Utopia,” in Historic Preservation: Collective Memory and Historical Identity, 

35-53. 
Conclusion 

313

for example, in the irrigation fields in the deserts of Arizona, the mining towns in the mountains 

of Colorado, and the iron furnaces in the woodlands of Pennsylvania. These images all reflect 

what scholar Leo Marx refers to as the “middle landscape” ideal—the pleasures of rural life and 

the convenience and expediency of factory life.7

 From the battlefields of Gettysburg to the 

Whitman National Monument to Cades Cove in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, 

there has been an intrinsic conflict between the truly accurate reproduction of a historic site and 

the conservation of an aesthetically pleasing natural setting. Human beings affect their 

environments, and those in industrial settings manipulated theirs in ways that today’s visitors to 

the Hopewell Furnace, French Creek State Park, and Crow’s Nest Land Preserve find unsettling. 

Yet, the presence of French Creek State Park has also contributed to the success of 

Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site. Visitation at Hopewell is highly dependent on a 

natural, bucolic setting. With the exception of school groups, it is the special events, good 

weather and the proximity of recreational facilities that attract people to the site more than any 

other factors. As industrial and residential development threatens to disrupt the “historic 

scene,” French Creek State Park also acts as the park’s most important buffer zone of protection 

for the fragile historical resources. 

Limited Administrative Resources 

Perhaps due to many of the issues already discussed, more bureaucratic issues have also 

slowed the progress of the park’s development since its inception. The NPS considered it a 

small park, but it was a small park with a number of cultural and natural resources. This was one 

of the site’s many attractive features, yet funding and staffing did not match Roy Appleman’s and 

Thor Borresen’s ambitious plans. Appleman’s visions theoretically could be met with a ready 

work force of CCC veterans, but inexperience and World War II created chronic financial and 

personnel problems. Maintenance and administrative demands grew as the number of 

employees either stayed the same or shrunk. Development, research, and interpretation 

obligations overwhelmed the park’s historians. Rangers have been burdened with more 

assigned duties than they can juggle. Hopewell’s employees have usually found, and continue to 

find, that they are just able to ask the question, “How can we keep going next year?”8

 

7

 See Marx, Machine in the Garden, 147, 135; Corless, Interview, July, 8. 2003. 8

 Collins, Interview, July 24, 2003. 
Conclusion 

314

Hopewell also has historically suffered from changing leadership due to its high 

turnover. The park’s first caretakers accomplished a great deal of development and planning in a 

short amount of time and on a fairly independent basis. While Morristown National Historical 

Park was headed by Francis Ronalds for 27 years, fifteen superintendents have taken the helm at 

Hopewell. Many only stayed for two to five year stints at the beginning of their careers, and they 

affectionately viewed Hopewell as a training ground from which they moved on to other, larger 

parks. Some blamed their predecessors for the park’s lack of development progress, and many 

oversaw tremendous development, but no one seemed to stay long enough or provide the vision 

and fortitude to institute long-term plans and consistent development. Regional and national, 

rather than park, personnel assumed major development decisions. Until Earl Heydinger, 

Hopewell’s historians and permanent rangers followed the same flight pattern, and specialists 

outside of the park directed restorations. Hopewell has survived largely through its long-time 

permanent and seasonal staff and volunteers, who were, more times than not, extremely 

dedicated to the goals and mission of the park. Rangers evolved from seasonal interpreters to 

fulltime resource protection interpretation and management specialists. Superintendent Josie 

Fernandez even asserted that, “The staff at Hopewell Furnace, in spite of the leadership, runs 

the park.”9

 Unfortunately, each often held different ideas about its direction. 

Priorities and issues have constantly changed since the day when Roy Appleman first 

stepped into the French Creek RDA to view the remains of the Hopewell Furnace and allowed 

his imagination to envision a revitalized village as a museum unto itself. The National Park 

Service now has stricter rules and regulations governing rehabilitation, restoration, and 

preservation issues, but Hopewell’s park administrators have always responded to recent trends 

in preservation and scholarship. The relatively recent recognition of preserving cultural 

landscapes and using them as an analytical framework for interpretation may go far in 

reconciling the “machine in the garden” paradox. Emphasis on technology in exhibits and 

interpretation programs can help move away from nostalgia and connect the site to today’s 

economy. Interpretive programming has kept the park dynamic and vital, and today’s caretakers 

should take inspiration from the enthusiasm and imaginations of their predecessors in searching 

 

9

 Fernandez, Interview, August 28, 2003. 
Conclusion 

315

for creative, innovative solutions for maximizing what Hopewell can teach to present and future 

audiences. Indeed, Hopewell Furnace NHS is not a finished park. It still has a lot to say. 
316

Annotated Bibliography 

Archival Collections 

Archives of American Art (AAA), Washington, DC. 

Charles Bridgham Hosmer, Interviews Concerning Historic Preservation, 1969-1976. 

 – Roy Appleman 

 – Melvin Weig 

Charles Hosmer conducted these and many other interviews while performing the 

research for his book, Preservation Comes of Age. Both men briefly discuss Hopewell. 

Denver Service Center and Technical Information Center (DSC/TIC), National Park Service, 

Lakewood, CO. 

An online database lists several technical and architectural drawings, surveys, and maps 

about Hopewell. Detailed maps offer visual insight into Hopewell’s plans and layout. 

Federal Records Center (FRC), Mid-Atlantic Region, Philadelphia, PA. 

The FRC keeps only about a 6-7 inch stack of files on Hopewell from recent years. 

French Creek State Park (FCSP), Birdsboro, PA. 

Civilian Conservation Corps Papers, Company 3301, Company 3304, microfilm. 

 – The Keystone Veteran 

 – The Hopewell Howl 

This microfilm has almost complete runs of the CCC camp newsletters. They have 

occasional stories about their work at Hopewell and French Creek. 

Harpers Ferry Center (HFC), National Park Service, Harpers Ferry, WV. 

Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site. 

In addition to several reports found at HOFU and NERO-P, the HFC library keeps one 

box of various Hopewell documents. They are primarily interpretive materials, but also 

Annual Reports 1970-2000. With regards to the History Collection, CCC records (RG 

4) yielded no information on the French Creek camps specifically. Ronald Lee (RG 1) 

and the Pitcaithley Reconstruction Files (RG 63) likewise hold no information specific 

to Hopewell, except for a general interview transcript of Ronald Lee by Charles 

Hosmer where Lee briefly mentions Hopewell. Curator Harold Peterson’s papers (RG 

2) have one file of Hopewell correspondence. 

Hopewell Furnace National Historic Park (HOFU), Elverson, PA. 

– Central Files, Administrative Building/Visitor Center 

– Historical Central Files, Bally Building 

– Library: Historical Study Reports, Historic Structure Reports, Cultural Resource 

 Studies, Archeological Reports 

– Vertical Subject Files 

– Central Files and other saved documents from the founding of the park 

– Copies of structural and archeological reports, prospectuses, plans 

National Archives and Records Administration (NACP), College Park, MD. Records of the 

National Park Service Record Group 79 (RG 79). 

– Hopewell Village National Historic Site. 

– French Creek Recreational Demonstration Area. 

Holds Central Classified Files primarily from the 1930s and 1940s. Memos exchanged 

with the national offices of the National Park Service. 
 

317

National Archives and Records Administration, Mid-Atlantic Region (NARA-P), Philadelphia, 

PA. Records of the National Park Service Record Group 79 (RG 79). 

 – Hopewell Village National Historic Site. 

 – French Creek Recreational Demonstration Area. 

Holds Central Classified Files, Eastern Office of Design and Construction, Monthly 

Reports from the 1930s through the 1960s. Memos exchanged with Regions 1 and 5 

offices of the National Park Service. 

National Trust Library (NTL), University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland. 

Papers of Charles Hosmer, “Hopewell Furnace NHS,” Series 5, Box 7. 

