In the 1970s, with much NPS backing, Greeneville
began the long process of promoting itself as a
venue for historic tourism. To encourage further
appreciation of local history, Abelson advised the
local Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR)
chapter on its efforts to restore the Old Harmony
Cemetery, which was located within the town’s new
historic district. He also advised the Heritage Trust
to develop a festival to celebrate the U.S.
Bicentennial in 1976.76 By 1975, Abelson reported
that the Heritage Trust “has been the vehicle
through which we help and influence City and
County officials.” He listed a number of projects
that the Park Service was involved with, including
restoration of Covered Bridge, Doak House, Quaker
Church, Harmony Cemetery, fish stocking of
Richland Creek, brick sidewalks, and bicentennial
events, among others.22” In July 1977, Abelson was
also appointed Chairman of the Greeneville
Chamber of Commerce “Tourist and Travel
District.” He worked with the First Tennessee-
Virginia Development District to organize a
thirteen-county regional travel council.?38 In 1981,
Abelson was also a member of Greeneville’s
Knoxville World’s Fair Steering Committee. He
claimed that he “spoke to anyone who would listen”
about how much the fair would benefit Greeneville
and estimated a 300 percent increase in visitation
would result.239 Together, these activities show that
Andrew Johnson National Historic Site has long
been involved in cooperating with town and county
Officials to capitalize on Greeneville’s historical

appeal.

One of the most important events along that road
occurred in 1985. On May 15, Greeneville received
a grant from the Land and Water Conservation
Fund, a national fund administered through the
NPS that was created by Congress for conservation
purposes using revenue from off-shore oil drilling
in public waters. The purpose of the grant was to
fund work on the first phase of the clean up of
Richland Creek, a small stream that runs through
the middle of the town and, in fact, beneath the
Visitor Center of the national historic site. Funding
would also allow the town to construct the
“Richland Creek Historic Walkway.”240

236. SANR for 1974, February 19, 1975.

237. SANR for 1975, February 16, 1976.

238. SANR for 1977, January 5, 1978.

239, SANR for 1981, February 8 1982.

240. Ron Walli, “Historic Walkway Grant is Approved,”
Greeneville Sun, May 15, 1985, 1, 6.

FIGURE 27. A C-SPAN crewman (I) chats with a park
maintenance employee. The cable television
network broadcast from Homestead twice in the
1990s.

Superintendent Grady Webb advised the town on
the issue and regularly attended tourism meetings
of the Chamber of Commerce and the East
Tennessee Tourism Council during his tenure at the
park. 241 Nevertheless, there is no indication that
local NPS staff were substantially involved in
acquiring the Greeneville grant, although the
project did promise important benefits for Andrew
Johnson National Historic Site. Mainly, the walkway
was intended to link Richland Creek to the
Homestead and the Tailor Shop, completing a

circuit that would be of benefit to tourists.?#

The grant, approved by the Tennessee Department
of Conservation, required in-kind matching by the
city. Mayor G, Thomas Love called the grant “one of
the greatest things to happen to Greeneville.” The
grant was a joint effort by the city and Greene
County, but the organization that mattered most
was Main Street: Greeneville, a local organization
that was part of a nation-wide program developed
by the National Trust for Historic Preservation to
support revitalization of small cities and towns
across America. Mayor Love praised its co-
managers for their efforts in pursuing the grant. The
project was to take place in phases over six years as
part of the effort to revitalize the town’s center by
creating a park-like atmosphere in the downtown
area.2#3

241, SANR for 1984, January 18, 1985; SANR (for 1987),
February 18, 1988.

242. Ron Walli, “Historic Walkway Grant is Approved,”
Greeneville Sun, May 15, 1985, 1, 6.

243. Ron Walli, "Historic Walkway Grant is Approved,”
Greeneville Sun, May 15, 1985, 1, 6.

National Park Service 49


Chapter V: Management Summary

The origins and existence of the Andrew Johnson
National Historic Site through 1971 are more fully
chronicled in an unpublished manuscript by long-
time park historian Hugh Lawing, which is
summarized in Chapter 1 of the present study. The
park originated in the Johnson family’s efforts to
memorialize President Andrew Johnson and
preserve his burial place on Monument Hill, as the
steep hill within the future National Cemetery was
known after his children erected a great stone
monument to his memory there in 1878. Although
the Homestead, the Johnson family home in
Greeneville, Tennessee, remained in private hands
until the 1940s, the family burial ground was
included in a National Cemetery that was
established on Monument Hill in 1906. In 1921, the
family conveyed the Tailor Shop, where Johnson
worked as a young man, to the State of Tennessee,

Proto by Moody Studio

FIGURE 58, Another
National Cemetery. Jody Cook Postcard Collection)

which built a Memorial Building and established a
state park on the site.

Originally authorized by Congress in 1935, the
Andrew Johnson National Monument, which
included the Tailor Shop, the Homestead, and the
National Cemetery, was created by presidential
proclamation in 1942. In 1964, the Early Home, the
Johnsons’ residence before they bought the
Homestead in 1851, was incorporated into the park
as well. In addition to significant changes during
Johnson’s lifetime, the Homestead was completely
remodeled by his daughter in the 1880s, and in
1956, the Park Service began planning restoration of
the house to its appearance during the last years of
Johnson’s life. A new visitor center was constructed
and the restored Homestead was dedicated in April
1958,

ostcard view of Monument Hill in Andrew Johnson:

National Park Service 113


one another, there should be a single National
Register district nomination. The Chief Historian,
Dr. Harry W. Pfanz and the Chief Archeologist
(acting), Jackson W. Moore, Jr., agreed with Judd’s
opinion. Robert M. Utley, then the Chief of the
Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation
which administered the National Register Division,
accepted these recommendations and the three
separate nominations were returned for re-
submittal as a single, combined National Register
district.°°

Superintendent Lloyd Abelson approved the park’s
National Register district nomination in June 1976.
Despite the multiple iterations of its draft, the
nomination was fairly basic, as was typical at that
time. Abelson noted that the nomination would not
affect park operations or planning as all the
National Register buildings and structures were
already within the park’s historic zone, and that
park boundaries and those of the National Register
historic district were identical.°® The nomination
was forwarded to Washington and signed by the
Keeper of the National Register on March 3, 1977.>7

In 1994, work by staff in the Cultural Resources
Planning Division, SERO, to update the LCS led to
an amendment to the park’s National Register
nomination the following year. The 1977
nomination, typical of nominations compiled in the
early years of the National Register program,
required additional information to document the
park’s historic resources to current standards and
guidelines, and by July 1995, a draft amendment
had been prepared for the park. Superintendent
Corey recommended additional research to explain
references to the “Cemetery Wall and Gate,” and to
markers placed by private parties prior to NPS
administration.** The final amendment was

54. In 1973, Connally was then Associate Director for
Professional Services, the highest ranking professional
in the Park Service, and essentially Judd’s boss.

55. Routing and Review slip for Andrew Johnson Visitor
Center Complex, February 26, 1976, in “ANJO Draft
Nominations” folder, Park National Register
nomination files, CRD, SERO.

56. Superintendent, AJNHS, Memorandum to Associate
Regional Director, Planning and Assistance, SERO,
June 24, 1976, in “ANJO NR/DOE Correspondence”
folder, Park National Register nomination files, CRD,
SERO.

57. National Register of Historic Places Inventory-
Nomination Form for AJNHS, March 3, 1977,

submitted to the National Register in October and
Officially accepted on December 1, 1995.

The 1995 amendment provided a historic context
for the development of the National Cemetery and
clarified its periods and areas of significance. It also
added other historic resources that contributed to
the site’s significance under this context, and
identified contributing historic landscape features
at the Homestead that were not included in the
original nomination. The original 1977 National
Register nomination and its 1995 amendment now
document all of the historic resources in this park,
including those associated with the life of Andrew
Johnson and those associated with the National
Cemetery, and establish a period of significance of
1830-1942. The district is a “discontiguous” historic
district, a special type of district “composed of two
or more definable significant areas separated by
non-significant areas.” The 1995 amendment made
no changes to the district boundaries documented
in the original nomination, which contained
approximately 16.5 acres and which correspond
exactly with the boundaries of the park.>?

Acquiring More
Space?

In 1979, Oregon Senator Mark Hatfield made an
unexpected visit to Andrew Johnson National
Historic Site. He was interested in discussing the
possibility of adding to the park the “Brumley
Apartments,” which were located adjacent to the
Homestead grounds on Main Street in downtown
Greeneville. The Park Service was not interested in
the property, but Superintendent Abelson
nevertheless followed up the senator’s visit and met

58. Superintendent, AJNHS, Memorandum to Associate
Regional Director, Resource Stewardship, Southeast
Region, July 7, 1995, in “ANJO NR/DOE
Correspondence” folder, park National Register
nomination files, CRD, SERO.

59. Associate Regional Director, Resource Stewardship,
Southeast Field Area, Memorandum to Chief of
Registration, Interagency Resources Division (WASO),
October 12, 1995, in “ANJO NR/DOE Correspondence”
folder, park National Register nomination files, CRD,
SERO. The Tennessee State Historic Preservation
Office was notified but its concurrence was not
required because the documentation updated
existing forms. All sites described were already listed
in the National Register and no boundary changes
were involved.

National Park Service 15


Bibliography

Note on photographic sources: All photographs
appearing in this publication, unless otherwise
specified, are public domain images from files of the
National Park Service at Andrew Johnson National
Historic Site, the Southeast Regional Office Cultural
Resources Division library, and Harpers Ferry
Center.

Section I: General

Books and Reports

Arbogast, David. “First Andrew Johnson House:
Architectural Data Section/Historic Structure
Report.” Denver: [NPS] Denver Service Center,
1978.

Buono, Jon, et al. Andrew Johnson Homestead, Historic
Structure Report Amendment. Atlanta: National Park
Service, 2001.

Connally, Ernest Allen, “Survey Report: Restoration of
the Andrew Johnson Homestead.” National Park
Service, August 20, 1956.

Cultural Resource Management Guidelines [Director’s
Order #28]. Washington, DC: National Park Service,
1997.

Davis, Benjamin H. “The Home Andrew Johnson
Purchased in 1851.” National Park Service, March
1956.

Holloway, Laura C. The Ladies of the White House, Vol. Il.
New York, 1886.

Judd, Henry. “Restoration of the Andrew Johnson
Homestead: Second Supplement to the Survey
Report.” National Park Service, 1959.

Lawing, Hugh A. Administrative History of Andrew
Johnson National Historic Site. Greeneville: National
Park Service, 1971.

Lawing, Hugh A. “Andrew Johnson National Historic
Site,” Tennessee Historical Quarterly. Revised reprint
from 1989 edition.

Lawliss, Lucy. Andrew Johnson National Cemetery
Cultural Landscape Report. Atlanta: National Park
Service, 1993.

“Long Range Interpretive Plan: Andrew Johnson National
Historic Site.” National Park Service, February 20,
1996. Park archives.

Miri, Ali. Historic Structure Assessment Report: Cemetery
Lodge (Building Number 2), Andrew Johnson National
Historic Site. Atlanta: Nationa! Park Service, 1993.

National Park Service. Laws Relating to the National Park
Service, Supplement III (February 1963 to December
1972). Washington, DC: Department of the Interior,
1972,

Report of the Congressional Commission on
Servicemembers and Veterans Transition. Assistance.
Washington, DC: 1999.

Rogers, Edmund B. History of Legislation Relating to the
National Park System through the 82"4 Congress.
Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, 1958.

Sullivan, Thomas Allan. Laws Relating to the National
Park Service, Supplement I (Juty 1933 to April 1944).
Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, 1944.

Sullivan, Thomas Allan. Proclamations and Orders
Relating to the National Park Service up to January
1945, Washington, DC: Department of the Interior,
1947.

Sturdevant, Jay T., and Charles F. Lawson. Remote-Sensing
and Archeological Survey of the Andrew Johnson
Homestead at the Andrew Johnson National Historic
Site. Tallahassee: Southeast Archeological Center,
2002.

Tilden, Freeman. Interpreting Our Heritage. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina, 1957.

Interviews by Author and E-mail

Beck, John. E-mail to Cameron Binkley. December 11,
2006.

Collins, George. Interview by Cameron Binkley (at
Tusculum College, Tennessee). December 13, 2006.

Corey, Mark. E-mail to Cameron Binkley and John Beck.
December 20, 2006.

National Park Service 139




to coordinate volunteers effectively enough to get a
program going, The cooperative agreement was thus
intended to provide seed money, but only for five
years. Thereafter, Corey hoped, the tours would
generate so much enthusiasm that the town would
keep them running?

Beginning in 2003, Main Street thus began to offer
two tours using a staff person posted in the lobby of
the General Morgan Inn. The inn was conveniently
located adjacent to the Dickson Williams Mansion,
a stately structure once occupied by a political
adversary of Andrew Johnson and restored to its
original condition with many fine furnishings. The
Dickson William Mansion became the first tour,
offered year round, and given seven days a week,
every day of the year except for Thanksgiving,
Christmas, and New Year’s.

Another tour was also given as weather permitted. It
was called “A Walk with the President” and featured
a tour of the historic downtown area along with
commentary and stories associated with Andrew
Johnson. In 2006, the park cut its funding as per the
cooperative agreement, but still provided another
$5,000, which was matched by the town with
$15,000. Whether Greeneville will be able to
maintain the tours on its own is unknown at the
time of writing. If the project succeeds, it will have
been a worthwhile investment. If the project does
not succeed, Andrew Johnson will at least have
returned the favor to Greeneville’s civic leaders and
donors who had previously funded the park’s
exhibit plan discussed elsewhere.°24 Partnering with
locals and helping to foster a more vibrant historic
area in downtown Greeneville certainly must be
considered a key element of the NPS mission.
According to Corey:

In terms of talking about this national historic
site and its surroundings and the downtown
historic district, the way | look at it is
that—well, as | know, this park and its
resources can never move. Some businesses
and financial institutions and so forth can
move out of the downtown historic district.
We can never move. We'll always be where
we are. And it is in this park’s direct interest

523. Ibid., 41-42.

524. Ibid.; See also “Historic Greeneville Tennessee: Two
Tours You Can‘t Miss,” tour brochure produced by
Main Street: Greeneville (Greeneville: Tennessee, no
date).

to make sure that the downtown historic
district continues to thrive economically and
that hopefully one day it will become a very
successful tourism destination.525

Another strong partnership developed by the
national historic site and a local group has been the
park’s association with the President Andrew
Johnson Museum and Library, which opened in
1993.>26 The museum is located at Tusculum
College, the oldest institution of higher learning in
Tennessee and one of the oldest in the nation.
Founded in 1794, Tusculum College is itself a
National Historic District comprising ten structures
listed in the National Register of Historic Places.
The President Andrew Johnson Museum and
Library is located within the oldest of these
buildings, which was constructed in 1841. The
museum houses exhibits and artifacts relating to
Andrew Johnson and his family, the president’s
personal library, the College’s original library, and
the college archives. George Collins directs both the
museum and the college’s Museum Studies
Program, which is described as “one of the few
undergraduate museum studies degree programs in
the nation.”527

Museum staff have participated in the park in many
ways, including by sharing museum and archival
resources. As previously noted, on one occasion the
museum loaned a rare tea-set, once owned by
President Johnson, for exhibit at the Homestead.
Other activities have included, for example,
collaboration on publications, exhibit design, and
student/staff development. One important aspect of
the cooperation allows Tusculum students involved
in the school’s Museum Studies Program to
interview the park superintendent as well as the
president of the board of the Nathanael Greene
Museum in downtown Greeneville.

The regional museum focuses on the history of
Greene County. Past students have been able to
compare the way materials are handled by a Federal
agency managed by numerous regulations and with
considerable institutional expertise, against a small
non-profit entity that is neither so encumbered by

525. Corey Interview, 42.

526. National Park Service, “Long Range Interpretive
Plan," 17.

527. “Museum Studies” and “Social Sciences, informational
flyers published by Tusculum College (Greeneville:
Tusculum College, no date), in author's possession.

National Park Service 109


FIGURE 32, This photograph from the summit of
Monument Hill within Andrew Johnson National
Cemetery shows War Department-era graves, a
portion of the historic cemetery wall (lower left),
and the cemetery’s steep slopes, which commonly
exceed a 20 percent grade.

administration in connection to the preservation of
major historic sites that for historical reasons are
associated with national cemeteries, mainly
battlefields, but also persons, such as Andrew
Johnson. By 1984, interments at the cemetery were
averaging three per month, and the Park Service
expected to fill all available space within about eight
years, after which the cemetery would be closed. As
explained shortly, that is not what happened.

How the Park Service has and continues to manage
interments at Andrew Johnson National Cemetery
is important because the cemetery plays an
important role in the community as a burial site for
military veterans and their dependents. Numerous
local veterans’ groups regard the cemetery as a
venue for conducting important patriotic
ceremonies, especially for Memorial Day
remembrances. The Greeneville Veterans of Foreign
Wars (VFW) Post 1990 has figured prominently in
these ceremonies since the beginning of the period
covered by this report.

Asimilar event involves the commemoration of
Andrew Johnson's birthday on December 29. On
that day a special wreath of flowers is laid before the
monument that arches over Johnson’s grave. The
wreath is ordered by the White House from a local

288, “Report on the Preparation of the Andrew Johnson
National Cemetery Plans,” a Report to accompany
Interment Plan/Cemetery Landscape Plan, Southeast
Regional Office, February 1984, 5, in “ANJO General”
folder, park files, CRD, SERO.

florist. In earlier years, this ceremony was
conducted by the Nolichucky Chapter of the
Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR), In
1967, however, President Lyndon B. Johnson began
sending an honorary wreath to mark the birthdays
of his deceased predecessors in office.289

The wreath-laying ceremony must be conducted by
a representative of the sitting president. In
December 1971, Col. Wade Douglass, along with a
unit of the East Tennessee State University ROTC,
the local VFW post, and Rep. James Quillen laid the
wreath on behalf of President Richard Nixon. On
this occasion, the event was well covered by local
press and television stations and “Mrs. Bartlett was
given individual TV coverage.”?° Later on, the
‘Tennessee National Guard was designated to
represent the president.