Folder contains the materials Hosmer collected on Hopewell, primarily from the 

National Park Service. Also has a copy of an oral history of Roy Appleman with Herb 

Evison. 

Pennsylvania State Archives (PSA), Harrisburg, PA. 

Records of the Department of Forests and Waters, Record Group 6, General 

Correspondence, Series 6.12, Box 4. 

Two files of materials on the development of French Creek RDA. 

Northeast Regional Office, National Park Service (NERO-P), Philadelphia, PA. 

Contains large files of General Correspondence from Central Files. 

Copies of structural and archeological reports, prospectuses, plans. 

Washington Area Support Office (WASO), Washington, DC. 

WASO keeps “Historical Files” holding correspondence from primarily 1930s, 1960 to 

present as well as Minutes of the Advisory Board from 1936. 

Principal Secondary Sources 

“Civilian Conservation Corps (in PA), 50th Anniversary 1933-1983.” Photocopy at HFC. 

This work is a general history. Good for context and comparison. 

“Operations Evaluation of Hopewell Village National Historic Site.” Philadelphia: National 

Park Service, Northeast Regional Office, April 1970. 

Analysis of park management. 

Anderson, Jay. Time Machines: The World of Living History. Nashville, TN: American 

Association of State and Local History, 1984. 

This work has excellent discussions of the living history movement and is good for 

context. 

Apple, Russell A. “Mission 66 Prospectus for Hopewell Village National Historic Site.” 

Elverson, PA: Hopewell Village National Historic Site, National Park Service, July 27, 

1955. Photocopy at HOFU. 

This is one of several drafts of the Mission 66 reviews and plans for the park. 

Appleman, Roy. “Historical Report: French Creek Area.” Bronxville, NY: Second Regional 

Office, National Park Service, August 19, 1935. Photocopy at HOFU. 

Introduces Appleman’s first impressions of the park in 1935. 

———. A History of the National Park Service Mission 66 Program. Washington, DC: 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1958. 
 

318

———. “Proposed Restoration Plan for Old Iron Making Village, French Creek Project, 

Hopewell, Pennsylvania.” Bronxville, NY: National Park Service, Second Regional 

Office, January 15, 1936. 

Detailed vision of the park. 

Barthel, Diane. “Back to Utopia,” in Historic Preservation: Collective Memory and Historical 

Identity. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1996, 35-53. 

Barthel discusses and analyzes outdoor museums similar to Hopewell and parks like it. 

Bookspan, Shelley, ed. “New Perspectives on Industrial History Museums.” Special issue, The 

Public Historian 22, no. 3 (Summer 2000). 

Strong essays that analyze interpretation in museums like Hopewell. 

Cook, Derrick M. “Statement for Management: Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site.” 

Elverson, PA: Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, National Park Service, October 

1993. Photocopy at HOFU. 

Cook, Derrick M. et al. “Long-Range Interpretive Plan: Hopewell Furnace National Historic 

Site.” Elverson, PA: Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, National Park Service, 

1993. Photocopy at HOFU. 

Denver Service Center. “A Master Plan: Hopewell Village National Historic Site.” Draft. 

Washington, DC: National Park Service, Department of the Interior, November 16, 

1972. Photocopy at NERO-P. 

Disrude, Elizabeth. “Statement for Management: Hopewell Village National Historic Site.” 

Elverson, PA: Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, National Park Service, January 

13, 1981. Photocopy at HOFU. 

Foppes, Ellen and Robert M. Utley. “Present at the Creation: Robert M. Utley Recalls the 

Beginnings of the National Historic Preservation Program.” The Public Historian 24, no. 

2 (Summer 2002): 61-81. 

Foppes interviews Utley as he discusses many of the people associated with HOFU and 

the NPS preservation policies relevant to the park. 

Francaviglia, Richard V. Hard Places: Reading the Landscape of America’s Historic Mining 

Districts. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1991. 

Francaviglia evaluates sites like Hopewell. 

Garrison, Lemuel. The Making of a Ranger: Forty Years with the National Parks. Chicago: 

Howe Brothers; Sun City: The Institute of the American West, 1983. 

Autobiography of Garrison’s career with the NPS. He has dedicated a whole chapter 

on the time he spent at Hopewell. 

Guenther, Karen. “Religion in an Iron-making Community: Bethesda Baptist Church and 

Hopewell Village.” Paper, University of Connecticut, 1984. Photocopy at HOFU. 

Hosmer, Charles. Preservation Comes of Age: From Williamsburg to the National Trust, 1926-

1949. Vol. 1. Charlottesville: University of Virginia, 1981. 

Comprehensive history of the movement. Several pieces on Hopewell. Also good for 

context. 

Hugins, Walter. “Exhibit Plan for Temporary Museum.” Elverson, PA: Hopewell Village 

National Historic Site, National Park Service, August 31, 1953. Photocopy at HOFU. 
 

319

———. “The Story of a 19th Century Ironmaking Community,” in Hopewell Furnace: A Guide to 

Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, Pennsylvania. Historic Handbook Series No. 

124. Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1983. 

Jones, Lawrence H. “The Restoration of the Furnace Group at Hopewell Village National 

Historic Site,” Honors Thesis, Princeton University, 1981. 

Jones provides a comprehensive and detailed summary of the furnace restoration. He 

cites sources at Hopewell the author has been unable to locate there. 

Kise, Franks, and Straw, with Menke and Menke. “Cultural Landscape Report: Hopewell 

Furnace National Historic Site.” Boston: National Park Service, Northeast Region, 

December 1997. 

The report contains good summaries of the park’s history. 

Kurtz, James. “The History of Archeology and Artifact Curation at Hopewell Furnace National 

Historic Site,” Draft Report, November 30, 1989. Photocopy at HOFU. 

Kurtz provides great factual timeline narrative and good background on major 

Hopewell players. 

Leuchtenburg, William E. Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, 1932-1940. New York: 

Harper and Row, 1963. 

Good for context.

Lewis, Ralph H. Museum Curatorship in the National Park Service, 1904-1982. Washington, DC: 

Curatorial Services Division, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, 1993. 

Lewis dedicates pages 289-90 specifically to Hopewell. 

Mackintosh, Barry. “The Case Against Reconstruction.” CRM Bulletin 13, no.1 (1990). 

———. Interpretation in the National Park Service: A Historical Perspective. Washington, DC: 

History Division, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, 1986. 

———. “To Reconstruct or Not to Reconstruct: An Overview of NPS Policy and Practice.” 

CRM Bulletin 13, no. 1 (1990). 

Mackintosh reviews the history of NPS’s reconstruction policy and argues against the 

issue as an appropriate form of preservation. 

Marx, Leo. The Machine in the Garden: Technology and the Pastoral Ideal in America. New 

York: Oxford University Press, 1964. 

The phrase “the garden” often referred to the paradise achieved through cultivating 

one’s own land for use, as in the Garden of Eden. 

“Master Plan Development Outline: Hopewell Village Historic Site, 1952.” Elverson, PA: 

Hopewell Village National Historic Site, National Park Service, 1952. Photocopy at 

HOFU. 

“Master Plan for Preservation and Use of Hopewell Village National Historic Site.” Vol. III, 

General Park Information, Section A, Park Origin and Land Status. Elverson, PA: 

Hopewell Village National Historic Site, National Park Service, January 1962. 

Photocopy at HOFU. 
 

320

Mattes, Merrill J. Landmarks of Liberty: A Report on the American Revolution Bicentennial 

Development Program of the National Park Service. Washington, DC: National Park 

Service, Department of the Interior, 1989. 

Mattes offers a brief summary of programs by each park including Hopewell. Also 

explains the program. 

Matzko, John. Reconstructing Fort Union. Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press, 2001. 

Matzko compiles good discussions about reconstruction issues in the NPS. 