Succeeding administrations have continued the
practice. For example, President Ronald Reagan
sent a wreath on December 29, 1986, to mark the
178th anniversary of Andrew Johnson’s birth.
Reagan’s wreath was designed by local florist
Bonnie Templin. It was delivered by Captain Lynn
Fox and Captain Dennis Adams of the 2/278th
Armored Cavalry Regiment, who represented the
president. In 1987, Ralph Phinney, a cousin of
Margaret Bartlett, accompanied by Lt. Col. Gary
Ellis of the 2/278 Armored Cavalry, placed the
wreath sent by Reagan. VFW Post 1990 provided
the honor guard and a firing squad. According to
Ellis, “it is an honor for the Tennessee National
Guard to present these memorial wreaths to the
three presidents—Andrew Jackson, James K. Polk,
and Johnson—from Tennessee, especially to
Johnson, who did so much to preserve the Union
and to enable Tennessee to return to the Union
without great difficulty.”?7!

Perhaps the liveliest wreath-laying ceremony took
place on Johnson’s 190th birthday in 1998, That was
the year President William J. Clinton was impeached

289. Mary Corey, e-mail entitled “Impeachment Media
Interest” to Paul Winegar, Dan Brown, and Jerry
Belson, December 1998, in park newspaper clippings
archives; and Duncan Mansfield, “Wreath by Clinton
Honors Other Impeached President,” San Antonio
Express News, December 30, 1998.
290. Lloyd A. Abelson, Superintendent, Log of Events,
December 1971

. “Reagan Pays Tribute to Andrew Johnson," Johnson
City Press, December 30, 1986; “President Johnson
Honor,” Greeneville Sun, December 30, 1987.

29

88 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History




local praise when he explained that the Park Service
would pay for the liners, when the need arose.>4>
This decision was Wilson’s last major management
announcement before leaving the park in February
1992 to assume a new position as superintendent of
the Castillo de San Marcos National Monument in
St. Augustine, Florida. Incidentally, the same
solicitor’s determination that exempted the VA from
paying for vaults in NPS national cemeteries or
having to follow VA guidelines in using them also
implied that the Service was not required to follow
VA rules on exceeding a 15 percent grade limitation
in locating grave sites within Andrew Johnson
National Cemetery.

The National
Cemetery Cultural
Landscape Report

Gordon Wilson was followed as superintendent by
Mark Corey, who arrived on April 3, 1992, after
serving as superintendent of Ocmulgee National
Monument. Corey was told by Associate Regional
Director Carrol W. Ogle even before he arrived at
Andrew Johnson that “this is the issue that you need
to get to work on right away.”344 Corey was aware
that a Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) was being
prepared and that both Grady Webb and Wilson
had dealt with the topic. One of his first actions,
however, was to walk around the park with Tony
Reaves, who had been the park’s chief maintenance
worker for many years and who had actually dug
many of the graves in the cemetery. In fact, because
the park did not receive a backhoe until relatively
late, Reaves had dug many graves by hand. Corey
relied on Reaves’s advice about where it would be
safe to install new graves on the steeply sloped
cemetery. The pair later visited the various veterans’
groups to discuss the matter in person once the
preliminary results of the CLR were available.>4

343. Editorial, “This Week ‘The System Worked’,”
Greeneville Sun, December 14, 1991, A2. The grave
liner issue is also briefly mentioned in the SANR (for
1991), 199[2]. Incidentally, there were twenty-seven
funerals that year, four fewer than in 1990.

344. Corey, Oral History Interview by Cameron Binkley, 9.

345. Ibid., 10-11. Reaves recounted the process of grave-
digging to Connie Aiken in her 2002 Oral History
Interview with him. Graves had to be dug on short
notice, of course, and often required around the clock
work until completed to be ready for scheduled
services.

By Jate 1991 or early 1992, Kirk Cordell hired a
historical landscape architect for the regional
office’s Cultural Resources Division in Atlanta. Lucy
Lawiliss, trained by the University of Georgia at
Athens, quickly took over the CLR that Jim Small
had begun. When completed, her cultural landscape
study of Andrew Johnson National Cemetery would
be the first such report written by the National Park
Service for the Southeast Region.*#° Superintendent
Corey announced preliminary findings of the
Lawliss CLR in October 1992.

Lawliss recommended that the cemetery be divided
into three major zones. The first was a “Historic
Zone,” which included the main entrance road, the
summit of Monument Hill, the original interment
sections, the Cemetery Lodge, and the stable/
maintenance area. Its purpose was to preserve the
historic features associated with the Johnson family
and the War Department’s design of the National
Cemetery. A “Buffer Zone” for the most steeply
sloped portions was then used to separate the
Historic Zone from a “Developmental Zone.” Too
steep for many new graves, this “Buffer Zone”
would also allow more foliage to be planted. In the
Developmental Zone, Lawliss found that further
gravesites could be justified without significantly
compromising the Historic Zone.>4” Indeed, Corey
released a public statement to the effect that the
study indicated that between 500-600 additional
gravesites could be found in the cemetery.*#8

Corey welcomed public comment on the report. “I
not only welcome, but actively encourage all
persons interested in the cemetery’s management to
review this report and its recommendations,” he
told the Greeneville Sun in early October 1992. Of
course, the new superintendent had already briefed
local veterans’ groups on the report’s findings.
Frank P. Robinson of the V.F.W. Post 1990 stated

346. Corey, Oral History Interview, 11. Elaine Clark is also
given credit for helping develop historical information
for the report. See John M. Jones, Jr., “NPS Delivers
Good News,” Greeneville Sun, October 6, 1992, A2

347. See Lucy Lawliss, Andrew Johnson National Cemetery
Cultural Landscape Report (Atlanta: National Park
Service, 1993).

348. John M. Jones, Jr, “Proposal Would Expand Grave
Space in AJ Cemetery,” Greeneville Sun, October 5,
1992, 1, 3; and NPS News Release, “National Cemetery
Announces Draft Landscape Report Released for
Public Comment,” October 5, 1992, in folder marked
“Hugh Lawing File,” located in the superintendent's
office, AJNHS

National Park Service 69


Chapter 1: Lawing’s Administrative
History, 1942-1971

Andrew Johnson National Historic Site originated
in the efforts to preserve the burial place of
President Andrew Johnson. In 1898 Martha
Johnson Patterson, the president’s oldest daughter,
expressed in her will her desire that whoever owned
the Homestead should also be charged with
maintaining the Johnson family burial plot on
“Monument Hill,” as the steep hill within the future
National Cemetery was known.®

On May 24, 1900, in conjunction with the
introduction of congressional legislation to create a
public park in Greeneville to honor the memory of
Andrew Johnson and to include his grave site,
Martha J. Patterson modified her will to bind her
heirs “to convey to the Government of the United
States ... all interest and estate I now own in”
Monument Hill if such a park bill became law.”

This chapter is an abridgement of the
administrative history of the national historic
site’s first decades of existence that was
produced by Hugh A. Lawing in 1971. Readers
interested in a more detailed account of the
park’s formative years as well as additional
information about Andrew Johnson and his
family should consult Lawing’s unabridged
history.®

On June 12, 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt
approved an act of Congress authorizing
appropriation of Monument Hill. The parcel to be
accepted was not to exceed fifteen acres and “upon
presentation of good and perfect title to said tract,
the Secretary of War {was] authorized and directed

Lawing, Administrative History, 35.

As quoted by Lawing, Administrative History, 37.
Superintendent's Annual Narrative Report (hereafter
referred to as “SANR") for 1983, February 13, 1984;
SANR for 1984, January 18, 1985; Bob Hurley, “Hugh
Hanging it Up,” Greeneville Sun, December [27], 1983,
press clipping in Andrew Johnson National Historic
Site (hereafter ANJO) archives.

Pn

to establish thereupon a National Cemetery of the
Fourth Class.”

From that date until May 23, 1942, the Andrew
Johnson National Cemetery existed under the
jurisdiction of the War Department. The first
Superintendent was Josiah B. Bewley who entered
duty on November 13, 1908, after construction of
the superintendent’s residence, known as the
Cemetery Lodge, was completed. By then, the War
Department had constructed a wall around the
property, built a stable, designed a general cemetery
layout, and graded a road to the top of Monument
Hill. A seventy-five-foot tall flagpole was also
installed by the end of 1908. Burials of veterans
began in 1909. The first superintendents struggled
to encourage grass growth.!°

In the 1930s, the War Department erected a rostrum
or gazebo-like structure on the side of Monument
Hill and converted the Stable for use as a public
restroom and a utility shed. Martha J. Patterson had
also willed a 720 foot-long right-of-way from the
cemetery entrance to the main road, but War
Department officials repeatedly failed to authorize
funding to maintain the approach (and the land was
eventually developed as residences). Under the War
Department, 138 interments were made in the
cemetery,!?

Aside from the cemetery, early efforts were also
made to preserve the Tailor Shop of Andrew
Johnson. In 1879 both of Johnson’s daughters, Mary
and Martha Johnson, sought to regain title to the
shop that Johnson had sold long ago. This task was
accomplished in 1884 and the property remained
thereafter within the family.!? Later, Andrew
Johnson Patterson (Martha J. Patterson’s son) and

9. As quoted by Lawing, Administrative History, 38.
10. Lawing, Administrative History, 38-40

11, Ibid., 41.

12. Ibid., 44.

National Park Service 5


and there was no audio-visual program at all.°53 As
Corey recalled, the task “was challenging.”>>4

The Mary G. K. Fox Foundation, a local
philanthropic society, agreed to supply a $25,000
“challenge grant,” which was met by Ralph Phinney,
the executor of the estate of Margaret Bartlett. With
two-thirds of the amount raised, a park supporter,
Helen Horner, then raised over $11,000 from several
private donors, mostly Greeneville financial
institutions. A final contribution came from the NPS
Harpers Ferry Center, which was advising park staff
on the exhibit design process.

With funds in hand, the exhibit plan was contracted
to Main Street Design. The plan was a blueprint
integrating the Early Home, the Visitor Center, and
the Tailor Shop “into a well-rounded story of the life
and public service” of President Johnson. Exhibits
at the Early Home would focus upon Johnson’s
early years. In the Visitor Center, exhibits would
focus upon Johnson’s presidency, impeachment
proceedings, and later years. The Tailor Shop would
be used to give visitors a sense of Johnson’s life as a
tailor. Construction costs would run about
$239,500.>% The new exhibits were opened early in
1998.

In May 2000, visitors to Andrew Johnson National
Historic Site were able to watch a new fourteen-
minute-long park orientation film on the life and
times of Andrew Johnson. It was the first
interpretive film ever developed and used at the
park. The film was shown in the Visitor Center in
space vacated after park headquarters was relocated
to the Cemetery Lodge. The film capped a decade-
long effort to revise interpretation of the historic site
and was made possible by the Fee Demonstration
Program.

Local Partnerships. Since 1993, Andrew Johnson
has developed an important interpretive
partnership with Greeneville and Greene County.
While staff have long encouraged local officials to
promote historical tourism, park and town goals
significantly merged that year when the Greene

553. Andrew Johnson National Historic Site, “Statement
for Management/Basic Operations Statement,”
approved December 10, 1993, 9, in AJNHS archives.

554. Corey, Oral History Interview by Cameron Binkley, 32.

555. “Andrew Johnson Site's Designs for Revised Exhibits
Available to Public," Greeneville Sun, November 1,
1996.

County Partnership was formed to link the chamber
of commerce, the offices of economic development
and tourism, and the “Keep Greene Clean”
campaign into one organization. Its mission “is to
promote, preserve and enhance the quality of life
and economic well being of all Greene
Countians.”>°°

This mission fit easily with park goals, and the
parties have sought to cooperate in promoting
heritage tourism and the development of improved
interpretive services throughout the community. A
major vehicle for such cooperation has been Main
Street: Greeneville, part of the National Trust for
Historic Preservation program to support the
revitalization of small-town America that was begun
in 1983. This group sponsored observance of
National Historic Preservation Week and promoted
the town’s local historic district, which expanded in
1998. Such good relations have furthered efforts to
develop the park’s own interpretive presentations,
such as with the exhibit plan, but the park also used
the agreement to promote the development of a
guided tour program for Greeneville’s historic area.
A management analysis in the late nineties suggested
a partnership to try and expand the reach of
interpretive efforts at Andrew Johnson. As a result,
the park worked with the city’s tourism department
to create a self-guided brochure for use in walking
around the downtown. In 2002, a five-year
cooperative agreement was signed with Main Street:
Greeneville. The park agreed to provide financial
support to help the town initiate guided tours of
Greeneville’s historic district. The eventual goal was
for the program to become self-sustaining. The
Project illustrates how mutual support and
cooperation can further both NPS and local
interests.

Another strong partnership developed by the
national historic site and a local group has been the
park’s association with the President Andrew
Johnson Museum and Library, which opened in
1993. The museum has participated in the park by
sharing museum and archival resources and by
collaboration on publications, exhibit design, and
student/staff development. As this report was being
prepared, park and museum staffs were also
collaborating to develop a symposium on

556. See www.GreeneCountyPartnership.com (accessed
March 20, 2007).

118 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


January 7, 1993

April 1993

December 1993,

1993- 1996

May 1994

February 1995

December 1, 1995

1996

August 29, 1996

1997

April 25, 1997

May 23, 1998

June 1998

August 28, 1998

1999

May 2000

2001

February 2001
June 2001-March 2002

Huge A. Lawing, retired NPS historian, publishes a letter in the Greeneville Sun objecting to the park’s
decision to begin guided tours at the Homestead,

‘The Andrew Johnson Museum at Tusculum College temporarily loans a rare exhibit for display at the
Homestead—a porcelain tea-set/music box designed as a miniature locomotive once owned by Andrew
Johnson.

In its 1993 “Statement for Management,” Andrew Johnson staff set forth the goal of updating the park's
Mission 66-era museum exhibits.

The Cemetery Lodge within the National Cemetery is renovated. Once construction is underway, park
staff decide to designate the building as park headquarters. This decision creates mote space for storage
and interpretation and inspires efforts to develop a new interpretive plan, new exhibits, and the park’s
first orientation film.

Southeast Region staff complete a survey of all park historic structures constructed prior to 1950 to
revise National Register documentation and the List of Classified Structures (LCS) database.

A three-day meeting is held to bring together Andrew Johnson scholars, park interpretive experts, and
local stakeholders to develop a new Long Range Interpretive Plan for the historic site.

An amendment to the National Register is approved. It supplies new data on contributing resources
focused upon War Department development of the National Cemetery. The amendment expands the
district’s period of significance to include the cemetery (1875-1942) as a contributing resource.

The Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance debates consolidating the
nation’s veterans cemeteries into a single system and transferring those within the National Park Service,
including Andersonville and Andrew Johnson National Historic Sites.

Superintendent Mark Corey holds a press conference to announce that park supporters had raised
$71,250 in private donations to create an expanded and redesigned exhibition plan for the historic site.
NPS construction funds follow the plan’s approval in early 1997.

An external ramp is installed on the Cemetery Lodge to comply with the Americans with Disabilities
Act. This action conflicted with the Lawliss CLR, which had determined the property's exterior features
important for maintaining the landscape qualities of the Historic Zone.

The rehabilitated Cemetery Lodge is dedicated with a public reception and begins to function as park
headquarters.

New park exhibits are dedicated. Tennessee Senator Fred D, Thompson casts a symbolic ballot at a new
exhibit representing the famous Senate vote in the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson.

Superintendent Mark Corey informs local officials and media that under VA administration—and VA
slope rules—the number of burial sites available in the National Cemetery would be cut back because
most of those in the cemetery did not comply with its policy.

The Greeneville County Commission votes unanimously in support of keeping Andrew Johnson
National Cemetery within NPS jurisdiction.

The final report of the Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance does not
recommend the transfer of either Andrew Johnson or Andersonville National Cemeteries to VA
administration,

The first interpretive film ever developed and used at the historic site begins showing at the Visitor
Center.

Andrew Johnson Homestead, Historic Structure Report Amendment is published. It recommends a major
renovation to solve climate control issues, Park staff begin to regulate heat gain within the building by
adjusting the Homestead’s shutters and windows.

New restrooms open at the Visitor Center easing visitor congestion.

Hugh Lawing makes numerous queries to the Park Service and Congress about Andrew Johnson
National Cemetery. He argues that new cemetcry interment sections are not being laid out according to
the historic War Department plan or abide by VA slope guidelines. Corey explains to Senator Fred
Thompson that NPS national cemeteries are not subject to VA rules and that “Greene County veterans
were overwhelmingly in favor of adding these new interment sections to this cemetery” when the
decision to do so was made in 1992.

124 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


FIGURE 38. Superintendent Grady Webb and
Associate Regional Director Carrol W. Ogle at
Webb's retirement in late 1988.

For the National Park Service, the expansion of the
cemetery was a matter of national policy. On August
2, 1988, Deputy Director Denis Galvin appeared
before the Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands,
National Parks and Forests to testify about the
Quillen-Sasser-Gore legislation on behalf of the
agency. His point was clear: “We strongly oppose
enactment of , 1290,”320

The National Park Service has consistently resisted
efforts to expand National Cemeteries within national
parks. At Andrew Johnson National Cemetery, it also
refused to accept donated lands to create additional
grave plots. Why? According to Superintendent Gordon
J. Wilson: “The present boundaries of the cemetery are
the boundaries of the property Andrew Johnson owned.
Those identical boundaries give the area its historical
significance, It would not be appropriate to expand the
cemetery to accommodate additional contemporary
gravesites unrelated to President Johnson or the
purposes for which the land was left to the United
States by his daughter. Therefore the National Park
Service does not support the acceptance of this
land.""32!

319. Waxman, “Veterans’ Offer to Expand Historic
Cemetery Rebuffed.”

Statement of Denis Galvin, Deputy Director, National
Park Service, Department of the Interior, Before the
Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks and
Forests of the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources on S.1290, A Bill to Direct the
Secretary of the Interior to Acquire Lands to be Added
to the Andrew Johnson National Historic Site for
Inclusion within the National Cemetery Located at
that Site," August 2, 1988, statement located in
“Cemetery/C.L. Plan-1992 & Interment Plan” folder,
AJNHS archives.

320.

Galvin went on to say that “we respect the spirit that
motivated these organizations,” but the proposal
violated NPS policy and NPS responsibility to
protect historic resources. Galvin related how
Martha Johnson had willed the cemetery property
which had formerly been owned by her father,
President Andrew Johnson, to the United States in
1906 and how the site was declared a national
monument in 1942 by presidential proclamation to
commemorate the president by preserving the site
where he lived and is buried, and then how
Congress designated the same cemetery a national
historic site in 1963. The cemetery was an integral
feature of the park. “It is, therefore, not
appropriate,” Galvin asserted, “to expand the area
to accommodate additional contemporary
gravesites unrelated to President Johnson or the
purposes for which the land was left to the United
States by his daughter.” Galvin explained that the
Service would, of course, honor existing
reservations for the remaining six or seven years left
before the cemetery had to be closed, but there was
a VA cemetery located just a few miles away in
Johnson City, Tennessee. “Units of the National
Park System must not be utilized for this purpose
simply due to convenience,” Galvin concluded. “To
do so here would be to alter the purpose of this
significant historic resource.”*

The VFW, the Marine Corps League, and the
American Legion’s Post 64, which by now had also
joined the fray, having encountered strong
resistance, appropriately changed tactics. The
veterans’ groups launched a petition campaign
urging senators and congressmen to provide more
burial space within the cemetery. In October 1990,
Larry J. Hensley, Commander of the Veterans of
Foreign Wars, Andrew Johnson Post 1990 informed
Superintendent Wilson that “we are facing a serious
problem here at Andrew Johnson National
Cemetery.” But now the topic was not adding

321. Gordon J. Wilson, Letter to Ms. Mildred Buckles,
August 15, 1991, in “ANJO General” folder, park files,
CRD, SERO.

Statement of Denis Galvin, Deputy Director, National
Park Service, Department of the Interior, Before the
Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks and
Forests of the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources on S. 1290, A Bill to Direct the
Secretary of the interior to Acquire Lands to be Added
to the Andrew Johnson National Historic Site for
Inclusion within the National Cemetery Located at
that Site," August 2, 1988, in “Cemetery/C.L. Plan-
1992 & Interment Plan” folder, AJNHS archives.

322.

64 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


=

we 3 a el

FIGURE 13, In 2005 Director Fran Mainella (I)

presented Elaine R. Clark (r) a special award for
er long service at Andrew Johnson historic site.

Rep. William L. Jenkins and Superintendent Mark

Corey are also shown. (ANJO Coll.)

Johnson. Superintendent Abelson, Director Ronald
H. Walker, and Tennessee Rep. James Quillen,
among others, were all present when Bartlett
received her award. Unfortunately, by the day of the
ceremony, Bartlett had already retired due to
mandatory age limits. After September 30, 1973,
however, she continued to interpret at the
Homestead part-time. She retired fully on October
9, 1976, after 34 years, 3 months, 17 days of service.
Bartlett’s full retirement from the park ended an era.
As the last direct descendent of President Andrew
Johnson, she was highly influential in prompting
action to preserve Johnson’s physical legacy and
commemorating his historical one. As the
Greeneville Sun observed upon her retirement, “it
was Mrs. Bartlett herself whose conviction and
determination eventually led to the establishment of
the Andrew Johnson National Monument.”
Thereafter, the paper continued, “it has been
unusual not to find her slightly battered black car
parked beside the Johnson home on Main Street,
and not to find her inside guiding visitors from far
and near through the home where she herself lived
so many years.” In fact, the paper held that Bartlett’s
presence in the parlor of the Homestead, retelling
family stories about the “tailor-President,” almost
made it seem as if Johnson were there in person.°

In one of her last acts prior to retirement, “Mrs.
Bartlett used her influence” to get the Greeneville

90. Editorial, “Margaret Patterson Bartlett: A, Johnson
Would be Proud,” Greeneville Sun, October 12, 1976.

22 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History

Light and Power Company to place a light to
illuminate the Homestead parking lot while
removing one which impeded use of the
Homestead’s front door, which opened directly to
the street. Certainly, Bartlett’s day-to-day presence
at the park was missed. After her resignation, the
park had to downgrade her GS-7 Museum
Technician position for budgetary reasons.?! That
position was filled by Ronald B. Pyron, who started
on June 7, 1977, as a GS-5 Museum Technician. Of
course, Bartlett remained in touch with park affairs
after her retirement, especially through her cousin
Ralph Phinney, who often represented her at
various ceremonies, especially Memorial Day
observances and the laying of presidential wreaths
on Andrew Johnson’s birthday.

One important ceremony that Bartlett participated
in after her retirement was the unveiling of a bronze
plaque at the park to honor her own parents,
Andrew Johnson and Mattie Patterson, for their
contributions to establishing the historic site.
Deputy Regional Director Neal G. Guse, Jr., and
Mrs. Paul Metcalfe of the DAR spoke briefly in
dedicating the plaque, which was placed on the wall
of the porch of the Homestead. Bartlett’s mother
had served as Regent of the Nolichuckey Chapter,
DAR in its infancy. After returning to Tennessee
after serving as U.S. Ambassador to British Guyana,
Andrew Johnson Patterson and his wife prodded
the state to take responsibility for the Tailor Shop,
which it did in 1923, By then the Federal
government had already accepted the Johnson
family burial grounds as the nucleus for a national
cemetery. With these accomplishments, the
cornerstone of the future national monument was
laid. When Mattie Patterson and her daughter later
offered to transfer the Andrew Johnson Homestead
to the National Park Service, it enabled the creation
of Andrew Johnson National Monument. Mrs.
Patterson served as a historical aid to the park after
it was created in 1942 and until her death in March
1948. Margaret Bartlett followed in her mother’s

91. SANR for 1976, December 1, 1976.

92. SANR for 1977, January 5, 1978. Pyron held a degree
in Park and Recreation Administration from the
University of Tennessee, had served as a seasonal
fanger at Little Bighorn Battlefield National
Monument and Crater Lake National Park, and was a
former Marine Corps helicopter pilot. See “Ron Pyron
Joins Staff at Andrew Johnson Site,” Greeneville Sun,
June 20, 1977; and “Miss Cuttshall, Mr. Pyron to
Wed,” unidentified newspaper clipping, June 22,
1977, in AJNHS archives.


to the Homestead was to be increased from one to
two dollars, effective January 1, 1993. The Park
Service and its superintendents were off the hook
for this decision because Congress had directed the
increase at all NPS units that charged an entrance
fee.

The second change was also not entirely a local
decision but the result of a directive from the
Regional Office as the result of an evaluation of park
operations. In September 1992, Corey was notified
of the results of that evaluation, which included the
following recommendation:

If management's objectives for visitor services
at ANJO continue to include viewing historic
furnishings in rooms of the Johnson
Homestead, the park should undertake a trial
effort at scheduling guided tours of the
Homestead house, collecting fees only at the
V.C. and freeing up staff that otherwise is tied
to the reception area at the Homestead
house.494

In December, Superintendent Corey announced
that the park was planning to shift from self-guided
tours of the Homestead to scheduled tours led by a
trained interpretive ranger. The change was to be
effective on January 6.4°> This seemingly innocuous
change proved abrupt for some staff at the time and
led to a few local complaints, although eventually
most visitors praised the arrangement or the tours
they received. Most importantly, however, the
decision led to a clash of views between
Superintendent Mark Corey and a locally
prominent former Andrew Johnson employee that
would have long-term repercussions.

Years later, Corey professed unease that this change
might “be sensitive with the local community.”
Indeed, he stated, “I wasn’t real enthusiastic about
taking on that challenge after having just moved
{t]here.” He also anticipated resistance from park
employees. Unfortunately, according to Corey, the
actual decision was not his. Instead, James Coleman,
the new Southeast Regional Director, and Robert

454. Regional Director, Southeast Region, Memorandum
{entitled “Operations Evaluation”) to Superintendent,
AJNHS, September 24, 1992, and “Operations
Evaluation, Andrew Johnson National Historic Site,
July 20-22, 1992,” "ANJO General” folder, park files,
CRD, SERO.

455. John M. Jones, Ir, “Al Home Fee, Tour Method to
Change," Greeneville Sun, December 11, 1992, 1, 7.

Deskins, Associate Regional Director for
Operations, made the recommendation to go to
scheduled tours at the Homestead after performing
an Operations Evaluation of park management
during the summer of 1992. In discussing their
findings, again according to Corey, Coleman
basically stated that “Mark, I want you to do this.”
Corey felt he had no choice in the matter but to
salute, as it were, and march with his orders.4>° In
fact, Corey’s predecessor, Gordon Wilson, had also
reported to regional officials in 1991 that one of the
park’s then major issues was “upgrading interpretive
staffing to commit more time to museum collections
and cultural resource management.”497 Whether it
was Corey, Coleman, or Deskins who first proposed
guided tours cannot be determined, but improving
the efficiency of park operations was clearly on the
NPS management agenda for Andrew Johnson
when this decision was made.

Corey certainly defended the new program.
“Visiting the president’s home should be
interactive,” he told Greeneville Sun editor John M.
Jones, Jr. “The public,” he added, “should have the
opportunity to listen to a formal presentation and
then ask questions of a ranger in order to gain more
interesting information than one can get by merely
reading a plaque.” Beyond its educational merit,
Corey also thought the planned change necessary
for preservation and security of the Homestead.
Corey did not mention it at the time, but thefts had
occurred, Mrs. Johnson’s reading glasses, for
example. Corey explained that a forthcoming two or
three percent cut in funds and two staff vacancies
made it necessary to eliminate the “dead time,” as he
put it, when staff were on hand at the Homestead
but no visitors were present. The use of scheduled
tours made it possible for park employees to be
better managed froma productivity point of view.’
Finally, Corey offered that unless something was

58

456. Corey, Oral History Interview with Cameron Binkley,
23.

457. Superintendent, Andrew Johnson NHS, Memorandum
{entitled CRM Overview Comments) to Deputy
Associate Regional Director, Cultural Resources,
Southeast Region, February 19, 1991, in AJNHS files,
“General Correspondence 5/2/73-10/20/93” folder (1),
Division of Architecture, SERO.

458. John M. Jones, Jr., “AJ Home Fee, Tour Method to
Change,” Greeneville Sun, December 11, 1992, 1, 7.
Corey probably appreciated the proposal’s merit as a
former standards and methods engineer for the
Hoover Company. See Corey, Oral History Interview by
Cameron Binkley, 2-3.

National Park Service 93


Webb had grown up in the nearby town of Cosby,
Tennessee, and lived only a mile or so from the
entrance to Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
Despite the sad circumstances, he was happy to
return to the area where he and his wife Estelle
enjoyed hiking and fishing, Webb told a local
reporter two weeks after arriving that “I saw most of
the world in the Navy. I’ve seen every continent
except Antarctica, and viewed a lot of beautiful
places. But to me, East Tennessee and Western
North Carolina [sic] are among the most beautiful
places in the world.” He admitted, however, that
prior to taking the position at Andrew Johnson
National Historic Site, he knew little about
Greenville’s presidential history. When asked if it
was a handicap to come to a historical site without
any knowledge of its background, Webb replied that
it was debatable. He had known little about Fort
Pulaski either prior to becoming manager of that
park. “You pick up information like that very
quickly,” he said. Webb explained that every
historical site had a distinct flavor; and speaking

123. SANR for 1982, February 23, 1983; “Park Service
Appoints Webb,” Greeneville Sun, October 9, 1982

about management, Webb added “you have a little
different way of operating wherever you are.” He
noted that more staff was required to run the
Andrew Johnson site than the park’s size indicated,
because it was broken into three major components
spread out over a mile in distance. Webb inherited a
park staff of eleven personnel, although not all were
full-time. These included administrative assistant
Opal Coffman, historian Hugh Lawing, park
technicians Ron Pyron, Elaine Clark, Ed Spear, and
Everett Chandler. Sarah Wilhoit continued her
long-standing position as housekeeper for the
Andrew Johnson Homestead, while maintenance
employees included Tony Reaves, Douglas Jones,
and Bill Teilman.!?4

In early 1983, new Superintendent Grady Webb
notified the regional office that a past manager had
apparently replaced a willow near the historic
spring on the Homestead property with an aspen,
although the willow was one of the few landscape

124. Cameron Judd, “Back to the Hills: Grady Webb is Back
in the County He Loves,” Greeneville Sun, December
15, 1982.

Coline Suen (War Slee)

ode Comment tesa. ow cote
a” Meng A
Be exit eer ompene ee

BR Bre Poe

90 Oupwaat + Pe
MA Paper dbery ‘ wv
MB Mapa ' ww
fem 4 Ro
BM Rad ite ew bee 3 Bs
iver Mise thew mccain 2 a
Mera Spuce Reem t we
Wa Sine Saguaeig )

Wor Weeping Wir ai tnforice 3

Adee Nad tat.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Andro nnn Maen

FIGURE 19. Plan of the Homestead grounds, showing existing conditions in

August 1999.

National Park Service 29


Corey’s own motivation for seeking to resolve the
issue was his desire to relieve his chief ranger of
residency within the Cemetery Lodge and also to
make potential use of that facility for administrative
purposes. While past superintendents had
complained about not getting anywhere in solving
the problem, they also had less motivation to do so.
With a ranger on call nearby, the security concerns
were less pressing.

In conclusion, law enforcement issues at Andrew
Johnson National Historic Site have not been
serious,2® Besides minor parking infractions, there
has been some mischief or vandalism, especially at
the cemetery. For example, on July 6, 1987, the nine-
by-seventeen-foot nylon U.S. flag flown at the
National Cemetery was stolen. The flag’s rope was
cut using a rusty knife. The loss was valued at
approximately $120.00, said ranger Kent R. Cave,
who had arrived at the park in January 1984. Later,
the flag was recovered and two juveniles
questioned. The park had to call in the local fire
department, which used a ladder truck to install a
new rope the next day.266

265. However, fear of bio-terrorism led the park to acquire
a chemical response kit that included a face mask and
respirator for its law enforcement ranger. SANR, Fiscal
Year 2003.

In 1998, someone attempted to force entry on the
second-story at the Homestead. The intrusion
system operated as intended, however, and the
would-be burglar fled the scene before police and
park staff arrived.”6” Perhaps the most serious
incident occurred in September 2002 when a man
broke into the maintenance garage at Andrew
Johnson National Cemetery and got away with
property, mostly tools and three leaf blowers,
valued at over a thousand dollars. He was later
apprehended by the Greeneville Police Department
and sentenced in U.S. District Court in February
2004 to thirty months confinement. He had served
on a work detail at the cemetery as a trusty of the
Greene County Workhouse prior to the crime.268
The park had entered a “Volunteer Agreement”
with the Greene County Detention Center in 2002,
which had provided two trusties to help out with
weeding, mowing, and aligning headstones at the
National Cemetery.?®? The thief was one of the first
two participants, which did not augur well for the
future use of the agreement to secure maintenance
labor.

266. SANR for 1987, February 18, 1988; “Flag Stolen at A
Cemetery," Greeneville Daily Sun, July 7, 1987.

267. SANR for Fiscal Year 1998.

268. SANR,

269, SANR,

84 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


138 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


The effort was assisted by Wendy Chason of the
Southeast Regional Office, Bartlett’s cousin Ralph
Phinney, her attorney John Cartwright, and park
staff. At the same time, a coat supposedly made by
Andrew Johnson was also donated to the park by
George Wright.1

During the 1980s, Margaret Bartlett’s health slowly
deteriorated and she moved into a nursing home in
1983. Afterwards, her nearest relative, Ralph
Phinney, often represented her for the annual laying
of the wreath upon the grave of Andrew Johnson.
Finally, in September 1991, Bartlett suffered a major
stroke. She recovered enough to leave the hospital
but her health further declined that summer and
she died on August 1, 1992. She was 88 years old.
Bartlett’s death was widely reported in eastern
Tennessee and preparations for her funeral
necessarily and extensively involved the Andrew
Johnson National Historic Site. At her own request,
services for Bartlett were scheduled to take place in
the Homestead, where she herself was born and
where in 1949 she was married to the late William
Thaw Bartlett, a Presbyterian Minister from
Maryville, Tennessee. Margaret Bartlett was buried
in the Johnson family plot on the summit of
Monument Hill in Andrew Johnson National
Cemetery. She was the last surviving direct
descendant of President Johnson and thus was also
the last to be buried within the historic family plot
in the shadow of the Andrew Johnson Memorial.
Her passing marked the end of an era for
Greeneville, which lost its living link to the town’s
most famous citizen. It was also a sad day for
Tennessee, and politicians from the governor on
down quickly offered public condolences. !°3

The passing of Margaret Bartlett represented a great
shift for the park. Bartlett and her mother are
credited with convincing political leaders to
establish the Andrew Johnson presidential site,
according to Superintendent Mark Corey, who had

102. Ibid.

103. John M. Jones, Jr, “Margaret Bartlett Dies at Age 88:
Was Closest Living Descendent of President Andrew
Johnson,” Greeneville Sun, August 3, 1992, Al, AS.
The Nolichuckey Chapter of the Daughters of the
American Revolution (DAR), which Margaret Bartlett
was a long-time member, discussed her life and work
in the February 1993 issue of Daughters of the
American Revolution Magazine. The article is
summarized in “DAR Magazine Honors Mrs. Bartlett:
She was Crucial in Establishment of AJ Historic Site,”
Greeneville Sun, February 25, 1993.