Murtagh, William J. Keeping Time: The History and Theory of Preservation in America. New 

York: Sterling Publishing Company, 1993. 

Good context for preservation movement. 

Paige, John C. The Civilian Conservation Corps and the National Park Service, 1933-1942: An 

Administrative History. Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, National Park 

Service, 1985. 

Paige provides a great amount of context. 

Prentice, Joseph. Master Plan of the Preservation and Use of Hopewell Furnace National 

Historic Site. Elverson, PA: Hopewell Village National Historic Site, National Park 

Service, January 1962. Photocopy at HOFU. 

Richman, Irwin. “Exhibit Review of Hopewell Village National Historic Site.” Technology and 

Culture 9, no. 2 (1968). 

Rickey, Nan. Master Plan, “Management Objectives.” Lakewood, CO: Denver Service Center, 

National Park Service, 1972. 

———, Frank Barnes, Franklin Collins, Earl Heydinger, William Jedlick, Lawrence Nash, Larry 

Points, John Riddle, and Norman Souder, Planning Team. “Interpretive Prospectus: 

Hopewell Village National Historic Site.” Lakewood, CO: Denver Service Center, 

National Park Service, 1973. 

Rothman, Hal K. America’s National Monuments: The Politics of Preservation. Lawrence, KS: 

University Press of Kansas, 1994. 

Provides historical context for beginnings of the National Park Service. 

Sellars, Richard and Dwight Pitcaithley. “Reconstructions—Expensive, Life-Size Toys?” CRM 

Bulletin 2, no. 4 (1979). 

Two senior NPS historians argue against reconstruction. 

Szczgiel, Bonj. “The Recreation Demonstration Area Program of the New Deal.” MA Thesis, 

School of Architecture, Pennsylvania State University, Spring 1992. 

A Master’s thesis extremely useful for background on this program. 

Treese, Lorett. Valley Forge: Making and Remaking a National Symbol. University Park, PA: 

Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995. 

Unrau, Harlan D. and G. Frank Williss. Administrative History: Expansion of the National Park 

Service in the 1930s. Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, National Park 

Service, 1983. 

Useful for context. 
 

321

Walker, Joseph E. Hopewell Village: The Dynamics of a Nineteenth Century Iron-Making 

Community. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1967. 

The most comprehensive social and economic history of the site. 

White, Richard. The Organic Machine: The Remaking of the Columbia River. New York: Hill 

and Wang, 1995. 

White provides discussions and contexts for the interaction of technology with natural 

resources. 

Wirth, Conrad L. Parks, Politics, and the People. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 

1980. 

Zerbey, Benjamin. “Master Plan of Hopewell Village National Historic Site.” Elverson, PA: 

Hopewell Village National Historic Site, National Park Service, 1964. Photocopy at 

HOFU. 

Oral Interviews (copies of all tapes and permissions deposited at HOFU)

Beach, Warren “Denny,” Supervisory Ranger, 1966-69. E-mail correspondence with Leah S. 

Glaser, July 24, 2003. 

Biever, Dale, Seasonal Ranger, 1969-75. Interview by Leah. S. Glaser. Tape recording. 

Boyertown, PA, July 23, 2003. 

Bitler, Bill, Seasonal Ranger, 1955-89. Interview by Leah. S. Glaser. Tape recording. Hopewell 

Furnace National Historic Site, PA, July 25, 2003. 

Brown, Nancy J., Costumed Seasonal Interpreter, 1971-74. Phone Interview by Leah S. Glaser. 

Tape recording. Philadelphia, PA and Hamden, CT, July 8, 2003. 

Collins, Jeffrey, Chief Ranger, 1994-present. Interview by Leah. S. Glaser. Tape recording. 

Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, PA, July 24, 2003. 

Cook, Derrick, Superintendent, 1988-95. Phone Interview by Leah S. Glaser. Tape recording. 

Philadelphia, PA, and Hamden, CT, August 27, 2003. 

Corless, James, Chief Ranger, 1991-94. Interview by Leah S. Glaser. Tape recording. Lowell, 

MA and Hamden, CT, July 8, 2003. 

Elms, Wallace “Wally,” Superintendent, 1973-75. Phone Interview by Leah S. Glaser. Tape 

recording. Henderson, NV and Hamden, CT, July 9, 2003. 

Fernandez, Josie, Superintendent, 1996-98. E-mail correspondence and Phone Interview by 

Leah S. Glaser. Tape recording. Seneca Falls, NY and Hamden, CT, August 28, 2003. 

Gergle, Barbara, Secretary, 1981-present. Interview by Leah. S. Glaser. Tape recording. 

Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, PA, July 24, 2003. 

Guenther, Karen, Costumed Seasonal Interpreter, 1980s. Phone Interview by Leah S. Glaser. 

Tape recording. Mansfield, PA and Hamden, CT, July 9, 2003. 

Hart, Harry, Seasonal Ranger, 1968-75. Interview by Leah. S. Glaser. Tape recording. 

Morgantown, PA, July 25, 2003. 

Hebblethwaite, Frank, Ranger, 1992-present. Interview by Leah. S. Glaser. Tape recording. 

Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, PA, July 24, 2003. 
 

322

Huyett, Lloyd, Jr., Maintenance, 1955-1996. Interview by Jeffrey Collins. Tape recording. 

Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, PA, April 1 and 23, 1996. 

———. Taped Interview by Frank Hebblethwaite. Tape recording. Hopewell Furnace 

National Historic Site, PA, April 17, 1996. 

Keiffer, John, Seasonal Ranger, 1959-66. Interview by Leah. S. Glaser. Tape recording. 

Pennsburg, PA, July 23, 2003. 

Kilareski, Mike, Seasonal Ranger, 1973-88. Interview by Leah. S. Glaser. Tape recording. 

Birdsboro, PA, July 25, 2003. 

LeVan, Jay, Draftsman, 1940-41. Interview by Leah. S. Glaser. Tape recording. Hopewell 

Furnace National Historic Site, PA, July 24, 2003. 

Malizzi, Wilhelmine, Administrative Assistant, 1958-88. Phone Interview by Leah S. Glaser. 

Birdsboro, PA and Hamden, CT, July 9, 2003.

Points, Larry, Chief Ranger, 1970-74. Phone Interview by Leah S. Glaser. Tape recording. 

Berlin, MD and Hamden, CT, July 9, 2003. 

Rowland, Bill, Ranger/Historian, 1951-52. Interview by Leah. S. Glaser. Tape recording. 

Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, PA, July 24, 2003. 

Seidel, Charlie, Maintenance, 1959-87. Interview by Leah. S. Glaser. Tape recording. 

Birdsboro, PA, July 25, 2003. 

Smith, Russell, Acting Superintendent, 1988. Phone Interview by Leah S. Glaser. Tape 

recording. Philadelphia, PA and Hamden, CT, July 8, 2003. 

Witman, Anna, Seasonal Interpreter, 1974-1985. Interview by Barbara Gergle. Reading, PA, July 

1, 2000. 

Zerbey, Benjamin, Superintendent, 1962-65. Phone Interview by Leah. S. Glaser. Tape 

recording. Mesilla, NM and Hamden, CT, July 15, 2003. 

Government Documents 

U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, 

Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations, Hearings, 1940-1995. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

These hearings include annual budget requests, and occasionally list visitation and staffing 

numbers. However, I found many of these statistics conflicted with one another from year to 

year, visitation numbers proved to be rounded up or merely estimations, and staffing numbers 

only approximate. I therefore used this information to check trends, but could not find 

enough clarity to include the information in the text or an appendix. 
323

Appendices 
324

Appendix A 

Guide to Selected Acronyms 

AAA Archives of American Art 

CCC Civilian Conservation Corps 

CIS Congressional Information Service 

CLR Cultural Landscape Report 

CRBIB Cultural Resources Management Bibliography 

CRM Cultural Resource Management 

DSC/TIC Denver Service Center/Technical Information Center 

ECW Emergency Conservation Work 

ENPMA Eastern National Park and Monument Association 

EODC Eastern Office of Design and Construction 

ESA Environmental Study Area 

FCSP French Creek State Park 

FRC Federal Records Center, Mid-Atlantic Region (Philadelphia, PA) 

GWBNM George Washington Birthplace National Monument 

HFC Harpers Ferry Center 

HOFU Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site 

HSR Historic Structures Report 

HVNHS Hopewell Village National Historic Site 

MARO Mid-Atlantic Regional Office 

NACP National Archives and Records Administration (College Park, MD) 

NARA-P National Archives and Records Administration, Mid-Atlantic Region 

(Philadelphia, PA) 

NEPA National Environmental Protection Act 

NERO-P Northeast Regional Office, National Park Service (Philadelphia, PA) 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NHS National Historic Site 

NPS National Park Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NTL National Trust Library, University of Maryland 

PCP Project Construction Program 

PSA Pennsylvania State Archives 

RDA Recreational Demonstration Area 

RMP Resource Management Plan 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

WASO Washington Area Support Office 

WODC Western Office of Design and Construction 

WPA Works Progress Administration 
325

Appendix B 

Permanent/Full-time Employees 

at Hopewell Village/Hopewell Furnace National Historic Park, 

1939 to Present 

Superintendents 

Lemuel A. Garrison, Supt. ......................................................................................... 11/28/1939-9/22/1941 

Ralston B. Lattimore, Supt. .........................................................................................9/23/1941-11/23/1942 

Emil C. Heinrich, Acting Supt .................................................................................... 4/01/1943-4/16/1947 

Emil C. Heinrich, Custodian....................................................................................... 6/11/1947-6/27/1947 

Catherine Fritz, Acting Custodian ............................................................................ 6/28/1947-8/23/1947 

Russell A. Gibbs, Custodian...................................................................................... 8/24/1947-12/10/1949 

James Cass, Supt.............................................................................................................12/11/1949-5/31/1955 

Joseph R. Prentice, Supt. ............................................................................................7/29/1955-12/02/1961 

Benjamin J. Zerbey, Supt. .............................................................................................1/21/1962-3/20/1965 

John C.W. Riddle, Supt................................................................................................. 6/13/1965-11/11/1972 

Larry Points, Acting Supt............................................................................................. 11/12/1972-1/06/1973 

Wallace B. Elms, Supt....................................................................................................1/07/1973-9/16/1975 

Elizabeth E. Disrude, Supt......................................................................................... 10/26/1975-2/27/1988 

Russell P. Smith, Acting Supt. .....................................................................................2/28/1988-7/16/1988 

Derrick Cook, Supt...................................................................................................... 7/17/1988-11/30/1995 

Josie Fernandez, Acting Supt/Supt ............................................................................ 12/1/1995-4/26/1998 

Jeffrey Collins, Acting Supt...........................................................................................4/27/1998-8/1/1998 

William Sanders, Supt .......................................................................................................8/2/1998-present 

Coordinating Superintendents for Hopewell 

(a position most active during time periods below) 

Elbert Cox, Supt.............................................................................................................8/16/1934-5/16/1939 

Herbert E. Kahler, Supt. ................................................................................................5/17/1939-1/31/1940 

Francis S. Ronalds, Supt. ............................................................................................ 12/01/1940-3/31/1967 

Cultural Resource Management and Research 

Archeologists 

John Christopher Fisher “Chris” Motz, Archeologist ............................................................ 1940-1942 

Historians 

Jackson Kemper, Researcher........................................................................................................1936-1939 

John Cowan, Historian ..................................................................................................................1938-1939 

Howard Gale, Research Assistant................................................................................................1940-1941 

Charles Montgomery, Historical Technician............................................................................1940-1941 

Dennis C. Kurjack, Park Historian .............................................................................................. 1947-1951 

Walter E. Hugins, Park Historian .................................................................................................1951-1955 

Russell Apple, Park Historian.......................................................................................................1955-1956 

Robert Ronsheim, Park Historian ........................................................................................ 1956-ca. 1964 

Earl Heydinger, Park Historian/Ranger .....................................................................................1958-1976 

Rangers 

Charlotte Fairbairn, Junior Historian ........................................................................................ 1962-1969 

Jane Henzi, Junior Historian, Interpretive Specialist ..............................................................1969-1970 
326

Georjean Bender, Interpretive Specialist.................................................................................... 1971-1972 

Larry Nash, Interpretive Specialist..............................................................................................1972-1973 

Peter Baril, Interpretive Specialist ...............................................................................................1974-1975 

Joseph Lee Boyle, Chief of Interpretation and Resource Management ...............................1981-1990 

Dona McDermott, Supervisory Historian ................................................................................ 1990-1992 

James Kurtz, Supervisory Historian .....................................................................................................1992 

Frank Hebblethwaite, Supervisory Historian/Ranger ............................................................ 1992-1999 

Museum Technicians 

Nancy Prine, Museum Aide......................................................................................................... 1968-1969 

James Kurtz, Museum Technician (Term position) ................................................................ 1984-1992 

Diane Cram, Museum Technician Aide .....................................................................................1984-1985 

Emily Feldman, Museum Technician .........................................................................................1985-1992 

Rebecca Ross, Museum Technician/ Ranger ...........................................................................1993-2002 

Rebecca Ross, Cultural Resource Manager ........................................................................2002-present 

Chief/Supervisory Rangers 

Warren “Denny” Beach, Supervisory Ranger (Natural Resource Specialist) .....................1966-1969 

Laurence “Larry” Points, Chief Ranger (Natural Resource Specialist) ......................... ca. 1970-1974 

Laurence “Larry” Masters, Chief of Interpretation & Resource Management ................. 1976-1980 

Michael John, Chief of Interpretation & Resource Management ......................................... 1980-1981 

Joseph Lee Boyle, Chief of Interpretation & Resource Management...................................1981-1990 

James “Jim” Corless, Chief Ranger/Chief of Interpretation & Resource Management ....1991-1994 

Jeffrey Collins, Chief Ranger ................................................................................................. 1994-present 

Other Rangers cited in text (This is not a comprehensive list) 

William “Bill” Rowland (seasonal) ...............................................................................................1951-1952 

William “Bill” Bitler (seasonal).....................................................................................................1955-1989 

John Keiffer (seasonal) ................................................................................................................. 1959-1966 

Robert Franz (seasonal).................................................................................................................1956-1973 

Charles “Charlie” Deichert (seasonal)................................................................................ca. 1957-1980s 

Harry Hart (seasonal) ....................................................................................................................1968-1975 

Clair Lau (seasonal) ..................................................................................................................ca. 1965-1973 

Dale Biever (seasonal)................................................................................................................... 1969-1975 

Mike Kilareski (seasonal) ..............................................................................................................1973-1988 

Hooper W. Morrow ...................................................................................................................... 1976-1980 

James Ebert ......................................................................................................................................1975-1976 

Guy LaChine.................................................................................................................................... 1981-1987 

John Apel, Natural Resource Specialist ..................................................................................... 1986-1988 

Roger Stone, Natural Resource Specialist................................................................................. 1989-1997 

Janet Kennedy .................................................................................................................................1982-1985 

Frank Hebblethwaite .............................................................................................................. 1999-present 

Christine M. Almerico .............................................................................................................1997-present 

Norman E. Feil II, Farmer...................................................................................................... 1994-present 

Steve Ambrose, Resources Protection ................................................................................. 2001-present 

Demonstrators 

Elmer Kohl, Collier...................................................................................................................ca. 1958-1972 
327

Theodore “Ted” Ziegler, Laborer, Collier ................................................................................. 1971-1993 

Kevin Ziemba, Farmer-Demonstrator.........................................................................................1975-1981 

Keith Newlin, Farmer-Demonstrator.........................................................................................1982-1987 