FIGURE 15, Margaret Bartlett with Hugh | Hugh Lawing

at Harpers Ferry Center in 1980. (ANJO Coll.)

the awkward task of commenting on Bartlett’s role
at the historic site, even though he had not known
her personally and had just come on staff. Hugh
Lawing, retired since 1984, had supervised Bartlett
for some twenty years and remembered her as
“very, very effective with the public,” especially
children. “I will remember her affectionately always
as ‘Mrs. B,”” he said, “and will treasure the good
relationship we enjoyed as co-workers, striving to
perpetuate the memory of her great-grandfather,
Andrew Johnson.”!04

Andrew Johnson National Historic Site closed at
noon on Monday, August 3 so staff could prepare
for the services. Margaret Bartlett’s body lay in state
at the Homestead from about 5:00 PM that evening
until her funeral began at 6:00 PM on Tuesday,
August 4, 1992. The Rev, Garland E. Long, Jr.,
pastor of Christ United Methodist Church,
officiated the ceremony. 105 All the events were
carried out as planned and the park reopened as

104, “Mrs. Bartlett Remembered: A Staunch Guardian of
the Johnson Legacy,” Greeneville Sun, August 3, 1992,
At, Aa.

105. Jones, “Margaret Bartlett Dies at Age 88," A1, AS.

National Park Service 25


developing a “Cemetery Landscape plan” to include
burial sites and a general plan for further interments.
Tt was needed because, as Abelson noted, the new
road “exceeded expectation in opening up access to
new burial sites.” The road’s benefits, however,
included a reduction in safety hazards (mainly the
need to access burial sites from the top of the hill),
less staff workload, and a tendency of separating
funeral and park visitors.282

In 1976, after major construction was completed,
Woodrow’s new interment plan was adopted.?83 It
designated 695 new grave sites in twelve sections of
the cemetery for a maximum cemetery capacity of
1,528, or 695 over the number of sites that were
already either filled or reserved (833). Five of the
sections were already nearly filled, however, and
excavations later proved tough due to prevailing
rocky conditions, which led to revisions in layout of
those sections. The plan was based upon the VA
guidelines (which were still at that point basically
Army guidelines), the most important of which
stated that a 20 percent standard had to be used in
determining the maximum slope allowed for
interments. Most of the small cemetery is on a steep
slope. According to Woodrow, this left about 3.5
acres available for interments in areas with less than
a 20 percent slope.284

By 1983, Allan Woodrow was back at the cemetery
“trying to straighten out some previous problems.”
He made several trips that year to survey the
cemetery, analyze its layout, and find additional
burial space.?8 New VA rules drove this work. To
alleviate safety hazards, the VA had determined that
burials should not take place on cemetery slopes
exceeding 15 percent. This new policy meant that
much less space would be available at Andrew
Johnson National Cemetery because so much was
ona steep slope, but also up-slope interment sites
required additional depth to level caskets for burial.
The risk of using up-slope areas was well known to
NPS staff. Woodrow found the soil conditions poor,
with shallow bedrock allowing side walls to cave in

282. SANR for 1975, February 16, 1976.

283. SANR for 1975, February 16, 1976.

284. “Report on the Preparation of the Andrew Johnson
National Cemetery Plans,” a Report to accompany
Interment Plan/Cemetery Landscape Plan, Southeast
Regional Office, February 1984, 1, 4 in “ANJO
General” folder, park files, CRD, SERO.

. SANR for 1983, February 13, 1984. In 1983, the park
also received $10,000 “thanks to the Jobs Bill” to
realign and reset all the headstones in the cemetery.

28!

7
eee
3 MLA
FIGURE 31. Section of a 1975 NPS map showing
the new road that provided access to the lower
cemetery. The road required a breach in the
historic wall along Vann Road

easily. Long-time maintenance work leader Tony
Reaves gave an example of this in a 2002
interview.2® The results can be both dangerous and
grisly. For these reasons, therefore, a new plan was
devised in 1984 that eliminated one section (Z).
However, others were retained (T, U, and F) that
had slopes falling between 15 and 20 percent. To
compensate for safety on steeply sloped interment
sites, the size of the site was increased from 5 by 10
to 7 by 14 feet. The overall result was a decrease in
the number of possible burial sites, although 478
were still available. The approved plan in 1984
proposed to fill just 1,311 sites. According to
Woodrow, it was “a revision in the layout and
number of burial sites because of operational
[safety] and excavation limitations” and, because it
actually proposed to reduce the scope of
interments, it was determined that further Section
106 processing was unnecessary.”

The 1984 Interment Plan was intended to serve as a
record for burial until the cemetery was closed.288
The National Park Service, under long-standing
policy, does not seek the perpetual administration of
active cemeteries and only undertakes their

286. See Tony Reaves, Oral Interview by Connie Aiken
(Appalachian State University, Boone, NC, 2002).

287. “Report on the Preparation of the Andrew Johnson
National Cemetery Plans,” a Report to accompany
Interment Plan/Cemetery Landscape Plan, Southeast
Regional Office, February 1984, 1, 4-5, in “ANJO
General” folder, park files, CRD, SERO. For similar
reasons, the 1984 interment plan was categorically
excluded from “NEPA” review. According to a note by
Woodrow four years later, indeed, no Section 106 or
NEPA review did take place. See Alan D. Woodrow,
Routing and Transmittal Slip to Kathy Foppes and
Steve Price, May 20, 1988, in “ANJO General” folder,
park files, CRD, SERO.

National Park Service $7


FIGURE 49, Park Guide Daniel Luther presenting
a tour of the Andrew Johnson Homestead in
July 2007.

done, the park might eventually consider closing
one or two days per week, as had been done at other
parks with similar budgetary shortfalls.499

Corey’s arguments for making changes in the
interpretive approach at the park were logical, but
interpretation of the Homestead especially
concerned local historian and retired NPS
employee Hugh A. Lawing.4 Lawing was the
park’s long-time authority on Andrew Johnson. It
was he who originally drafted the interpretive
plaques posted at the Homestead and who oversaw
interpretation at the site for many years. Lawing may
have had other concerns about changes to the
historic site made since his retirement, but the
article announcing the forthcoming guided tours
drew his attention—and his ire.

In the January 7, 1993, issue of the Greeneville Sun,
Lawing offered a defense of the former interpretive
regime that he largely designed as well as a critique
of Corey’s planned interpretive changes at Andrew
Johnson National Historic Site. Lawing plainly
stated that “in my opinion the Homestead did not
and does not lend itself to effective guided tour
treatment.” Lawing felt that guided tours did not
work well at the Homestead because barriers at the

459. John M. Jones, Jr, “AJ Home Fee, Tour Method to
Change,” Greeneville Sun, December 11, 1992, 1, 7.

460. Several letters by Hugh Lawing to Mark Corey attest
to this fact. See folder marked “Hugh Lawing File,”
located in the superintendent's office, AJNHS.

doors to the home’s rooms prevented more than
three or four persons at a time from seeing the items
actually being discussed. He also thought that only
the visitor was qualified to set the pace in touring the
Homestead, with some wanting more and some less
time than allotted by a guided tour. He also objected
to Corey’s desire to reduce the “dead time” of staff
at the Homestead forced to remain there on duty
although no visitors were present. According to
Lawing, “there were things they could do just as well
at the Homestead as at the Visitor Center during
slack periods of visitation.” He listed several
examples and stated that “a great deal of museum
record activity ... was done by the interpreter on
duty at the Homestead,” a program Lawing
managed. “Therefore,” he claimed, “’dead time’ was
not a problem for me.” “I am of the opinion,”
Lawing concluded, “that the people of Greeneville,
Greene County, and their visitors will suffer from
the Homestead not being opened as usual.”461

At the end of 1993, Superintendent Corey received
approval for the park’s new interpretive program
and the use of guided tours at the Homestead. The
Service believed that tours brought important
benefits, including increased visitor education and
interaction with park staff, better security, and
improved ranger productivity, while visitor
comments appeared mostly positive. Still, the
Service acknowledged that “some employee and
visitor resistance to this change has existed and the
program does have some disadvantages as
compared to the self-guided method.” The
disadvantages included some visitors missing the
tours for lack of time to wait for the next one while
others simply preferred going at their own pace. The
Service acknowledged, therefore, the need to
continue to assess the program and to evaluate how
to make it more effective,4°

The old program trusted visitors and encouraged
the building of intimate ties to the local community,
but it left artifacts at risk and denied managers full
control of the use of staff time. It was one way of
doing things. The new program was another. The
main argument for the new program was the better
security for the historic site. But probably more

461. Hugh A. Lawing, “Former Park Historian of AJ Site
Gives Thoughts on Proposed Tours,” Greeneville Sun,
January 7, 1993.

462. Andrew Johnson National Historic Site, “Statement
for ManagementBasic Operations Statement,”
approved December 10, 1993, 9, in AJNHS archives.

94 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


Andrew Johnson National Cemetery to allow a
veterans group to donate land. Senator Jim Sasser
supported a Senate version of the bill (S. 1290) and
stated that “the acquisition of this land is necessary
because there are less than 250 gravesites in the
cemetery.”>“ The Service expressed high regard for
the veterans, but their proposal violated NPS
responsibility to protect historic resources. “It is,
therefore, not appropriate,” Denis Galvin asserted,
“to expand the area to accommodate additional
contemporary gravesites unrelated to President
Johnson or the purposes for which the land was left
to the United States by his daughter.”°47

To determine how to expand burials within the
National Cemetery in the most historically
appropriate manner, a Cultural Landscape Report
or CLR was prepared. The CLR divided the
cemetery into a “Historic Zone” (including the main
entrance road, the summit of Monument Hill, the
original interment sections, the Cemetery Lodge
building, and the stable/maintenance area), a
“Buffer Zone,” and a “Developmental Zone.” The
Historic Zone would preserve the historic features
associated with the Johnson family and the War
Department's design of the National Cemetery. In
the Developmental Zone, more gravesites would be
allowed.>48 On the basis of this report,
Superintendent Mark Corey announced in October
1992 that between 500-600 additional gravesites
could be found in the cemetery. This news was
widely approved in Greeneville by veterans’ groups
and the local media. Corey later bumped the
gravesites up to 900 or so with additional planning.

While the National Cemetery CRL had not
specified how new grave sites should be laid out,
these were being placed in the CLR-sanctioned
development zone. The reality is that the

546. Ron Schaming, “Land Donated: National Cemetery
Expansion Planned,” Greeneville Sun, June 23, 1987.
Senator Sasser’s comments were also recorded in the
Congressional Record, May 28, 1987.

547, Statement of Denis Galvin, Deputy Director, National
Park Service, Department of the Interior, Before the
Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks and
Forests of the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources on S. 1290, A Bill to Direct the
Secretary of the Interior to Acquire Lands to be Added
to the Andrew Johnson National Historic Site for
Inclusion within the National Cemetery Located at

" August 2, 1988, in “Cemetery/C.L. Plan-
1992 & Interment Plan” folder, AJNHS archives.

548. See Lawliss, Andrew Johnson National Cemetery.

FIGURE 60. The entrance to Andrew Johnson National

Cemetery showing the Cemetery Lodge, which
became park headquarters in 1997 after extensive
renovations and the installation of a modern
handicap access ramp.

development zone remains an active cemetery
whose historic character cannot always be
protected, which is the reason NPS policy seeks to
avoid prolonged management of active cemeteries.

Cemetery Lodge. Between 1993 and 1996, the
Cemetery Lodge building within the National
Cemetery was renovated. The National Cemetery
CLR noted that the Lodge “was built as a residence
for the Superintendent of the Cemetery and it is,
therefore, appropriate that Park Service personnel
continue to live in the lodge.” However, the CLR
also assigned the structure to the cemetery’s historic
zone and deemed the building’s exterior an
important feature of the cemetery’s historical
landscape, requiring preservation.>*° As the
renovation was being planned, the park decided to
relocate park administrative offices to the Lodge,
which necessitated extensive alterations to the
interior of the house.

549. Lawliss, Andrew Johnson National Cemetery, 23.

116 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


more exhaustive review and even precipitated
congressional inquiries. Lawing’s criticism
ultimately swayed public opinion against the
proposed plan.

Lawing began by stating to his readers that “if 1
recall correctly the authorizing legislation of 1935,
and the Presidential Proclamation of 1942
establishing the Andrew Johnson National
Monument of 1942, the property proposed for
purchase was to be used to honor Andrew Johnson
and not his family that followed him as owners.”
Lawing reminded readers that the historic period of
the Homestead was 1851-1875 and that the house
itself was restored to its 1869-1875 appearance, the
period Johnson lived there after serving as
President. “Yet, if I read the landscape plan
correctly,” he continued, “it would attempt to
extend the historic period to include Martha J.
Patterson’s Victorian alteration of the grounds in
1885---10 years beyond the historic period.”13

The main problem, according to Lawing, was the
report failed to account for the “remodeling of the
house and grounds” by Martha J. Patterson in 1886.
Lawing was referring to a comment by Laura
Holloway made in an 1886 book.!*4 Lawing found
it “obvious” that the account and drawing produced
by Willingham, who was born after this remodeling,
and another by Mrs. Andrew Johnson Patterson,
who did not live at the Homestead until 1898, could
not give an accurate account of what the property
looked like in 1875.9> He accused the Park Service
of planning to create “a Patterson landscape—not a
Johnson landscape.” Lawing especially noted that
Patterson had dramatically altered the Homestead,
a fact documented by the architects who oversaw
the building’s restoration in the late 1950s. “Would
she have provided a Victorian landscaping for her
Victorian house?,” asked Lawing. After making a
few more remarks about how best to spend
taxpayers’ money, Lawing concluded that “we need
to accept the fact that some things can never be
proved. The way the Johnson Homestead grounds

153. Hugh A. Lawing, Letter to the Editor (entitled
“Retired Johnson Site Historian Opposes Landscaping
Changes"), Greeneville Sun, February 15, 2002, A2.

154. Laura C. Holloway, The Ladies of the White House,
Vol. I. (New York, 1886), 13.

155. It is stated by Lawing that Mrs. Andrew Johnson
Patterson did not live at the Homestead until 1898,
but whether she ever saw its grounds prior to 1886 is
apparently unknown.

looked between 1851 and 1875 seems to fall in this
category, so let’s accept the few accounts that we
have and go from there,” which is exactly what the
CLR recommended with its interpretive treatment
recommendations, although Lawing did not
understand that.!°° Lawing followed up his opinion
piece with a thorough evaluation of the report. In
his analysis, given great weight by park staff, he
compared the accounts by Frank Leslie and the few
others that were contemporary to Andrew Johnson
with those made by Willingham and Patterson
dating to the 1890s. He noted several discrepancies.
The draft Homestead CLR had discredited the
park’s 1958 planting plan by stating that it “gives
only a cursory interpretation of such a landscape
given what was known of the site at the time.”

In addition, Lawing misunderstood the National
Register nomination’s period of significance, which
began at Johnson’s death and extended to the 1942
establishment of the park.!57 He thought that the
dates were being used “to try to justify including the
post-Johnson writings/drawings of Martha
Landstreet and Mrs. A. J. Patterson as justification
for the post-Johnson garden treatment.”!°* In fact,
quite the opposite was true; the CLR recommended
that the period of significance be extended to
include Johnson’s time at the Tailor Shop and Early
Home (1828-1851) and at the Homestead (1851-
1875). In regard to the treatment recommendations,
which acknowledged how little was known about
the Homestead grounds circa 1875, Lawing further
offered that “it would seem that someone is
determined to a make a change and struck a plan to
so dol” 15° Lawing’s sixteen-page reaction to the
CLR was basically to state “we knew as much about
the 1875 condition in 1958 as is known now, which

156. Hugh A. Lawing, Letter to the Editor, “Retired
Johnson Site Historian Opposes Landscaping
Changes”, Greeneville Sun, February 15, 2002, A2.

157. Because the house and grounds had been so radically
altered after his death, the Homestead had little
integrity relative to Johnsons lifetime.

158. Hugh A. Lawing, “Analysis of the Draft Andrew
Johnson Homestead Cultural Landscape,” February
25, 2002, 9, in folder marked “Hugh Lawing File,”
located in the superintendent's office, Andrew
Johnson National Historic Site. In the margin
Superintendent Mark Corey wrote: “This can be
confusing.” Indeed. The author was struck when
reading the draft CLR with how much clearer it might
have been if the methods of historical archeology had
been employed to buttress its analysis and treatment
recommendations.

159. Ibid.

National Park Service 35


inches above the plane of the porch floor, Former
NPS park historian Hugh Lawing gave his view
about the damage done by the ramp to the Cemetery
Lodge in a 2002 interview. He said:

There are only two of those houses still left
that the War Department built in their
National Cemeteries, in which the
Superintendent of the National Cemetery
lived and had his office, and functioned out
of there, Okay, this one now has been
destroyed by the handicapped ramp.785

In fact, a number of cemetery lodges remain in
existence, but Lawing was right that the Andrew
Johnson lodge was one of only two of its design that
still existed. Technically, the ramp had to be installed
because the building’s planned use had changed,
and because the building was undergoing a major
renovation at the same time, the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) required the structure’s
modification to make the building accessible to
those with disabilities. No longer intended as a
private residence, the structure had to comply with
ADA standards.2®6 But Lawing had a clear response
to this requirement. “An hydraulic lift on the
opposite side of the house would have served the
same purpose,” he stated in 2001. Anyway, “less
than a dozen handicapped persons have used the
ramp,” and he called upon the Park Service to
restore the site’s by removing the ramp.387

Ina letter to Hugh Lawing, Corey claimed he had
shared Lawing’s concerns, but “we approved the
design as the best alternative.” He said the
Tennessee State Historic Preservation Office and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in
Washington, DC, concurred with the proposed
design. Corey felt he had a responsibility to provide
wheelchair access without regard to the number of
those who needed it. He promised Lawing that the
park would never make the Andrew Johnson
Homestead wheelchair accessible but would meet

385. Lawing, Oral Interview by Connie Aiken, 22. Cemetery
lodges were a feature at nearly all national
cemeteries and many of them still survive. The
Andrew Johnson lodge is one of only two with its
design.