Ronald Boice, Farmer-Demonstrator ......................................................................................... 1988-1991 

Richard “Dick” Lahey, Farmer-Demonstrator, Collier, Ranger............................................1991-2001 

Maintenance (This is not a comprehensive list)

Leroy Sanders, Foreman .............................................................................................................. 1942-1948 

Frank Lucas, Foreman .................................................................................................................... 1951-1961 

Frank “Chick” Huber, Laborer ..............................................................................................ca. 1952-1956 

Lloyd Huyett, Laborer/Woodcrafter/ Chief of Maintenance (1990-92) ..............................1955-1992 

Charles Painter, Carpenter......................................................................................................1957-ca. 1974 

Charlie Seidel, Chief of Maintenance .........................................................................................1959-1987 

Frank Terbosic, Chief of Maintenance...................................................................................... 1987-1990 

Daniel Miller, Painter...............................................................................................................ca. 1963-1979 

John Kowalski, Painter ................................................................................................................. 1979-1980 

Elmer Musser, Laborer........................................................................................................... ca. 1967-1980 

Kenneth E. Reitz, Carpenter........................................................................................................ 1976-1979 

James Geiger, Larborer............................................................................................................ 1981-present 

Raymond French, Laborer......................................................................................................1988-present 

George A. Martin, Facility Manager......................................................................................1997-present 

Timothy Laragy, Laborer ....................................................................................................... 1999-present 

Sarah L. Gauger, Janitor/Charwoman ....................................................................................... 1947-1964 

Marie Care, Janitor/Charwoman ................................................................................................ 1964-1975

Administration 

Catherine Fritz, Clerk-Stenographer/Administrative Assistant................................. ca. 1941-ca. 1965 

Mary Ann Prentice, Secretary....................................................................................................... 1955-1961 

Wilhelmine Malizzi, Administrative Clerk/Administrative Assistant .............................ca. 1958-1988 

Veronica Fitzgerald, Clerk-Typist/Secretary.............................................................................1963-1978 

Nancy Smith, Clerk, Stenographer/ Secretary.......................................................................... 1978-1979 

Barbara Hutnick, Clerk-Stenographer........................................................................................ 1980-1981 

Barbara Gergle, Clerk-Typist/ Secretary ..............................................................................1982-present 

Jean Dick, Administrative Officer..........................................................................................1988-present 

EOE requirements often met with youth programs and seasonal recruitment of females and minorities. 
328

Appendix C 

Dates of Key Legislation 

Federal Emergency Relief Act (FERA), May 12, 1933. 

Order Designating the Hopewell Village National Historic Site, Hopewell, Pennsylvania, August 

3, 1938. 

Addition of French Creek Recreational Demonstration Project, June 6, 1942. 

Elimination of Certain Lands Authorized, July 24, 1946. 

Name Change Order, September 19, 1985. 
329

Appendix D 

Annual Visitation1

 1

 From the Public Use Statistics Office of the National Park Service, http://www2.nature.nps.gov/stats/. 

Hopewell Furnace NHS 

Year Total Recreation 

Visits

1940 2,364

1941 90,357

1942 24,992

1943 22,664

1944 69,360

1945 49,966

1946 91,712

1947 71,680

1948 82,384

1949 76,903

1950 61,242

1951 67,948

1952 86,830

1953 76,714

1954 63,600

1955 53,800

1956 93,200

1957 84,600

1958 82,000

1959 100,200

1960 98,700

1961 114,300

1962 114,200

1963 114,600

1964 125,400

1965 141,900

1966 133,600

1967 139,200

1968 142,900

1969 156,400

1970 186,300

1971 171,200 

1972 157,468 

1973 163,400 

1974 154,400 

1975 147,700 

1976 198,800 

1977 156,800 

1978 144,279 

1979 133,450 

1980 163,074 

1981 143,430 

1982 150,975 

1983 162,159 

1984 149,820 

1985 154,027 

1986 138,638 

1987 128,870 

1988 130,420 

1989 103,195 

1990 99,216 

1991 107,238 

1992 114,510 

1993 109,219 

1994 94,416 

1995 87,965 

1996 91,412 

1997 85,936 

1998 86,546 

1999 74,303 

2000 69,152 

2001 64,898 

2002 60,733 
330

Appendix E 

Appropriations for Hopewell Village/Furnace National Historic Park * 

YEAR BUDGET/REQUEST 

1940 9,845 

1941 NA 

1942 NA 

1943 12,700 

1944 8,129 

1945 9,379 

1946 9,599/10,319 

1947 /14,685 

1948 15,530/ 

1949 /17,030 

1950 /20,735 

1951 NA 

1952 NA 

1953 NA 

1954 25,258 

1955 NA 

1956 /11,550 

1957 /39,345 

1958 /38,094 

1959 /51,481 

1960 /65,676 

1961 /71,785 

1962 NA 

1963 60,698/113,425 

1964 57,900/63,566 

1965 60,500/60,200 

1966 63,000/ 62,200 

1967 67,200/69,000 

1968 /72,400 

1969 82,300 

1970 102,100/82,300 

1971 181,700/104,500 

1972 191,300/189,000 

1973 214,000/197,900 

1974 242,600/219,000 

1975 249,700/249,900 

1976 NA/ 292,500 

1977 298,000 

1978 327,200/298,000 

1979 351,200/348,000 

1980 353,700-360,200/338,000 

1981 366,400-376,500/353,700 

1982 392,500/379,900 
331

1983 426,500/400,700 

1984 460,000-448,400/428,900 

1985 457,200-459,000/452,400 

1986 465,700/473,800 

1987 477,200/465,200 

1988 480,000-494,800 

1989 517,800/480,000 

1990 546,000/543,400 

1991 626,000-629,000 

1992 641,000/644,000 

1993 637,000/659,000 

1994 /673,000 

NA- Numbers unavailable in these records. 

*The numbers above were extracted from the Hearings of the House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, Department of the Interior and Related 

Agencies Appropriations for 1940-1995. These numbers do not always reflect the park’s actual 

operating budget and are no guarantee of accuracy. Furthermore, issues of inflation and special 

project funding likely adjusted park budgets over the years and must be taken into account. 
332

Appendix F 

Era of Significance 

During the history of Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site there have been a series of 

decisions made to select the time period of focus, the time period to use in restoration projects, 

as well as the time period for interpretation. Because there has never been an approved Master 

Plan or General Management Plan for Hopewell Furnace NHS, these fluctuating decisions have 

each shaped the park for a time, only to be changed by the next decision-maker. 

The words of Senior NPS Engineer Edmund Preece in 1942, as quoted on page 84, aptly describe 

the conditions today, 

I do not believe that the mere fact that a policy is recommended in a report and submitted without 

adverse criticism can be considered as establishing policy...So far as I am able to learn different 

policies have been recommended for Hopewell Village at different times by different persons and 

in some cases funds have actually been furnished to carry out some of the provisions. If such a 

procedure can be considered the establishment of a policy then it must be taken as establishment 

by indirection and the variety of opinion, which accompanies such procedure [sic] is completely 

understandable...Hopewell policy has ranged from scrupulous preservation of original 

workmanship to complete reconstructions for the purpose of operation. Frankly, I do not know 

of any policy that has been followed consistently. 

This chart is an attempt to record the vacillating decisions about the time period of focus at 

Hopewell Furnace NHS. 

Time Period 

Recommended 

Date of 

Decision 

Person(s) Making the 

Decision 

Documentation 

1883 1935 Historian Roy Appleman Historic Report by Appleman 

1785 to 1800 1936 Historian Roy Appleman Proposed Restoration Plan for Old Iron 

Making Village, French Creek Project, 

Hopewell, Pennsylvania by Appleman 

1770-1880 

Restoration to 

reflect the 

accumulation of 

structures up to 

1880. 