386. A variance from compliance with ADA requirements
might have been obtained, but the process is
cumbersome and rarely used.

387. Hugh A. Lawing, Letter to Mark Corey,
Superintendent, Andrew Johnson NHS, October 16,
2001, in folder marked “Hugh Lawing File,” located in
the superintendent's office, AJNHS.

FIGURE 41. Two of seven historic cast iron radiators
were permanently removed from the Cemetery
Lodge to increase interior space.

ADA requirements with “a professionally taped
guided tour.”388

The decision to transform the Cemetery Lodge into
park headquarters seems to have been made around
the end of 1994. As Corey recalled:

Initially, we were actually even thinking
about returning it to a residence, and then
shortly, through the process, as | remember,
we decided, no, it was going to be a whole
lot better if we could turn it into offices. |
think that suggestion was initially made by
Doug Goode, the administrative officer at
Great Smoky Mountains. And he was involved
in it because the contracting officer down
there, Lewis Grooms, was the one that was
overseeing this job from a contracting
perspective.789

The issue for Corey, and the debate in his mind, was
that he knew his Chief Ranger, Jim Small, and his
family wanted to be relieved from required
occupancy of the Cemetery Lodge. The Smalls
wanted to purchase their own home in the
Greeneville area, which they could not do while
renting government housing. According to Corey,
his “original assessment was, I’m wondering what
the motivation is here. Does he want to be relieved
from required occupancy, or is it really a safety
concern?” The Park Service had found lead paint, a
serious safety issue for any family with small
children, and there seems to have been no debate

388. Mark Corey, Superintendent, Letter to Hugh Lawing,
October 26, 2001, in folder marked “Hugh Lawing
File,” located in the superintendent's office, AINHS.

389. Corey, Oral History Interview, 30.

National Park Service 77


x Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


Andrew Johnson National Historic Site
Administrative History

Approved by: Aoug e (lize oo) Lath 9/5/83

Superintendgft) date

Andrew Johnson National Historic Site

Recommended by: Tis a aL 1e/os

Chief, Cultural Resources date
Southeast Regional Office
Recommended by: ’ plblnnt—o— ato VUrye
Associate Regibnat Director date
Resource Stewardship and scenes
Southeast Regional Office

Ooi de G-22-0%

Approved by:

Regional Director date

Southeast Regional Office


Lawliss, Lucy. Interview by Cameron Binkley (telephone).
February 7, 2007.

Newspapers

The Greeneville Sun of Greeneville, Tennessee, provided
important source material for this report and has well
covered events relating to Andrew Johnson National
Historic Site. Copies of most of the cited articles can
be found in the park archives.

A few cites articles are from: Johnson City Press, Knoxville
News-Sentinel, San Antonio Express News.

Tusculum College

Museum Studies and Social Sciences Information Flyers
published by Tusculum College. Greeneville:
Tusculum College, no date. In author’s possession,

According to Museum Program Director George Collins,
no useful park history files can be found at Tusculum
College.

Section II:
Archives and NPS
Office Files

Andrew Johnson National Historic
Site Archives

“Cemetery/C.L. Plan-1992 & Interment Plan” folder.
“Hugh Lawing File,” folder (Superintendent’s office).
“National Cemetery” folder.

“Newspaper Clippings (1971-2006).

“Press Release and Newspaper Clippings, 2000-” file.
“Superintendents Annual Narrative Reports (1972-2006).

“Superintendent, Log of Events (January 1971-December
1971).

interviews, Recorded and
Transcribed, Andrew Johnson
National Historic Site Archives

Clark, Elaine R. Oral Interview by Connie Aiken.
Appalachian State University, Boone, NC, 2002.

Corey, Mark. Oral History Interview by Cameron Binkley.
Atlanta: National Park Service, 2006.

Lawing, Hugh A. Oral Interview by Connie Aiken.
Appalachian State University, Boone, NC, 2002.

Reaves, Tony. Oral Interview by Connie Aiken.
Appalachian State University, Boone, NC, 2002.

Wilson, Gordon, Oral Interview by Connie. Aiken
Appalachian State University, Boone, NC, 2002.

NPS Southeast Regional Office Files

Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Files, Architecture
Division:
“General Correspondence 5/2/71-10/20/93” folder
qd)

“Rehabilitate Cemetery Lodge, Package 408, 6-1-93
to 1-30-96” folder (#2)

National Register Nomination files:
“ANJO Accepted Nominations” folder
“ANJO Draft Nominations” folder
“ANJO NR/DOE Correspondence” folder

NPS Digital Resources, Cultural Resources Division:
JAcultural landscapes\CLI\PARKS\ANJO (accessed
February 2007)

Project Management Information System (PMIS)
Database

“Section 106 files,” Cultural Resources Division:

“Andrew Johnson NHS, October 1992-September 1994”
folder

“Andrew Johnson NHS, Jan 1990-May 1991” folder
“Replacement of Fence at the Johnson Homestead” folder
“ANJO General” folder

Section Ill: Web
Sites

The following web sites provided useful information:

Andrew Johnson National Historic Site: http://
www.nps.gov/anjo (accessed April 2007)

Appalachian Regional Commission: http://www.arc.gov/
index.do?nodeld=1224 (accessed March 2007)

Greene County Partnership: www.GreeneCounty
Partnership.com (accessed March 2007).

Historic Listing of National Park Service Officials (updated
in May 1991): <http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/
online_books/tolson/histlist.htm> (accessed 2006-
2007)

State (online magazine): http://slate.msn.com (accessed
march 2007)

United States Senate: http://www.senate.gov/index.htm
{accessed March 2007)

140 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


formal NPS-approved planting plan for the site.
Although, as noted above, the problem with that
plan was its generic nature due to the lack of
historical documentation, Corey proposed to use it
as a base map for replanting trees “until a complete
historic landscape plan can be developed for this
site.”'57 Some historic trees needed to be replaced
in kind when they died, but others had in fact been
planted by previous NPS managers or post-Johnson
occupants and were thus not historic. The 1958
plan, though flawed, was at least better than
replacing trees in kind that had been planted
without regard to the historic landscape at all. Corey
had discovered, as had Webb before, that arbitrary
decisions had been made in the past. Regional staff,
including cultural resources staff, readily supported
Corey’s proposed amendment, which was approved
on January 22, 1993, 138

Some disagreement later arose over Corey’s
subsequent proposal to propagate replacements for
the Homestead’s long-lived but old and declining
willow trees by taking cuttings from the historic
willows and planting them in a row along the east
side of Richland Creek. Since a row of willows in
that location was neither a part of the original
historic landscape nor of the 1958 plan, Regional
Historical Landscape Architect Lucy Lawliss
rejected the proposal. Noting that willows tend to
sprout wide-ranging roots, making them difficult to
transplant, Lawliss suggested that the park contract
with a local nursery or college to propagate historic
cuttings from the existing trees known to have been
present on the property during Johnson’s time. This

136. Deputy Associate Regional Director, Cultural
Resources, Southeast Region, Memorandum (entitled
"Section 106 Clearance, Replace Missing Trees in
Kind") to Superintendent, Andrew Johnson National
Historic Site, October 28, 1992, in Section 106 files,
“Andrew Johnson NHS, October 1992-September
1994” folder, Division of Cultural Resources, SERO.
Superintendent, Andrew Johnson National Historic
Site, Memorandum (entitled XXX- ANJO-92-10
Amendment) to Deputy Associate Regional Director,
Cultural Resources, SER, January 7, 1993, in Section
106 files, “Andrew Johnson NHS, October 1992-
September 1994” folder, Cultural Resources Division,
SERO.

138. Deputy Associate Regional Director, Cultural
Resources, Southeast Region, Memorandum (entitled
“Section 106 Clearance, Replace Missing Trees in
Accordance with 1958 Planting Plan for Andrew
Johnson Homestead") to Superintendent, Andrew
Johnson National Historic Site, January 22, 1993, in
Section 106 files, “Andrew Johnson NHS, October
1992-September 1994" folder, Division of Cultural
Resources, SERO.

13)

S

strategy would ensure that appropriate stock
remained available to replace those that would
eventually die.'3?

This debate increased awareness that Andrew
Johnson National Historic Site still lacked a proper
plan for managing the Homestead’s grounds. Lack
of funding continued to delay development of a
cultural landscape plan for the site, but a step
toward developing a landscape plan was taken in
December 1997 when the regional cultural
resources staff completed a draft Cultural
Landscape Inventory (CLI) for the site. The CLI is a
database of information on the historically
significant landscapes within the National Park
System. It identifies and documents each
landscape’s location, size, physical development,
condition, landscape characteristics, character-
defining features, as well as other information useful
to park management. The CLI is typically a prelude
to the development of a cultural landscape report
(CLR) which provides a master plan for treatment
of the cultural landscape.

One significant finding of the CLI was that the
“potential adverse impacts to the historic landscape
are classified as moderate, primarily due to NPS
landscape decisions over the past 20 years.” To
avoid further damage by the NPS itself, Kirk
Cordell, chief of the region’s Cultural Resources
Stewardship Division, recommended a CLR for the
Homestead and scheduled funding for the project
for the 1998-1999 fiscal year. 40

Work on the CLR began in the spring of 1998.1" In
May 1998, a team of seven archeologists, supervised
by John Cornelison, from the NPS Southeast
Archeological Center (SEAC) spent a week
investigating the Homestead’s grounds. They
uncovered various artifacts and the footprints of
lost buildings, including the Johnsons’ smokehouse

139. “Briefing Paper for Regional Director,” undated [ca.
mid-1990s], in Park Files, “ANJO Genera!” Folder,
Cultural Resources Division, SERO.

140. Chief, Cultural Resources, Memorandum (entitled

“Cultural Landscape Inventory-Level”) to

Superintendent, ANJO, December 19, 1997, copy

found in Cultural Resource Division digital files

Q:\cultural landscapes\CLIPARKS\ANJO: accessed

February 2007), SERO.

“ANJO CLR Scope of Work,” copy found in Cultural

Resource Division digital files (J:\cultural

landscapes\CLNPARKS\ANJO: accessed February 2007),

SERO.

14

32 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


continuous administrative costs, and finally that a
Veterans’ Administration cemetery was located only
a few miles away in Johnson City, Tennessee. Webb
recommended to NPS planning chief Paul Swartz
that the Service oppose Quillen’s bill.3!

Southeast Regional Director Robert M. Baker
adopted Webb’s view almost verbatim in advising
NPS legislative and congressional affairs staff in
Washington upon Quillen’s proposed legislation
that same month. Baker explained how national
cemeteries administered by the Park Service
differed from those run by the Veterans’
Administration in that they were part of historically
significant areas. Quoting the Code of Federal
Regulations [36 CFR 12.5(d) (6)], Baker noted that
“expansion of a National Cemetery outside the
confines of its historic enclosure is prohibited.” He
also noted that the land being offered for use as
additional space for veterans’ interments would
require the Service to breach the historic wall
surrounding the cemetery. Moreover, “in a larger
context,” he stated, “any expansion of the
boundaries would set a precedent which would
threaten the historic character of other national
cemeteries within national parks, particularly those
at national military parks and battlefields.”3!4

Opposition to Quillen’s legislation, H.R.2503, as
well as to $.1290, a companion piece introduced in
the Senate by Senator James Sasser, continued to
rise within Federal circles since the legislation ran
counter to existing NPS policy and likely would set a
precedent. On December 29, 1987, Acting Director
Robert Stanton told both the Department’s
Legislative Counsel and the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks that “we
strongly recommend that the Department oppose
its enactment.”3!5

313. Superintendent, Andrew Johnson NHS, Memorandum
{regarding bill to expand cemetery) to Associate
Regional Director (attn: Paul Swartz), July 2, 1987, in
“Cemetery/C.L. Plan-1992 & Interment Plan” folder,
AINHS archives.

314, Robert M. Baker, Regional Director, Southeast Region,

Memorandum [regarding HR 2503] to Assistant

Director, Legislative and Congressional Affairs, WASO,

July 13, 1987, in “Cemetery/C.L. Plan-1992 & Interment

Plan” folder, AJNHS archives.

Robert Stanton, Acting Director, Memorandum

[regarding H.R.2503] to Legislative Council through

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and

Parks, December 29, 1987, in “Cemetery/C.L. Plan-

1992 & Interment Plan” folder, AJNHS archives.

3

v

The Elbert Kinser Detachment was not pleased
about the Service’s position. The group reportedly
spent eleven thousand dollars to purchase the
property proposed for donation in August 1986. S.E.
Jordan, a veteran of three wars who spoke for the
detachment stated, “We thought that the
government which takes with great aplomb our
money [taxes], would have no trouble taking a gift
that we want to give. We feel like a cow that’s full of
milk and nobody will milk us.” He added that “we
feel that the government has made a commitment to
ensure that we can be buried in national cemeteries,
and we’re not looking for anything for free.” Swartz
responded by noting that the Veterans’
Administration was the main agency responsible for
administering national cemeteries.>"°

Senator Sasser continued to pursue the effort. He
asked for support from Senator Dale Bumpers of
Arkansas, who headed one of the subcommittees in
charge of the stalled cemetery expansion bill.317
After giving a speech in Greeneville on June 6, 1988,
Sasser commented that “we will work vigorously to
see that the government is more amenable to
accepting this donation. I am a member of the
Marine Corp League and am an old Marine myself,
so I applaud their efforts.”318

A few days later, Southeast Region Planning Chief
Paul Swartz again stated that the Service opposed
the expansion of any National Cemetery that was
part of a historic site. The role of the Park Service
was to preserve historic sites. “Once they’re filled
up,” he stated, “an historic cemetery is closed. The
Park Service isn’t in the business of cemeteries.
We're in the business of history.” According to Paul
Mays, Rep. Quillen’s press secretary, the legislation
to expand the National Cemetery’s boundary had
been “bottled up in House and Senate
subcommittees since May 1987.” The reason,
clearly, was NPS resistance. “The Interior
Department has a policy against expansions,” he
continued. “They’re just hanging tough.” Indeed,
Superintendent Grady Webb also flatly stated that
“we oppose it. The park was not established for the
cemetery, It would put us in the cemetery business
longer than we anticipated.”3!9

316. Leanne Waxman, “Veterans’ Offer to Expand Historic
Cemetery Rebuffed,” Knoxville News-Sentinel, June
12, 1988.

317. ibid.

318. Jim Cox, “Sasser Favors Donation of Land to AJ
Cemetery,” Greeneville Sun, June 6, 1988.

National Park Service 63


By February 1993, with input from the now all-but-
approved CLR, Corey drafted a new Interment Plan
for the cemetery. He expected it to be quickly
approved. According to Corey, the new plan was to
“provide for enough burial sites to last for another
25 years (at the rate of 40/year) within the present
boundary of the cemetery.”359 Indeed, the approved
interment plan (as well as the final CLR) was
announced that June at a press conference held at
the offices of the Greeneville Sun, and attended by
several local veterans’ groups. It met their
immediate approval. According to Corey, he had
found even more gravesites still available within the
cemetery than he had previously announced.
Instead of 500-600, he now estimated that up to 980
sites remained within areas approved for
development by the CLR.

According to Corey’s press release: “I conducted a
comprehensive site by site review of all previously
approved and newly proposed interment sections
this past winter and then went through the cemetery
again with our Chief of Maintenance, Tony Reaves,
to make sure that we could safely bury in each
vacant site identified.” After doing so, Corey
thought the National Cemetery could remain active
for another thirty-six years before all spaces were
reserved 360 Jim Miller, representing Congressman
James H. Quillen, and Ralph Phinney, representing
descendents of Andrew Johnson, also voiced strong
support for the new plan. Bob Eggebrecht, past
Commandant of the Elbert Kinser Detachment,
even stated his feeling that Bob Austin, whose death
had ended efforts to expand the National Cemetery,
would also be pleased were he still alive. Several
other veterans’ representatives, the V.F.W., the
American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans,
and the Greene County Veteran Services office all
expressed similar approval.36!

Corey also stated that the Park Service would
restore buildings damaged or mismanaged since
taking over management of the property in 1942.

359. Superintendent, AJNHS, Memorandum to Rich
Sussman/Files (re. H.R.310), February 4, 1993, in folder
marked “Hugh Lawing File,” located in the
superintendent's office, AJNHS.

360. NPS News Release, National Cemetery Landscape and
Interment Plans Approved, June 3, 1993, in folder
marked “Hugh Lawing File,” located in the
superintendent's office, AJNHS.

361. Wendy Welch, “National Cemetery to Make Room for
900 Additional Gravesites,” Greeneville Sun, June 4,
1993, A1, A3.

“We didn’t do a good job when we first got it, and
we hope to correct that now,” he said. As an
example, Corey mentioned that the Vann Road
entrance was to be “made more consistent with the
ornate, main entrance from Monument Avenue.”
This CLR-recommended plan was carried out,
although in conjunction with other work that added
a service road and parking space in the new
Development Zone to ease access to cemetery
sections “Z” and “AA.” Finally, Corey mentioned
his interest in renovating the Cemetery Lodge. 362

Renovation of the
Cemetery Lodge

While debates over interments at Andrew Johnson
National Cemetery proceeded, routine
maintenance continued. For example, in March
1993, five preservation specialists from the
Southwest Regional Office, based in Santa Fe, New
Mexico, were encamped at the cemetery ona
temporary, four-week loan. They came to perform
specialized treatment and repair of the historic
cemetery wall whose surface was made of stucco.

Chief Ranger Jim Small said “there aren’t a lot of
people in this part of the country who know how to
deal with historic stucco.”563 Corey later singled out
the crew’s excellent work in praise to the regional
director.34

The following December, the NPS Southeast
Regional Office in Atlanta approved additional park
requests to repair and replace deteriorating
ironwork on the cemetery’s main entrance gate and
on the metal gazebo built by the War Department.
Both had to be sandblasted and repainted. More
significantly, funds were authorized to reconfigure
the Vann Road entrance and to construct a new
four-car parking lot just inside the entrance.>® This

362. Ibid. It is somewhat difficult to estimate accurately
how long a national cemetery can remain active as
graves can only be reserved after a veteran or the
spouse of a veteran dies and the survivor requests a
reservation. Presumably, non-reserved grave sites
would fill at a more rapid rate until only reserved sites
remained.