April 1940 Historian Melvin Weig, 

Historian Thor Borresen, 

Archeologist John 

Christopher Fisher 

Motz, and 

Superintendent Lemuel 

Garrison 

Federal Park Use Study Reports, RG 79 

1770-1870 

“stop the clock at 

1870” 

May 1941 Superintendent Lemuel 

Garrison 

1770-1883 

“The furnace 

represents years 

of use, hence the 

village should 

represent the 

same.” 

November 

1941 

Historian Thor Borresen Report on a Visit to Hopewell Village 

National Historic Site, November 1941 
333

1770-1883 

Each structure be 

stabilized to its 

last major form, 

rather than 

restoring all to 

one time period. 

May 1942 Senior NPS Engineer 

Edmund Preece 

1810-1845 June 1950 Historian Melvin Weig, 

et al. 

1883 June 1951 Archeologist J.C. 

Harrington, Historian 

Melvin Weig, 

Superintendent James 

Cass, and Historian 

Walter Hugins 

1770-1883 

“a reasonable 

mixture of 

periods provided 

the picture is not 

distorted.” 

June 1951 Historian Melvin Weig 

1883 1952 Master Plan Development Outline 

1820-1840 1955 Superintendent Joseph 

Prentice 

Mission 66 Prospectus 

1820-1840 

for preservation, 

1770-1883 for 

interpretation 

1958 Acting Regional Director 

George Palmer 

1820-1840 1963 Historian Earl Heydinger 

and Superintendent 

Benjamin Zerbey 

1963 Master Plan 

1770-1883 

“advocated 

structural 

restoration to all 

periods of 

furnace 

operations.” 

Sept. 1964 Historian Earl Heydinger 

and Superintendent 

Benjamin Zerbey 

1964 Master Plan 

1820-1840 

but still preserve 

structures outside 

that period 

1972 Franklin G. Collins, Dr. 

Nan Rickey (both from 

Denver Service Center) 

and Superintendent John 

C. W. Riddle 

1972 Master Plan and 1973 Interpretive 

Prospectus 

1820-1840 1993 Superintendent Derrick 

Cook 

1993 Long Range Interpretive Plan 
334

Appendix G 

List of Selected Resources and Restoration Dates 

Resource Date of Preservation Date to Which Resource Restored 

No policy- formal or informal 

Furnace, East Headrace 1937-39 repaired and stabilized 

1941 Master Development Plan (1870 target date) 

Bake Ovens Begun 1940-41, 1955 1879, 1840s 

Ironmaster’s House repaired and stabilized 

Blacksmith Shop 1949 (roof), 1955 1849 

Furnace Group 1949-51 1883 

Waterwheel and Blast 

Machinery 

1930s, 1940-41, 1950-52 1883 

West Headrace 1950-52 Unclear, ca.1883 

1952 Master Plan (1883 target date) 

Wheel Pit walls 1953 1883 

Blacksmith Shop interior 1954 1883 

Road system 1955-56 ca.1883 (pre-1930s) 

Mission 66 Prospectus (1820-1840 target date) 

Bridge House, Wheelhouse, 

Cooling Shed 

1957-58 1820-40 

The Duplex (Tenant House 

No. 3) 

 Unclear, post-1820-40 

Barn 1959 Reconstructed to 1840 

Office-Store 1960-61 1840 

Charcoal Kilns 1963-64 Stabilized 

Cast House 1964-65 1820-40 

1964 Master Plan 

1973 Interpretive Prospectus 

Ironmaster’s House 

Renovation 

1977-80 Early 1800s 
335

 Appendix H 

Maps 



















Index 

Abbott, Stanley W., 213 

Abel, Leland, 149, 168 

Albright, Horace, 20, 187n

Albright, John, 168, 170 

Allen, Thomas, 84-85, 87, 103-104, 106-107, 

114, 121, 125, 198, 202-205, 263, 283 

Anderson, Jay, 271 

Apel, John, 219, 226 

Apple, Russell, 132, 133-135, 139, 141, 149, 151, 

 214, 227 

Appleman, Roy E., 26-38, 40-42, 43, 44-45, 

 46, 47n, 48, 50-52, 53-54, 55n, 56, 57, 

 60-62, 61n, 63-64, 66, 67, 72, 83-85, 

111-112, 116-117, 118-119, 122-123, 124, 127, 

133, 138, 148, 153, 157, 161, 161n, 163-164, 

180, 201, 204, 213, 216, 227, 237, 240, 

243, 256, 260, 264, 270, 307, 310, 313, 

314 

Armstrong, Howard, 180 

Ashley, Carl, 43 

Bachman, Albert, 105 

Baker, Russell, 240 

Baril, Peter E., 158, 248 

Barnes, Frank, 140, 276-277 

Barthel, Diane, 35 

Bastress, John N., 21 

Beach, Denny, 156, 210, 230, 275, 305 

Beam, Eugene, 221 

Bearss, Edwin C., 163, 174 

Beiler, Christ, 150 

Bender, Georjean, 158 

Bent, Quincy, 121 

Biever, Dale, 274-275, 276, 289 

Bining, Arthur C., 120, 134 

Bird Family, 5, 138, 257 

Bird, Daniel, 290 

Bird, Mark, 3, 4-6, 13, 16, 27, 135, 202, 249, 

 289-290 

Bird, William, 4, 5-6, 

Bitler, Bill, 132, 133, 134, 135, 135, 136, 158, 233, 

247, 264, 274, 275 

Bitler, Ralph, 133 

Boardman, Charles M., 21, 31 

Bogardus, James, 34 

Boice, Ronald, 227 

Borgeson, Melvin, 27, 40-41, 56 

Borresen, Thor, 53, 59-61, 64-65, 73-74, 74n, 

82-83, 84, 127, 131, 242, 260, 313 

Boyle, Joseph Lee, 170, 171, 175, 176, 177, 178, 

 250, 290 

Boyle, Lee (see Joseph Lee Boyle) 