363. “Historic Wall around Monument Hill Undergoing
Restoration,” Greeneville Sun, March 25, 1993.

364. Superintendent, AJNHS, Memorandum to Regional
Director, April 20, 1993, in "ANJO General” folder,
park files, CRD, SERO.

72 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


National Park Service
U.S. Department of the Interior

Andrew Johnson National Historic Site
Greeneville, Tennessee

Ancdlraw Jonnson
Nationa

Administrative rlistory



The primary themes included in the long-range plan
were:

(1) The Presidency and the U.S. Constitution,
national reunification following the Civil War,
impeachment, the pardoning of ex-
Confederate soldiers, Black Codes and the
Freedman’s Bureau,

(2) Johnson as the Common Man, the
Champion of the Working Class; the
Homestead Act and Civil War demobilization,
Johnson's office succession and his role as
Governor of Tennessee.

(3) Family life, Johnson’s humble origins,
migration, women’s role, tuberculosis and
disease.

Secondary themes included (4) Education, (5)
Slavery, and (6) Industrial expansion and
international affairs. The plan distilled the overall
thrust of interpretation into a “Compelling Story”:

Andrew Johnson, whose life exemplifies
many struggles faced by Americans today,
worked his way from tailor to President. He
stood strong for his ideals and beliefs. His
presidency, from 1865 to 1869, illustrates the
U.S. Constitution at work following Lincoln’s
assassination and during attempts to reunify
a nation that had been torn by Civil War. His
work helped shape the future of the United
States and his influences continue today.47>

After working with the community and NPS
interpretive specialists, park staff decided that the
Early Home should be used to interpret Johnson’s
early life while the Visitor Center should develop the
story of his presidency. As it turned out, the Early
Home would also track the story, through panel
displays, of the antebellum period, the run-up to
civil war, and the events of the war, noting especially
Johnson’s role in it.476

After the Long Range Interpretive Plan was
available, park planners knew that visitors should
ideally visit the Early Home/Visitor Center complex
first and then the Homestead, where interpretation
would focus, more or less as it always had, upon
Johnson's family life. Finally, they would be routed

475. As developed by the Long Range Interpretive Plan:
Andrew Johnson National Historic Site (NPS, 1996).

476, Some interpretation of the historic preservation
methods used in renovating the Early Home are also
presented at this location.

to the National Cemetery, where a tranquil setting
with a splendid view of the Great Smoky Mountains
would help “elicit an emotional closure.”4”7

In addition to developing an appropriate
interpretive strategy for Andrew Johnson, the Long
Range Plan took note of the park’s facilities, or lack
thereof, as related to accomplishing its interpretive
mission. Yes, the museum exhibits were out of date,
but the main problem was a lack of space. The lack
of space at the Visitor Center was a significant
problem in implementing the strategy of the Long
Range Interpretive Plan, which especially noted
that:

the existing Visitor Center cannot
accommodate the needs of even the smallest
group. ... Rest rooms, located less than
fifteen feet from the information desk,
essentially accommodate only one visitor at a
time. They are woefully inadequate for school
groups, which make up a large percentage of
on-site visits. In addition, there is no suitable
area to gather visitors for site introductions
or impromptu interpretation.478

Jim Small did not want to reside in the Cemetery
Lodge. Corey needed more space in the Visitor
Center. The conclusion was obvious. Small, who
had moved out of the Lodge in 1993, was relieved of
his residency requirement and Corey drew plans to
move park administrative offices out of the Visitor
Center.

This task could be accomplished almost
immediately upon completion of the Lodge
renovation, as little additional funding would be
needed. Solving the rest room problem was also a
simple matter, given that just enough space probably
existed at the Visitor Center to accommodate a
separately constructed public rest room large
enough to meet park needs. The issue here, of
course, was funding. Rest room construction was
not going to be seen as a high priority by regional
officials as the previous building renovations,
especially because these considerable allotments
had been made in the past decade.

477. National Park Service, “Long Range Interpretive Plan:
Andrew Johnson National Historic Site,” approved
February 20, 1996, 6, in AJNHS archives.

478. National Park Service, "Long Range Interpretive
Plan," 15,

98 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


Appendix A: Chronology of
Andrew Johnson National Historic

Site

July 31, 1875

1898
May 24, 1900
June 12, 1906

1906-1908

November 13, 1908
1909
1921

1923

1930s
August 29, 1935

1938

July 3, 1940

February 15, 1941

November 26, 1941
March 6, 1942

May 23, 1942

Former US. President Andrew Johnson dies and is buried on Monument Hill near Greeneville,
Tennessee, on August 3, 1875.

Martha Johnson Patterson, the president’s oldest daughter, wills perpetual responsibility for
maintaining the Johnson family burial plot on “Monument Hill” to whomever owns the Andrew
Johnson Homestead.

Martha J. Patterson modifies her will to bind her heirs “to convey to the Government of the United
States. ..all interest and estate I now own in” Monument Hill if bill to create a park honoring her father
becomes law.

In recognition of Martha J. Patterson’s will, Congress orders that “upon presentation of good and
perfect title to said tract, the Secretary of War is authorized and directed to establish thercupon a
National Cemetery of the Fourth Class.”

Cemetery layout, superintendent's residence, enclosing wall, road and walkways, stable, and flagpole
are installed at Andrew Johnson National Cemetery.

Josiah B. Bewley becomes first War Department superintendent of Andrew Johnson National Cemetery.
Burials of veterans begin. Under the War Department 138 interments are made until 1942.

‘The State of Tennessee appropriates fifteen thousand dollars to purchase, improve, and preserve
‘Andrew Johnson’s “Tailor Shop.”

The “Memorial Building,” a structure built by the state to enclose and better preserve the Tailor Shop, is
dedicated by Miss Margaret Johnson Patterson, the president's great-granddaughter. Custody is
tendered to the Mothers’ Club (Andrew Johnson Woman's Club).

War Department erects a rostrum and converts stable for use as a public restroom and a utility shed.
Congress approves an act (49 Stat. 958) providing for the establishment by Presidential Proclamation of
the Andrew Johnson National Monument once title to the Andrew Johnson Homestead and Tailor Shop

are vested in the United States.

Sccretary of the Interior Harold Ickes rules that the National Park Service will not pay more than
$44,000 to purchase Andrew Johnson Homestead.

Mrs, Andrew J. Patterson and daughter Margaret agreed to receive Federal appointments as custodians
of the Andrew Johnson Homestead after selling their property to the U.S. Government for $44,000
Director Newton B. Drury approves the arrangement in July 1941.

Governor Prentice Cooper authorizes the transfer of the Tailor Shop to the United States for inclusion in
the proposed Andrew Johnson National Monument.

The deed to the Tailor Shop is transferred to the National Park Service.

Gcorge F. Emery becomes first superintendent of Andrew Johnson National Historic Site, entering on
duty a few weeks before its official establishment. He is joined in April by Assistant Historical aides Mrs.
Andrew J. and Margaret J. Patterson.

Andrew Johnson National Cemetery is transferred to Park Service from the War Department,

National Park Service 121


NATIONAL
PARK

Cultural Resources
Southeast Region
National Park Service
100 Alabama St. SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 562-3117

2007

Administrative History

Andrew Johnson National Historic Site
121 Monument Avenue

Greeneville, Tennessee 37743-5552

http://www.nps.gov/anjo

Cover photo: Workmen repairing the historic flag
pole at Andrew Johnson National Cemetery,
1976, from the collection of Andrew Johnson
National Historic Site.

This administrative history exists in two formats. A printed
version is available for study at the Andrew Johnson
National Historic Site, at the Southeast Regional Office of
the National Park Service, and at a variety of other
repositories around the United States. For more widespread
access, this administrative history also exists as a PDF
through the web site of the National Park Service. Please

visit www.nps.gov for more information.


The Exhibit Plan

During renovation of the Cemetery Lodge,
Superintendent Corey realized that he could make
additional space available at the Visitor Center and
the Early Home for interpretive purposes. He thus
considered how to implement the Long Range
Interpretive Plan. The key issue was funding, and
not just for constructing new exhibits. Funding was
also needed to develop an approved museum or
exhibit plan. This fact was problematic as no further
progress could be made in implementing the
interpretive plan until an exhibit plan existed.
Unfortunately, NPS funding for such work was
limited and had to be gained by competition with
other parks in the Southeast region. When
measured against the area’s wider priorities, it was
possible that many years could go by before Andrew
Johnson acquired the funding to contract for an
exhibit plan.

Nevertheless, Cindy Darr, an NPS specialist at
Harper’s Ferry Center, encouraged Corey to go
forward with a museum exhibit plan. If the park on
its own could acquire funding, it might open doors
for later construction funds. Harpers Ferry
estimated the cost of an exhibit plan to be from
$75,000 to $100,000. As Corey later recalled, “what
we did is we went out into the community and we
raised $75,000 in the community to come up with
the exhibit plan.” For a large well-known park,
raising such capital might not be such a burden, but
this amount was a big deal for a small town in a
“fiscally conservative area,” as Corey put it.
“Andrew Johnson was very fiscally conservative,”
he said, “and selling them that it would actually cost
about $75,000 just to come up with a plan—that’s
not an exhibit, that’s just a plan for the
exhibits—was challenging.”47?

The park contacted the Mary G. K. Fox Foundation,
alocal philanthropic society endowed by Mrs. Mary
Gertrude Fox. Founded in 1981 with an endowment
of some $1,786,342 in 1996, the foundation’s sole
purpose has been to work for causes in Greene
County, Tennessee. *®° It makes annual requests for
applications. On behalf of the park, Chief Ranger
Jim Small filed such an application about 1996. The

479. Corey, Oral History Interview by Cameron Binkley, 32.

480. As cited by the Appalachian Regional Commission at
httpvAwww.arc.gov/index.do?nodeld=1224 (accessed
March 3, 2007).

park asked for a $25,000 grant, which was more than
the foundation normally allotted to any single
applicant. But the foundation saw the merit in the
proposal and offered to supply a $25,000 “challenge
grant,” which meant that someone else had to match
this grant before it could be awarded. Corey had
Ralph Phinney in mind. Phinney was the executor
of the estate of Margaret Bartlett. Both had long
been supportive of efforts to highlight the role in
history of Andrew Johnson.*8!

Phinney did have some reservations about the
amount of money required for a mere plan.
Moreover, after the plan was created, how did
anyone know if the Park Service would then follow
through and construct the exhibits? Corey
discussed the matter with Phinney and his “trusted
advisors.” As he later recalled, all he could really do
was give them his word that he “would try [his]
absolute hardest to get that accomplished.” Corey
simply proposed to request NPS cyclic funds to
redo park exhibits. Cyclic funds are those made
available for routine maintenance, repair, and
rehabilitation of park facilities. Corey estimated the
amount needed to be around $200,000. One of
Phinney’s advisors asked if this money would have
to be approved by Congress. He explained that the
funds were part of an annual allotment, but that
parks had to compete for them. He assured them
that Andrew Johnson had been “very successful” in
competing for these project funds in the past. They
agreed, and Corey had $50,000 of the $75,000 or so
needed. #82

With two-thirds of the amount raised, a park
supporter, Helen Horner, stepped in. Horner was
the Director of Tourism for the Chamber of
Commerce, a volunteer position. Horner was the
wife of a well-respected physician in town. As Corey
recalled, she was dedicated to promoting
Greeneville and preserving the community’s
heritage. She agreed to take on the task and was able
to raise the additional funds needed to fund the
exhibit plan. Horner accomplished her mission by
interesting a variety of donors, mostly Greeneville
financial institutions. Greene County Bank and
Main Street: Greeneville each contributed $5,000.
When sufficient funds were collected, a special

481. Corey, Oral History Interview by Cameron Binkley, 32.

482. Ibid., 32; See also Eugenia Estes, “$71,250 Given to
Plan Johnson Site Expansion,” Greeneville Sun, August
30, 1996, A1, A7.

National Park Service 99


FIGURE 12, Between September 1, 2004 and August 3,
2005, workers installed modern climate control and fire
suppression systems in the Homestead to protect the
historic structure and its furnishings. As a prelude, shown
here, antiquated ceiling heat coils had to be removed.

The NPS preservation team concluded that “to
create a more stable environment for museum
holdings within the Homestead, a more aggressive
mechanical system must be installed.” There was an
important caveat—modern air conditioning was not
advisable. Instead, the team recommended a new
mechanical system that was to work in conjunction
with park staff operating the historic home as its
builder had intended by using shutters and airways
to control heat gain and improve air circulation.”
Excessive humidity was the primary threat to the
collection inside the house, and so the temperature
set point for heating would be based on desired
interior relative humidity level and not necessarily
on what might be comfortable for the building’s
occupants. Finally, the team recommended
installation of a fire suppression system as well, a
system that would require sensitive installation. As
Buono stated, insensitive installation “can quickly
destroy the historic character of a building like the
Homestead.” The entire project had to be
conducted by a firm with demonstrated skill in
working on historic preservation projects.’6

During the humid summer of 2001, park staff
attempted to combat the deleterious effects of
humidity upon the historic furnishings and artifacts
within the Andrew Johnson Homestead by
shuttering the structure’s windows from June
through September while leaving the windows
themselves open during business hours to allow air
movement.”” This use of the Homestead’s shutters

74, Ibid., 25
75. Ibid
76. Ibid., 1-3.

to control heat gain and improve air circulation
would have been familiar to Andrew Johnson. The
park submitted an initial funding request that year
for $397,700, but the cost rose as time went on. An
increase of over $85,000 was granted in 2003, and
the project was bid to contractors in 2004.78

Eventually, Hartrampf, Inc., of Atlanta, Georgia, was
chosen to do the design work while Keystone
Restoration, Inc., of Palm Beach, Florida, was
chosen as the general contractor. Their work was
overseen by architect Jim Creech in the regional
office and contracting officer Sonya Armstrong,”?

In 2002, Superintendent Corey explained to the
press that the rehabilitation was badly needed to
prevent “rapid fluctuations in humidity and
temperature” that was causing damage to historic
objects and furnishings within the building. He had
actually wanted to do it some ten years before but,
as discussed, installing a new HVAC system was
complicated by concerns that such a system might
cause significant damage to the building’s historic
“fabric.” Resolving those concerns had taken time,
money, and the new study. Corey promised that the
rehabilitation project would “ensure the continued
preservation of the Homestead for the next
generation of visitors.”®°

The Homestead was closed for renovations between
September 1, 2004, and August 3, 2005, by far the
longest period the structure had ever been closed to
the public while under NPS-care. There was a
significant negative impact on park visitation and
sales from the bookstore.

One interesting aspect of the Homestead’s
rehabilitation was the discovery of Civil War graffiti
during removal of wallpaper from the interior. This
graffiti was noted by Henry Judd in 1957 during the
original restoration of the building, and when the
same graffiti was again uncovered, staff took the
opportunity to photograph and map their findings.
For interpretive purposes, they also left an area with

77. Amy Overbay, “AJ Visitor Center Upgrades Facilities
and Services,” Greeneville Sun, March 16, 2001, B21.
For security reasons, the windows were monitored
during the day and closed at night.

78. “Rehabilitation of President Andrew Johnson
Homestead,” PMIS Project 68569.

79. SANR for Fiscal Year 2005.

80. Amy Overbay, “Johnson Homestead Upgrading to
Cost Estimated $402,894,” Greeneville Sun, October
18, 2002, A1, A7.

20 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


1998, Commission Chairman Anthony J. Principi
notified Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbit that
the Commission was weighing the “pros-and-cons
of recommending the transfer of all open national
cemeteries to the Department of Veterans
Affairs.”394 This included both Andersonville and
Andrew Johnson National Historic Sites.

Superintendent Mark Corey was quickly notified
and asked to respond on behalf of the Secretary,
which he did on March 18, 1998. “Our view about
this possibility,” he stated plainly, “is that the status
quo best serves the American public in terms of
efficiency and purpose for creating the cemetery.”
Corey explained, of course, that Andrew Johnson
National Cemetery was created to protect and
preserve the final resting place for the nation’s
seventeenth president and his family members,
property which he had owned and that his heirs had
donated to the Federal government for the purpose
of the president’s commemoration. He also noted
how the site was an integral component of Andrew
Johnson National Historic Site, with its two Johnson
homes and former workshop. If disruption of the
integrity of the park as a memorial to the president
was not a sufficient argument to deter the potential
upheaval being proposed by the Commission, Corey
emphasized the cost.

Under Corey, the park had moved its headquarters
and administrative offices out of the Visitor Center
and to the renovated Cemetery Lodge. If the VA was
to assume administration of the cemetery, the Park
Service might well have to relocate its own offices, as
well as its maintenance operations, at considerable
expense. Moreover, Corey offered that the site was
well managed, and no one ever disputed that point.
How could two government agencies manage the
relatively small site and cemetery more efficiently
than one? Corey acknowledged VA authority in
managing cemeteries, but argued that Andrew
Johnson National Cemetery was primarily a historic
site with an active cemetery due eventually to close.
The National Park Service, of course, was the lead
Federal agency for historic preservation.>"

394. Anthony J. Principi, Chairman, Commission on
Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance,
Letter to Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbit,
January 9, 1998, in "National Cemetery” folder, AINHS
archives.