Brooke Family, 6, 7, 8, 29, 40, 138, 171, 184- 

185, 245, 257 

Brooke, Clement, 7-8, 9, 171, 185, 269 

Brooke, Edward, 244 

Brooke, George, 34, 243

Brooke, Louise Clingan, 10, 16, 17, 18, 24, 213 

Brooke, Mathew, 6, 202

Brooke, Mrs. Clement, 256 

Brooke, Robert, 30 

Brooke, Thomas, 6, 202 

Brooks, Chester, 166-167, 168-169, 249 

Brown, Nancy, 276 

Browning, Paul, 246 

Buck, George, 273

Buckley Family, 138 

Buckley, Daniel, 6, 202 

Buckley, Edward S., 8 

Buckley, M. Brooke, 8 

Bullock, Orin M., 56, 260 

Burlew, E.K., 48-49 

Busenkell, Mary, 192-193 

Butler, John, 217-272 

Butowsky, Harry, 182 

Cahalane, Victor H., 99, 105 

Care, Marie, 157, 158 

Care, Nathan, 8, 17, 21, 48, 56, 240 

Carson, Rachel, 236 

Carter, Jimmy, 228 

Cass, James, 119, 124, 127, 130-131, 133, 140, 188, 

205, 212, 245, 250, 263, 264, 304 

Chapman, Elwood, 109 

Chatelain, Verne, 25-26, 38, 46n

Chenoworth, Edgar J. , 95n

Clingan Family, 25-26, 171 

Clingan, Charles, 8, 17 

Clingan, Maria, 8, 17 

Clouser, George, 75, 90, 259 

Cochran, Hamilton, 121 

Collins, Franklin G., 164 

337 
Index 

Collins, Jeffrey, 296, 309 

Connelly, Ernest Allen, 164 

Cook, Derrick, 175, 1178-179, 180, 222, 235, 

252, 305-306 

Cooke, Hattie Mae, 95n 

Cooper (EODC architect), 146 

Cooper, William, 70 

Corbin, George, 212 

Corless, Jim, 179, 222, 280, 305, 312 

Cotter, John, 120, 141, 145, 149, 159, 227 

Cowan, John, 44, 66, 240 

Cox, Elbert, 45, 49-50, 127, 202-203, 213, 245 

Cram, Diane, 254 

Cremers, Estelle, 235 

Crouch, J. Carlisle, 135 

Davidson, Caleb, 185 

Delaware Indians, 3 

Demaray, Arthur E., 15, 25, 45, 81, 94, 106, 

204, 244 

Denniston, J.H., 127-128 

Derby, Mrs. Charles, 2243 

Diechert, Charlie, 134, 136, 159, 264, 274, 275 

Diggs, John, 58 

Disrude, Elizabeth E., 26, 170-173, 175, 177, 

178, 183, 183n, 191, 192-193, 200, 216- 

217, 228, 252, 270, 282, 285-287, 292, 

293, 301, 305 

Downing, Paul, 269 

Draemel, Milo F., 109, 202-204, 205 

Drury, Newton, 84-85, 90, 106, 110,113, 114- 

115, 120, 187, 198, 204, 271 

Duff, James H., 109 

Eben, Chris, 44-45, 52, 66, 75 

Ebert, James, 177 

Edgerley, Edward, 205 

Ellis, Albert, 31 

Elms, Wallace B., 158n, 158, 159, 161, 166, 168, 

 170, 183-184, 190-191, 192, 197-198, 199, 

227, 230-231, 248, 270, 288 

English, Curtis, 197 

English, P.F., 105-107 

Estes, Earl W., 164, 232, 267 

Everhart, Bill, 277 

Evison, Herbert, 86, 97, 103-104 

Ewald, "Red", 30 

Fairbairn, Charlotte, 157 

Feldman, Emily, 253-254 

Fernandez, Josie, 179, 223, 296, 305-307, 314 

Fitzgerald, Veronica, 151, 158 

Ford, Henry, 33, 34 

Francaviglia, Richard, 231 

Francisco, W.H., 22 

Franz, Bob, 134, 135, 1136 

Friedlander, Louis, 240, 250 

Fritz, Catherine, 82, 88, 111, 116, 117, 118, 134, 

137, 151, 157, 213, 298 

Fritz, Ceila, 151 

Funnell, Charles, 249 

Gale, Howard, 66, 242, 248 

Garrison, Inger, 62 

Garrison, Lemuel A., 57, 58, 59-70, 72, 73-74, 

84, 94, 111, 123, 124, 133, 139, 156, 186, 

190, 207, 209, 227, 242-244, 245, 247, 

250, 258, 283-284, 301 

Garrison, Lon (see Lemuel Garrison)

Gauger, Sarah L., 134, 136-137 

Gebhard, Paul, 74, 75 

Gergle, Barbara, 178, 280n

Gibbs, Russell A. , 118, 119, 121, 122, 133, 174n, 

197, 213-214, 250-251, 271 

Gibson, Benjamin, 135 

Godbolt, James W., 164

Goddard, W.F., 100-102, 103 

Golden, M.J., 105 

Golub, Nathan B., 164, 210 

Good, Albert, 38 

Goodrum, Phil, 102, 105-107 

Gordon, Seth, 101 

Groth, Paul, 236 

Guenther, Karen, 291 

Guscio (of Preece, Borresen, Guscio, and 

 Higgins), 82-83 

Hanson, Wedge, 140 

Harrington, J.C., 119, 122, 124-125 

Hart, Harry L., 135, 230, 274, 277, 278-279 

Hartzog, George B., 152, 161, 182, 273-274 

Hawkins, Harold, 216 

Haws, George, 27 

Hayden, Joseph, 197 

Hazelius, Arthur, 216, 271

Hebblethwaite, Frank, 180, 250, 290, 306- 

 307 

Hehr, Robert, 59, 66-67 

Heinrich, Emil C., 58, 86, 87, 88, 88-91, 92, 

94-95, 96, 98-102, 105, 107-109, 110- 

112, 113, 114, 116, 151, 188, 198, 210, 222, 

338
Index 

225, 247, 259, 260-261, 283-284, 296 

Heinrich, Hans, 87 

Heinrich, Helen, 87 

Heinrich, Joanna, 87, 90 

Henderson, Everett, 107

Henzi, Jane, 157, 163, 250 Kidder, Alfred, 38 

Heydinger, Earl, 135-136, 141-142, 143, 144, 145, 

151, 152, 156-157, 163, 164, 168, 177, 247, 

248, 249-250, 267, 314 

Higgins (of Preece, Borresen, Guscio, and 

 Higgins), 82-83 

Hilker, Gordon, 278 

Hoch, Daniel Knabb, 57, 94-95, 95n, 100-102, 

 106-107 

Hodel, Don, 293 

Hoffman, Frank, 44, 127 

Hoffman, Harold (aka Alvin), 125, 127 

Hopkins, Alfred, 61 

Hopkins, Harry, 14 

Hornick, Nancy, 289, 290 

Hosmer, Charles, 35, 309

Hostetter, Harry, 98-99 

Houck, Lafayette, 241, 278 

Hough, Philip R., 283-284 

Huber, Frank, 134 

Hudson, J. Paul, 263 

Hudson, Paul, 131 

Hugh, Owen, 5 

Hugins, Walter E., 124-125, 130-131, 134, 137, 

143, 216, 247, 262-263, 264 

Huppuch, Matt, 14, 50, 52 

Huyett, Lloyd, 132, 136-137, 157 

Ickes, Harold, 14, 18, 45, 46, 57, 76-77, 79, 102, 

164, 186, 302

Jack (Hopwell NHS ranger), 275 

Jackson, John Brinckerhoff, 236 

Jacox, Diane, 176 

Jefferson, Thomas, 10 

Jenson, Johannes E.N., 153 

John, Michael, 177 

Johnson, Claudia Taylor "Lady Bird" 