A few days later, Corey wrote to request support for
the park from the area’s congressional
representative, Bill Jenkins, He actually had two
matters to discuss, the VA’s proposal to absorb the
National Cemetery, but also an NPS budget
proposal to increase the park’s annual operating
budget by $75,000. On the latter count, Corey
argued here that the site compared unfavorably to
other presidential sites, parks whose size fell below
twenty acres, and parks with comparable visitation
figures. Jenkins would have no problem
supporting either issue. The budget increase was
later approved by Congress. Similarly, Corey gained
support from Tennessee Senator Bill First who
stated that he was “grateful to know of your support
for the status quo” in regard to the cemetery transfer
proposal.?9”

One argument Corey did not make initially, but
which was soon formulated, was topographical.
Once again, the steeply sloped cemetery and the
issue of whether VA regulations limiting burials to
slopes of less than 15 percent came into play. In June
Secretary Babbitt heard directly via E-mail froma
concerned citizen who had recently visited the park
and had learned of the proposed cemetery transfer.
Babbitt was told that Johnson cemetery represented
“a classic Tenn, hillside and hilltop which defines
the way those people live and die.” The writer asked
Babbitt to prevent any transfer precisely because “it
wouldn’t fit the rules of VA [sic] for the angle of the
ground {slope} to continue using the remaining
burial plots if it comes under their jurisdiction, but
there are still persons living who wish to and
deserve to be buried there near loved ones.”398

This argument was potent. Ifthe National
Cemetery were now obliged to apply the 20 percent

395. Mark Corey, Superintendent, AJNHS, Letter to Robert
Holbrook, Commission of Servicemembers and
Veterans Transition Assistance, March 18, 1998, in
“National Cemetery” folder, AJNHS archives.

396. Mark Corey, Superintendent, AJNHS, Letter to Bill
Jenkins, Member of Congress, March 30, 1998, in
“National Cemetery” folder, AJNHS archives.

- Bill Frist, United States Senator, Letter to Mark Corey,
AJNHS, May 1, 1998, in “National Cemetery” folder,
AJNHS archives.

. Bruce Babbitt, forwarded e-mail entitled “Andrew
Johnson Memorial & National Cemetery” to EXSEC,
June 23, 1998, in “National Cemetery” folder, AJNHS
archives. This e-mail was automatically forwarded and
Babbitt may not have read it personally. The message
was originally sent by Stan Tunnel on June 19, 1998. It
was faxed to the park on July 7, 1998.

39

S

39)

National Park Service 79


FIGURE 38. View of hall during renovation.

National Register Nomination. The nomination
deemed changes to the Lodge’s interior reasonable
due to a history of use. The CLR agreed that the
Lodge “was built as a residence for the
Superintendent of the Cemetery and it is, therefore,
appropriate that Park Service personnel continue to
live in the lodge.” However, the CLR also assigned
the structure to the cemetery’s historic zone.”
Thus, the building’s exterior was deemed an
important feature of the historical landscape of the
National Cemetery, at least as key as the cemetery
wall. By NPS standards, preservation of the integrity
of the exterior of this building was thus a high

priority.

When Corey made his announcement about the
Cemetery Lodge, he already had $145,000 in funds
separate from the park’s normal operating budget
for repairs and renovations at the cemetery.>”! It
had not taken him too long since arriving at the park

370. Lawliss, Andrew Johnson Nationa! Cemetery, 23.
371. “National Cemetery Officials Given Approval on
Projects," Greeneville Sun, December 7, 1993.

in 1992 to decide on renovating the Lodge or to
convince Deputy Regional Director Carrol Ogle to
support the project with cyclic funds. However, he
could not get all the funding in one year.”

In early March 1993, Deputy Associate Regional
Director Paul B. Hartwig directed that a Historic
Structure Assessment Report (HSAR) be completed
for the Lodge. The purpose of this report, drafted by
historical architect Ali Miri of the NPS Atlanta
office, was to evaluate the building’s historical
integrity, to provide an assessment of existing
conditions, and to estimate the cost for its repair?”
Having resolved the cemetery interment issue,
Corey’s next highest priority became rehabilitating
the Lodge. Regional officials were sympathetic and
supplied funding for the 1994 fiscal year. Rene Cote
and Steve Sherwood were also soon assigned to
work on the development of a rehabilitation plan, as
they had previously done for the Early Home.374

The Cemetery Lodge renovation project ran the
course of three years, from 1993 to 1996, with lead
paint abatement beginning in 1993. The project was
necessarily divided into two phases. The first phase
involved demolition work. The building’s interior
plaster walls were removed so wiring and plumbing
systems could be extracted and replaced. Lead
paint, whose presence was first confirmed by testing
in 1992, was also removed. Many surfaces had to be
stripped down to the original woodwork. Funding
was then supplied to put the structure back
together?”

The renovation drew some protests from historic
Ppreservationists concerned about losing so much
historic fabric from within the building. Not all
changes made to the structure followed the
recommendations of the approved HSAR,
published by the Historic Architecture Division of
the southeast region in 1993. The HSAR did
recognize, as had the National Register Nomination
before it, that the Lodge had been used “as a single

372, Corey, Oral History Interview, 30.

373. Paul B. Hartwig, Deputy Associate Regional Director,
Memorandum to Superintendent, AJNHS, March 8,
1993, attached to Task Directive for Cemetery Lodge:
Historic Structure Assessment Report (HSAR), in
“ANJO General” folder, park files, CRD, SERO.

374. Chief, Historic Architecture Division, Southeast
Region, Memorandum to Superintendent, AJNHS,
February 3, 1993, in “ANJO General” folder, park files,
CRD, SERO.

375. Corey, Oral History Interview, 30.

74 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


FIGURE 1. Andrew Johnson (1808-1875), seventeenth
President of the United States. (Andrew Johnson
National Historic Site, hereafter ANJO, archives)

make informed decisions on current policy issues.
No study could cover all the events, people, and
issues that are represented in the long history of a
national park. Instead, an administrative history
selects the most salient topics with the goal being to
provide both a meaningful handbook and a long-
term perspective. Built on Lawing’s earlier
administrative history, the present history covers the
period from 1971 until the retirement of
Superintendent Mark Corey in early January 2007.

The study follows a standard and straightforward
historical methodology. Park documents likely to
provide factual information or to shed light on
important events have been reviewed and presented
in a chronological fashion. Where appropriate, the
chronology is subdivided by topic as represented by
various section headings. This method makes the
document both easier to read and to reference.
Major sources of information include park annual
reports, official NPS correspondence relating to the

2 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History

park, newspaper clippings, and oral history
interviews. Various NPS studies and publications
are also used, and all sources are cited by footnotes.
Where bias is obvious or points of view differ,
sources are weighed against each other. The
author’s intent is to minimize speculation and to let
the record speak for itself, although inferences and
conclusions are stated where appropriate.

It will not take long for the reader to recognize that
several broad themes pervade this study. The first
theme is patriotism. The park celebrates Johnson’s
principled defense of the U.S. Constitution and the
National Cemetery honors the service of Americans
who have worn the uniform of their country.
Scholars, of course, continue to debate the Johnson
presidency, and Southerners have themselves held
divided views about Andrew Johnson who first
remained with the Union and then ruled Union-
occupied Tennessee as its military governor only to
be later accused by “radical” Republicans of being
too soft on the ex-Confederate states. Time has
moderated some of the more extreme attitudes
toward Johnson and modern Greene Countians
view him as their most famous son. Many veterans
or close relatives have thus sought the right to be
buried near his grave and monument and this desire
has helped create potent local interest in the
management of Andrew Johnson National
Cemetery. Similarly, many employees of Andrew
Johnson National Historic Site have shared a deep
love and respect for Johnson, as certainly did
Johnson’s great-granddaughter, Margaret Bartlett,
who was an NPS park guide for many decades.

Asecond theme of the study relates to the role that
Hugh Lawing has played in park affairs, both as park
historian and in retirement. After Lawing retired in
1984, he emerged as a frequent critic of subsequent
park management decisions. Lawing’s interest in
park management was persistent and his perspective
has much embellished the historical record.

The study’s third theme concerns the interaction of
park management with cultural resource mangers at
the NPS Southeast Regional Office in Atlanta,
Georgia. Over the years, that interaction has been
both positive and cooperative but at times stressful
as park administration and cultural resource
managers have sought to negotiate solutions from
competing professional perspectives.


consistent with preservation ideas, to say nothing of
the park’s purpose, than installing a Bally Building.

To solve the museum storage problem, Wilson
offered a new proposal for adaptive use of the Early
Home. Again, it was noted that the park’s museum
collections did not meet NPS standards and that the
Early Home was unoccupied. Instead of a Bally
Building, however, the park now wanted to outfit
both the Memorial Building and the Early Home
with HVAC systems. These would provide a stable
climate necessary to preserve museum items at the
Memorial Building and interior finishes in the Early
Home and to accommodate administrative use.207

Congress intended the home to be restored and
open for visitors, Wilson asserted. “Allowing the
house to stand vacant,” he stated, “raises legitimate
questions in the community about why we acquired
the house in the first place, and could result in the
embarrassing question of why we do not appear to
be fulfilling the wishes of Congress.” So Wilson
sought to finish the interior of the Early Home and
move the park’s administrative offices to that
location. Besides freeing up more space for museum
storage, the original idea, this plan also helped
position the Early Home for later public use. Wilson
hoped an NPS preservation team could do the
wiring, carpentry, plastering, painting, etc.,
necessary for adapting the historic structure to this
new use,208

The key element of this proposal was the installation
of an HVAC system and other electrical work in the
Early Home. Park staff could not occupy the house
until the electrical and HVAC systems were
installed.” Although expected to cause less
damage than the cancelled Bally proposal,
considerable renovation would still be needed to
install a modern HVAC system in the historic home.
Significant losses of original structural material
could be expected. Section 106 compliance

207. According to Wilson, problems using the Visitor
Center for museum storage included: uncontrolled
access, divided storage, the co-storage of non-
museum items (e.g., office supplies), lack of dedicated
space, etc., and no fire or pest protection, in addition
to the unstable climatic environment.

. Briefing Statements: Tailor Shop Heating/Cooling/
1831 House Adaptive Use, Andrew Johnson National
Historic Site, ca. 1989, in “ANJO General” folder, park
files, CRD, SERO.

20!

44 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History

documents had to be prepared. Although the
project was not routine, the Park Service claimed
that it posed “no adverse effect” to the historic
integrity of the building. That claim was challenged
by Robert D. Bush, the Executive Director of the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The
Advisory Council is the last stop in the formal
Section 106 review process. On May 3, 1990, Bush
advised the National Park Service that the Advisory
Council had issued a “determination of adverse
effect” for the NPS plan to install new electrical
HVAC systems in Andrew Johnson’s early home.
The ruling brought the Park Service to loggerheads
with the Advisory Council and heated exchanges
occurred.

On November 5, 1990, Deputy Associate Regional
Director Paul B. Hartwig wrote Bush, stating: “We
are concerned and annoyed by the barrage of
abusive and insulting letters emanating from your
office when we have endeavored to accommodate
your demands.” The Park Service claimed that the
proposed Early Home work amounted to
“preservation maintenance.” Bush’s office thought
it amounted to a “rehabilitation plan.” Hartwig flatly
insisted that “we do not agree with your
determination that extensive preservation
maintenance constitutes rehabilitation.” With the
Park Service and the Advisory Council in complete
disagreement over the extent of impact on the Early
Home, the Tennessee State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) intervened. Apparently, the SHPO
recommended a programmatic agreement be
drafted to help overcome the collision that had
occurred between the parties, and that was done?"
Section 106 of the NHPA requires Federal agencies
to observe a consultative process prior to
conducting work that might jeopardize historic
resources listed in the National Register. However,
the process does not ultimately prohibit an agency,
even the National Park Service, from conducting

0

209. Chief, Historic Architecture Division, Southeast
Region, Memorandum to Associate Deputy Regional
Director, Cultural Resources, Southeast Region, April
13, 1989, in “ANJO General” folder, park files, CRD,
SERO. The Memorial Building also needed an HVAC
system and consideration was given to somehow
extending the Visitor Center's existing system through
additional ducts prior to installing an entirely new
system.

210. Paul B. Hartwig, Deputy Associate Regional Director,
Letter to Robert D. Bush, Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, November 5, 1990, in “ANJO General”
folder, park files, CRD, SERO.


FIGURE 46. Balancing heritage preservation with

the needs of veterans at Andrew Johnson

National Cemetery is a delicate responsibility for
fa

NPS managers, a fact likely to remain true as
long as the cemetery continues to accept new
burials.

cemetery be closed rather than the Park Service
continue to administer it in the way it was.‘24 And
that was the issue, of course. It is simply difficult to
manage a cemetery and consider it a historic
resource at the same time. The requirements for one
activity conflict with the requirements of the other.
NPS policy long ago wisely determined that the
Service should not be in the active cemetery
business.

Still not satisfied, Lawing wrote NPS Director Fran
Mainella and several members of Congress about
his concerns relating to the cemetery. “It would
appear that the Park Service lost its chance to close
the Cemetery as soon as possible by yielding to
Veteran pressure groups which resulted in the

424, Hugh A. Lawing, Letter to Jerry Belson, Regional
Director, November 30, 2001, in folder marked “Hugh
Lawing File,” located in the superintendent's office,
AJNHS.

development of Section Y.” He also called it a
“safety hazard.”425

Asked to respond to Lawing’s safety concerns,
Superintendent Corey did make some changes in
the layout of section “Y.” He eliminated sixty-one
sites within the section that were deemed to be too
near a steep slope. However, after another staff
review, Corey concluded that “it is my decision that
the layout of the section is proper and fitting,
considering the terrain constraints.”476 After
learning about his decision, Lawing again protested
to Director Mainella. He wanted to know why the
Park Service did not use Department of Veterans
Affairs guidelines for managing national cemeteries,
which prohibited burials on slopes above 15 percent
grade. “If understand it correctly,” he told the
director, “Section Y under the VA regulations would
be too steep for burial activitiest!t”42” Now, Lawing
had come full circle. As previously discussed, the
Park Service had once, in fact, followed those VA
guidelines. It had ceased doing so specifically to
allow more burials at Andrew Johnson National
Cemetery and to thus appease veterans who were
otherwise intent on expanding the cemetery’s
boundary.

On Lawing’s behalf, Senator Fred Thompson, and
other congressmen, inquired about the matter.
Corey responded by explaining that national
cemeteries within the National Park System are not
part of the National Cemetery System and not
subject to VA rules, as Regional Solicitor Roger
Sumner Babb had determined in 1992. Despite its
steep slope, Corey explained the “Greene County
veterans were overwhelmingly in favor of adding
these new interment sections to this cemetery.”
Moreover, to abandon section “Y” would require
the disinterment of three burials that occurred prior
to Lawing’s first complaint about the section.428

425. Hugh A. Lawing, Letter to Fran Mainella, Director,
December 18, 2001, in folder marked “Hugh Lawing
File," located in the superintendent's office, AJNHS.

426. Mark Corey, Superintendent, Letter to Hugh Lawing,
December 20, 2001, in folder marked “Hugh Lawing
File," located in the superintendent's office, AJNHS.

427. Hugh A. Lawing, Letter to Fran Mainella, Director,
December 29, 2001, in folder marked “Hugh Lawing
File,” located in the superintendent's office, AJNHS.

428. Mark Corey, Superintendent, AJNHS, Letter to
Honorable Fred Thompson, March 5, 2002, in folder
marked “Hugh Lawing File,” located in the
superintendent's office, AJNHS.

86 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


property to the cemetery. Instead, Hensley wrote
“that the slope percent or grade percent for grave
sites was decreased from 20% to 15% in 1976. This
action eliminated burial sites we so desperately
need.” Hensley also claimed that veterans’ groups
had conducted scores of burials before the rule
change on slopes exceeding that limit and without
any problems. Informed that only 250 graves sites
remained, he felt compelled to act.323

Hensley was referring to VA rules used by the Park
Service to determine the placement of gravesites on
sloping terrain. According to Hensley and the
veterans’ groups, more space was available for use
within the cemetery than acknowledged by the Park
Service, or at least, more space would be allowed if
the Service adopted burial regulations used by the
Veterans’ Administration until 1976. “It might be
somewhat inconvenient to use these areas that
exceed a 15% slope, but we must bear in mind that it
was inconvenient for our Great American Service
Men to answer the call of our Country,” he
concluded. Hensley thus wanted the Park Service to
work with Congress to amend the regulation.324

Other groups also complained, as reported by the
media, including the Elbert Kinser Detachment of
the Marine Corps League and the American Legion
Post 64. All urged a change in VA rules forbidding
burials on slopes greater than 15 percent. The
existing burial plan allowed up to 1,230 burials. By
1990, however, only 280 or so sites remained and
these were filling at an average rate of 35 per year.>”

While debate over burial policy at the National
Cemetery proceeded, Grady Webb decided to retire
to his farm in Cosby, Tennessee. He left the Service
on December 2, 1988, after serving six years as
superintendent of Andrew Johnson National
Historic Site and nearly thirty years with the
National Park Service at six different sites. He
arrived in Greeneville in 1982 after putting in fora
transfer from Fort Pulaski National Monument,
where he had been superintendent. “I requested

323. Larry J. Hensley, Letter to Gordon Wilson, October 29,
1990, in “ANJO General” folder, park files, CRD, SERO.

324, Larry J. Hensiey, Post Commander Andrew Johnson
Post 1990, V.RW,, Letter to Gordon Wilson,
Superintendent, October 29, 1990, in “Cemetery/C.L.
Plan-1992 & Interment Plan” folder, AJNHS archives.

325. Doug Johnson, “Veteran's Groups Seeking Additional
Burial Spaces in A. Johnson Cemetery,” The
Greeneville Sun, November 15, 1990, A7.

that I come back to the hills,” he told a reporter
about his retirement. Webb had also served part-
time at Great Smoky Mountains National Park, but
got his first full-time position in 1962. He also had
served as chief ranger at Chickamauga &
Chattanooga National Military Park and as a district
ranger on the Blue Ridge Parkway. “We had a good
staff, and I really enjoyed working with them,” he
said of Andrew Johnson National Historic Site. “It’s
a good place to work.”326

Management of the park was briefly taken over by
Opal Coffman, the park’s Administrative Officer
since 1981, and then by Mark H. Woods, who
arrived as supervisory park ranger in January 1989
from Kings Mountain National Military Park in
South Carolina.>?”