 (Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson), 159 

Johnston, Fred, 63, 82 

Judd (EODC architect), 146 

Kahler, Herbert E., 55, 57, 58, 64, 161, 245 

Kay, William, 278 

Keiffer, John, 133, 136, 150, 247 

Keller, Herbert, 271 

Kelly, Arthur, 54-55, 58, 59, 65, 70-71, 73 

Kemper, Jackson, 40, 47, 52-53, 240-242, 245, 

 250 

Kennedy, Janet, 177 

Keppley, Mr. (WPA guide), 66 

Kiener, Tyler B., 127, 205 

Kilareski, Mike, 198, 274, 277 

Kimball, Fiske, 38, 40 

Kintzer, Robert I., 22, 23 

Kirby, Thomas, 184 

Kise, Franks and Straw Cultural Resource 

 Group, 236 

Kissling, Herbert, 151 

Klopfenstein, Mrs. Fritz, 304 

Koch, Paul U., 21, 44-45, 56 

Kohl, Elmer, 157, 158, 256, 279 

Kowalski, John, 177 

Krug, Julius A., 109 

Kuhns, Ivan, 248 

Kurjack, Dennis C., 116-118, 119-120, 121, 122, 

123-124, 125, 141, 143, 195, 213, 247, 250, 

251, 261, 263

Kurtz, James, 250, 253 

Kurtz, Russell, 221 

Lachine, Guy, 171 

Lahey, Dick, 280, 280n

Lane, Thomas A., 22 

Lattimore, Ralston B., 72-73, 78, 79-80, 82- 

83, 85-87, 89, 91, 92-93, 97, 108, 111, 

186-187, 244, 260, 283-284 

Lau, Clair, 136, 274 

Lee, Ronald F., 25-27, 30, 32, 35, 39-40, 41, 

 46, 46n, 48, 51, 58, 59, 85, 213, 258, 

269, 282, 301 

Leiendecker, Joseph, 197 

LeVan, Jay, 67-68, 72, 127 

Lightwood, Milton, 34

Lisle, Ewell M., 49-50, 55, 60, 209 

Lloyd Family, 184, 185 

Lloyd, Ernest S., 186-187, 188, 191, 192 

Lloyd, Stephen, 191 

Lloyd, Thomas, III, 6, 184, 187, 192 

Long, Harker, 8, 27, 30, 31, 169, 240-241 

Lucas, Frank, 82, 90, 111, 134, 136, 259 

Ludgate, V.R., 63 

Lutz, William, 177 

Luzader, John, 163, 248-249 

339
Index 

McCarthy, Michael J., 21, 22, 26, 30, 43-44 

McDermott, Dona, 250 

McGinley, John J., 284 

Mackintosh, Barry, 171, 311 

Maitland, Ron, 264 

Malizzi, Wilhelmine, 137, 157, 158, 178

Manchester, A.W., 19 

Mang, Gustavus, 25, 27, 30, 243 

Marie, Audrey, 253 

Marx, Leo, 10, 313 

Masters, Lawrence, 158, 177, 276 

Matter, L.D., 205 

Mattes, Merrill, 168-169 

Melnick, Robert Z., 236

Mikell, Waring, 43, 55 

Miller, Daniel, 157, 177 

Moffitt, David, 226 

Mollette, George, 191 

Montgomery, Charles, 59, 141, 242 

Morrow, Hooper W., 177 

Mott, William Penn, Jr., 171 

Motz, Chris (see John Christopher Fisher 

 Motz) 

Motz, John Christopher Fisher, 57, 59-63, 

64-68, 69-70, 72, 73, 74, 82, 84, 85, 87, 

90, 119, 125, 131, 141, 227, 242-245, 250, 

253, 258-259, 283, 296 

Muhlenberg, Frederick A., 114 

Murdough, Edwin L., 21

Musser, Elmer, 157 

Myers, William, 14 

Nash, Larry, 157-158 

Nehf, Charles, 102-03 

Nelligan, Murray, 135 

Nevins, Allen, 26 

Newlin, Keith, 227 

O'Neil, W.E., 204 

Paine, Robert Treat, 249 

Painter, Charles Sheridan, 46, 125, 131, 141, 145 

Palmer, George, 139, 140, 190, 196, 269 

Palmer, Ronald, 275 

Pawling, Rich, 280 

Peachy, Raymond, 221 

Pemberton, Heath, 174 

Peterson, Charles, 137-138, 140, 144, 145, 146, 

 170 

Peterson, Harold, 252 

Peterson, J. Hardin, 95n

Pfanz, Harry, 249, 290-291 

Phillips, Michael, 276n

Pierpoint, Stephen, 43 

Pinchot, Gifford, 15 

Pitcaithly, Dwight, 171, 311 

Points, Larry, 156, 157, 158, 189-190, 198, 212, 

223, 230, 233, 248, 276, 278, 279, 301 

Power, Frank, 221 

Preece, Borresen, Guscio, and Higgins, 82- 

 83 

Preece, Edmund, 74, 82-84, 85 

Prentice, Joseph R., 113-114, 119, 132, 133, 136, 

139-142, 145, 146, 148-149, 150, 151, 188, 

196, 197, 200, 206, 210, 211, 212, 232, 

247, 251, 264, 272 

Prentice, Mary Ann, 134, 277 

Prince, Nancy, 157, 252 

Reitz, Kenneth E., 158, 178 

Reshaft, John, 140 

Richman, Irwin, 164 

Rickert, Harry, 105 

Rickey, Nan, 164, 267, 292 

Riddle, John C.W., 155-157, 158, 159, 161, 164, 

178, 189, 207, 225, 229-230, 247-248, 

 267, 274 

Rockefeller, John D. Jr, 32, 283 

Rogers, Delia J., 191 

Ronalds, Francis S., 63, 66, 82, 87, 92-94, 95, 

100, 111, 118, 122, 186, 187-188, 205, 213, 

259, 283, 301, 314 

Ronsheim, Robert D., 135-136, 138, 141-142, 

144, 145, 147, 151, 196, 247, 266n, 266- 

267, 268, 269-270, 277 

Roosevelt, Franklin Delano, 13, 14, 18-19, 25, 

35, 39, 77n

Ross, George, 27 

Ross, Rebecca, 254 

Rothenberg, Herbert, 176 

Rowland, Bill, 131, 134, 262, 264, 298 

Russell, Emily, 228 

Sanders, Bill, 180 

Sanders, Leroy, 89, 90 

Sandiford, J.W., 188-189, 190, 191-192 

Sands, George, 202 

Savage, J. Woodrow, 95n

Saxe, Emma Jane, 236 

Schultz, George, 27, 30242-243 

Schumacher, Paul, 120, 132 

340
Index 

Scoyen, Eivind T., 134-135, 138, 139 

Scully, Cornelius, 59

Seidel, Charles, 133, 136, 142-143, 145, 150, 157, 

178, 192, 228 

Sellars, Richard, 171, 311 

Shaffer, John, 143 

Shearer, Charles, 44, 68, 75 

Sheffield, Walter, 55, 56-57 

Sherfy, Marcella, 276 

Shore, Stephen, 307 

Sigafoos, Bill, 264 

Skean, Mr. (of Skean Funeral Home), 191 

Smith, Russell P., 175-176, 178, 193, 234, 287, 

 295 

Sounder, Norman, 142-144, 145, 147, 170, 268, 

 295 

Sponn, Daniel, 236 

Stanford, John, 139 

Stimson, Henry, 77, 79 

Stone, Roger, 221, 223 

Stratton, A. Clark, 152 

Sutton, Dick, 140, 144 

Sweidel, Eva, 175 

Sweidel, William, 175 

Switzler, D.T., 284 

Sylvester, Arthur, 22, 40, 43, 241 

Tapscott, R.A., 47n

Taylor, Floyd, 205 

Taylor, O. B., 198 

Taylor, Oliver, 93-94 

Terbosic, Frank, 178 

Tetzlaff, Frank, 204 

Thompson, Fred, 92 

Tilden, Freeman, 272 

Tobin, Dan, 140, 143 

Tolson, Hillory, 87, 91, 100-101, 106, 204, 283- 

 284 

Tremer, Charles, 252 

Troit, Anita, 191 

Truman, Harry S., 109 

Udall, Stewart, 182 

Utley, Robert, 161, 161n, 163, 168-169, 273-274 

Veach (regional engineer), 214 

Vint, Tom, 145 

Von Hausswolff, Eric, 50 

Voorhis, Manning C., 53-54 

Waldt, Bruce, 192 

Walker, Joseph E., 11, 274, 293, 305, 306 

Wallace, Henry A., 14 

Wamsher, Mr. (of Birdsboro Water 

 Company), 248 

Washington, George, 247 

Weig, Melvin, 35, 40, 43, 44, 45-48, 50, 54, 55, 

56-58, 59-61, 64, 93, 95, 111, 122, 123- 

125, 201, 207, 213, 216, 243, 260-261 

Weisman, Charles, 285-286 

Wells, Stuart, 236 

White, Richard, 216 

Wilson, James, 27 

Wirth, Conrad L., 14, 20, 26, 40, 46, 50-51, 

68, 76, 81-82, 85, 101, 115, 138, 142, 161, 

 204 

Wirth, Walter, 202-203, 205, 212 

Witman, Anna, 276 

Wolf, Richard, 177 

Yager, Richard, 30 

Young, Rogers, 140, 273, 292n

Zerbey, Benjamin J., 119, 136, 149-150, 152, 155, 

197, 224, 246, 278-279, 294 

Zerr, Clara E., 304 

Zerr, Levi, 111 

Ziegler, Theodore, 158, 279n, 279-280 

Ziemba, Kevin, 158, 227, 287 

Zimmer, Edward, 115, 138, 142 

341