On February 15, 1989, Robert M. Baker, Director of
the Southeast Regional Office in Atlanta, announced
the appointment of Gordon J. Wilson to be the new
superintendent of Andrew Johnson National
Historic Site. Wilson was a 1977 graduate of
Cortland State University in New York. He began
his NPS career in 1982 as a living history interpreter
at the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National
Historical Park in Maryland. He also saw duty at
Allegheny Portage Railroad National Historic Site,
Johnstown Flood National Memorial in
Pennsylvania, and Colonial National Historical Park
in Virginia, where he served as administrative officer
prior to being selected as superintendent of Andrew
Johnson. Baker stated that Wilson’s record as an
innovative manager caught his eye and noted that
Wilson had served as acting superintendent of
Booker T. Washington National Monument in
Virginia. “We believe,” Baker concluded, “he is now
ready to assume all the responsibilities that go with
managing a historic area.”328

Taking up the cemetery issue, Wilson told Larry
Hensley that “like members of the VF W, we are
interested in using all available space in the
cemetery, as long as we can carry out interments

326. Jim Cox, “Webb Enjoying Life after Retiring from
National Park Service,” Greeneville Sun, December 30,
1988; “Park Service Appoints Webb,” Greeneville Sun,
October 9, 1982.

327. “Woods New Ranger at Historic Site,” Greeneville Sun,
January 21, 1989.

328. Jim Howard, “Gordon Wilson Named Superintendent
of Andrew Johnson National Historic Site," NPS Press
Release, February 15, 1989, in AJNHS archives.

National Park Service 65


scheduled on Wednesday. Despite a rush of hectic
preparations for the services and interment as well
as intense public scrutiny, park staff were praised for
“a job well done.”!06

Her funeral was announced to NPS employees that
day in an e-mailed “SEROGram” from the Office of
Communications in the Regional Office:

(GREENEVILLE, TENN.)—Margaret Johnson
Patterson Bartlett, who was a “human
fixture” in the Homestead at the Andrew
Johnson NHS until her retirement in 1976,
will be buried in the family portion of the
Andrew Johnson National Cemetery this
evening.

The last great granddaughter of the 17"
President of the United States died Saturday
in a Greeneville nursing home where she had
been living the past several years. She had
served as a guide in the Homestead for more
than 34 years.

Nearly 200 people paid their respects to Mrs.
Bartlett yesterday at the Homestead. Her 97-
year-old cousin, Ralph Phinney, of
Greeneville, is her nearest living relative.

Mrs. Bartlett’s funeral is scheduled for 6 p.m.
today.'07

The Homestead
Cultural
Landscape

The earliest and most descriptive of a scattering of
contemporary accounts of the Homestead’s
landscape during Johnson’s lifetime was published
in Frank Lestie’s Illustrated Newspaper on
September 23, 1865:

As you pass along the pavement on Main
Street, by looking into the lot you see several
young apple trees, and in the spaces between
them are potatoes growing. In the rear of the
kitchen stands a small aspen shade-tree, and
down there in the lower end of the lot is a
grape vine, trained upon a trellis forming a

pleasant bower. Scattered over the lot are a
number of rose, currant, and gooseberry

106. Hugh Lawing, “Park Service Staff Commended for
Response to Bartlett Death,” Greeneville Sun, August
10, 1992

107. Park Files, “ANJO General” Folder, SERO.

26 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History

bushes. At the lower end of the lot and just

outside stand two large weeping willows,

and under their shade is a very beautiful

spring.
Leslie also published the earliest known image of
the Andrew Johnson Homestead to accompany the
article quoted above. A few additional bare
accounts and a photograph of the same scene taken
the day Johnson was buried constitute most of what
is known about the landscape of the Homestead
from archival sources.

As previously discussed, accomplished architectural
historian Ernest Allen Connally extensively
researched Andrew Johnson Homestead prior to its
restoration under the direction of architect Henry
Judd in the late 1950s. Their work also resulted in a
landscape plan for the 1.9-acre Homestead
property. Neither had much more information to
draw upon then than has anyone after them. Their
treatment plan has never been viewed as a fully
accurate representation of the historic setting in
Johnson’s lifetime and is more typical of twentieth-
century residential landscape design. Nevertheless,
Connally and Judd established a set of parameters
by which to manage the landscape surrounding the
Homestead. If not completely accurate, it was at
least a plan.

Unfortunately, even the basic 1958 landscape plan
has not always been followed by park managers. A
1967 existing conditions drawing indicates that
additional plants, including climbing roses, althea,
privet, Japanese holly, peonies, raspberries, tiger
lilies, and a grape arbor were all added to the site in
the intervening years. A subsequent 1967 drawing
suggested removing many of these additions,
although it would still not accurately represent the
1875 landscape. Additionally, Superintendent Lloyd
Abelson noted in his log on May 3, 1971, that “Mrs.
Bartlett found an aspen tree which replaced dead
willow at Homestead.”"8 The aspen may or may
not have been appropriate, but, absent an authentic
historic landscape plan, who was going to argue
with the venerable keeper of Johnson’s legacy?

Indeed, Abelson recognized as far back as 1974 that
“a Historic Landscape Plan should be prepared for
the Homestead Grounds so that by attrition the
semi-modern landscape can revert to a typical

108. Lloyd A. Abelson, Superintendent, Log of Events, May
1971.


Johnson and his family lived in while he worked as a
tailor in Greeneville between 1831 and 1851. When
Andrew Johnson National Monument was created
in 1942, Johnson’s “Early Home” was privately
owned and not available for purchase.'73
Conveniently, however, the structure was located
across the street from Johnson’s “Tailor Shop.” The
Tailor Shop is actually located within the “Memorial
Building,” a shelter built by the state in the 1920s to
preserve the shop and which later became an annex
to the park’s Visitor Center. Congress also
authorized the Park Service to expend funds “at not
more than $66,000 for acquisition, restoration, and
development costs, as are necessary to carry out the
purposes of this Act [77 Stat. 349].”!74 Thus, when
the building went on sale, the Service acted quickly
to purchase it.

As acquired, the Early Home was not in a condition
for immediate visitation. Before the Park Service
could provide public access and interpretation, both
research and restoration had to be performed.
Moreover, the Service had to conduct additional
research to plan appropriate furnishings for the
home. The latter research was conducted between
1972 and 1974.!”> Extensive research was necessary
because the intent of Congress in providing funding
to acquire the Early Home and the purpose of NPS
preservation efforts was defined by the building’s
period of significance. That period, of course, began
with the property’s purchase by Andrew Johnson in
1831 and spans the two decades or so that he and
his family lived there.

171. Paul Winegar for Jerry Belson, Regional Director,
Southeast Region, Letter to Honorable William L.
Jenkins, MC, June 12, 2002, in folder marked "Hugh
Lawing File,” located in the superintendent's office,
Andrew Johnson National Historic Site. The Andrew
Johnson National Historic Site National Register
Nomination was created in two phases separated by
more than two decades. The original nomination lists
the park’s dates of significance only generally as the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries while the 1995
update only lists the National Cemetery’s dates of
significance while discussing, however, other sections
of the park as well as the National Cemetery. The way
these dates are presented has confused some readers
of the nomination.

172. Mark Corey, Oral History Interview by Cameron
Binkley (Greeneville, Tennessee: National Park Service,
2006), 25-26.

173. Historians prefer to refer to Andrew Johnson's home
as the “Early Home,” not the 1831 Home, because,
while Johnson purchased it in or around 1831, the
house itself is older. Of course, he also lived in other
homes, both before and after this period.

38 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History

While the period of significance was well known,
the appearance of the building during this period
was uncertain. Major changes had been made to the
home in the decades since the Johnsons had lived in
it. Such changes would have to be identified,
documented, and reversed where appropriate. In
the National Park Service, the primary planning
document used to define and guide the restoration
and/or preservation of historic buildings and
structures is the Historic Structure Report or HSR.
Such reports document historic buildings by
establishing their historic context, documenting
their evolution over time and their present
condition, and recommending an appropriate
treatment of the building, An HSR is also needed to
provide baseline data to justify funding requests,
which in this case the park felt essential to help it
raise the congressional funding ceiling for the Early
Home.!76

The fact that Congress authorized the Park Service
to purchase the Early Home was important, but
almost immediately the legislation required
amendment. The reason was simple: the purchase
price of the home came to some fifty thousand
dollars, and in authorizing Federal acquisition of the
Early Home, Congress had not anticipated
inflationary increases due to the lengthy process
involved in acquiring and preparing the property for
public use.

In November 1974, a team composed of NPS staff
from the Southeast Regional Office, the Denver
Service Center (DSC), and NPS headquarters in
Washington, DC, visited Andrew Johnson National
Historic Site to assemble data for estimates needed
to raise the funding limitation for restoration of the
Early Home. The team recommended a new

174, See "An Act to change the name of the Andrew
Johnson National Monument...,” Laws Relating to the
National Park Service: Supplement ill [February 1963
to December 1972] (Washington, DC: National Park
Service, 1974), 280-281. The act also re-designated the
park from it status as a “National Monument,”
created by Executive Order under the 1906 Antiquities
Act, to a “National Historical Site.” The primary
significance of this change was that it recognized the
interest and intent of Congress in preserving the site
and commemorating the life of Andrew Johnson.

175, Ron Pyron, “Appendix E: Development within the
Park (1972-1979)," a compendium assembled by a
park ranger in 1979 as a supplement to Hugh A.
Lawing, Administrative History of Andrew Johnson
National Historic Site (NPS, 1971), in AJNHS archives.

176. SANR for 1973, January 17, 1974.


increase in the number of students visiting the
historic site during the first year and a ten percent
increase in following years. This effort was one of
the first made by the Park Service and its supporters
as part of a national effort to develop the notion of
“Parks as Classrooms,” that is, the promotion and
use of NPS sites as structured elements of school
curricula.>!4

More specifically, park staff created and distributed
anew teaching curriculum to twenty-seven school
districts in eastern Tennessee relating to the history
of Andrew Johnson National Historic Site. The
effort grew from staff consultations with four local
educators about how the historic site could better
address the needs of local school groups. Educators
Pat Barnett, John Morrell, Tammy Fox, and Larry
Bible conveyed the notion that “the park had never
been seen as responsible to school needs” although
partially that may have been because past similar
curriculum guides sent to school districts had never
actually made it into teachers’ hands. With this in
mind, and using a fourteen-thousand-dollar grant
from the National Parks Foundation, the teachers,
park staff, and volunteers, developed a tri-level
curriculum to meet the needs of elementary, junior,
and high school age students. The plan involved
pre- and post-visit activities but focused upon on-
site living-history-style presentations directed by
the teachers themselves.>!> Several efforts like this
one have been contemplated or carried out by staff
at Andrew Johnson National Historic Site over the
years, but cooperative activities with local schools
increased significantly during the 1990s.

Probably the most important partnership developed
by park staff over the past twenty years has been the
park’s relationship with leading members of the
town of Greeneville and Greene County. This
relationship has been especially important because
the park lacks a traditional friends group.
Encouraged by park staff, local officials have
probably always promoted historical tourism, if that
meant highlighting the NPS Johnson historic site.
However, it was not until 1993 that the Greene
County Partnership was formed. The Greene
County Partnership involved a number of existing

514, “$14,000 Grand to Promote ‘Teaching in
Partnership’.” Greeneville Sun, June 12, 1992, A10.

515, Eugenia Estes, “New Park Service Curriculum
Introduces Students to Andrew Johnson,” Greenevitle
Sun, February 24, 1993, A14.

local groups, mainly the chamber of commerce, the
offices of economic development and tourism, and
the “Keep Greene Clean” campaign, which decided
to consolidate into one organization.*

The main mission of the Greene County
Partnership “is to promote, preserve and enhance
the quality of life and economic well being of all
Greene Countians.”>!7 This mission fit easily with
the goals of the Andrew Johnson National Historic
Site, and the parties have sought to cooperate in
promoting tourism, especially historical tourism
and the development of improved interpretive
services throughout the community. A major vehicle
for such cooperation has been “Main Street:
Greeneville.” Main Street: Greeneville is part of the
Main Street program sponsored by the National
Trust for Historic Preservation. The group was
formed in 1983 as part of five original Main Street
communities in Tennessee. In May 1988, Main
Street: Greeneville held a kick-off reception to
launch the town’s observance of National Historic
Preservation Week, the purpose of which was to
help revitalize the downtown area./8 Eventually,
Greeneville created its own local downtown
Historic District comprising a twelve-block area in
the heart of downtown Greeneville. The
designation, incidentally, should not be confused
with the nationally recognized historic districts for
Andrew Johnson National Cemetery and nearby
Tusculum College. The Greeneville Historic Zoning
Commission even expanded the district in 1998
after a struggle and extensive negotiations with local
property owners.>!9 Andrew Johnson National
Historic Site has welcomed these programs and
sought to facilitate local historic preservation efforts
as much as possible.

One especially beneficial project has been the
development of a guided tour program for
Greeneville’s historic area. Park superintendents
have probably always wanted to increase

516. National Park Service, “Long Range Interpretive Plan:
Andrew Johnson National Historic Site,” approved
February 20, 1996, 17, in AJNHS archives; See also
www.GreeneCountyPartnership.com (accessed March
20, 2007).

517. See www.GreeneCountyPartnership.com (accessed
March 20, 2007).

518. Leigh Ann Laube, “Preservation Week Observed by
Main Street: Greeneville,” Greeneville Sun, May 17,
1988.

519. Eugenia Estes, “City’s Historic District Expanded after
Two Years of Effort,” Greeneville Sun, April 3, 1998.

National Park Service 107


were not feasible, Cote suggested adapting the Early
Home for park administrative use, which would free
space in the Visitor Center for museum storage. The
Visitor Center was a modern structure and better-
suited to that purpose than a historic property. Use
of the Early Home for administrative purposes
would cause some wear but was far more feasible
than installing a Bally Building with its huge adverse
impact. Finally, Cote suggested setting up the Bally
Building at the park’s maintenance yard in the
National Cemetery or installing it in the basement
of the Cemetery Lodge. The chief issue here was the
distance, about a mile, that park staff would have to
travel to access their files and museum storage
items, The Cemetery Lodge option appeared
feasible, either with or without the Bally Building,
but it would require some structural modification
and probably intrude into the private space of the
building’s occupants since staff would constantly
need to enter the basement.203

Cote also questioned the park’s need for $10,000
authorized for use in controlling pests at the
Homestead. According to the park, a local
exterminator found that both the building and its
furnishings were infested and only complete
fumigation could resolve the problem, which
resulted in an approved funding request. Cote
found no evidence of any infestation and suggested
that a specialist, William H. Sites, whose work was
known to the Park Service, confirm his findings.
The Chief Architect then recommended that the
pest-control funding be reprogrammed, pending
Site’s report. He thought it better used for repair
and stabilization of the Tailor Shop and its
enclosure, which Cote’s report indicated had
preservation problems resulting from lack of proper
ventilation and heating. Finally, funds for repair of
the Early Home had to be reprogrammed because
they were originally devoted to adapting the
structure for the Bally Building that regional staff
had so strenuously opposed,?04

William Sites, a plant pathologist with the U.
Forest Service, was asked to thoroughly investigate
the park’s pest situation as well as other
preservation problems stemming from moisture. As

203. Historic Architect [Rene Cote], Memorandum to Chief,
Historic Architecture Division, Southeast Region,
entitled “Trip report and recommendations, Andrew
Johnson National Historic Site,” January 5, 1988, in
“ANJO General” folder, park files, CRD, SERO.

FIGURE 23. Photo of Superintendent Wilson
standing in the renovated parlor of the Early
Home.

Cote had thought, Sites concluded that “the Taylor
Shop, 1830’s House, Andrew Johnson Homestead,
and their contents are in excellent condition. With
the exception of the furniture listed, no actual pest
control work is necessary.” He felt thorough annual
inspections, routine maintenance to keep out water,
and better dehumidification, as Cote
recommended, were the park’s main preservation
concerns. Sites found some insect infestation in
furniture that had been stored on dirt floors, and he
strongly recommended against this practice.2

In summary, the Bally Building proposal was a “no
go,” although it did spur NPS thinking. In April
1989, the regional chief for historic architecture met
with new park Superintendent Gordon Wilson to
discuss a new preservation strategy for the park.
They devised a tentative plan to utilize the Early
Home for light office space, anticipating that, funds
and staff permitting, its interior would be restored
and interpreted.206 This initiative, while still
presenting preservation concerns, was more

204. Chief, Historic Architecture Division, Southeast
Region, Memorandum to Deputy Associate Regionat
Director, Cultural Resources, January 18, 1988; and
Historic Architect [Rene Cote], Memorandum to Chief,
Historic Architecture Division, Southeast Region,
entitled “Trip report and recommendations, Andrew
Johnson National Historic Site,” January 5, 1988, in
“ANJO General” folder, park files, CRD, SERO.

205. William H. Sites, Department of Agriculture, Letter to
Grady Webb, Superintendent, AJNHS, January 14,
1988, in “ANJO Genera!” folder, park files, CRD, SERO.

206. Chief, Historic Architecture Division, Southeast
Region, Memorandum to Associate Deputy Regional
Director, Cultural Resources, Southeast Region, April
13, 1989, in “ANJO General” folder, park files, CRD,
SERO; and SANR (for 1989), February 16, 1990.

National Park Service 43


A Proclamation by the President of the
United States of America establishing
Andrew Johnson National Monument
and transfer of Andrew Johnson
National Cemetery to the National Park
Service. No. 2554, April 27, 1942 (56 Stat.
1955).

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

Whereas the Act of Congress approved
August 29, 1935, 49 Stat. 958, provides that
when title to the site of the Andrew Johnson
Homestead and the site of the tailor shop in
which Andrew Johnson worked, together
with such buildings and property located
thereon as may be designated by the
Secretary of the Interior, shall have been
vested in the United States, said area and
improvements, together with the burial place
of Andrew Johnson, now administered as a
national cemetery, shall be designated and
set apart by proclamation of the President as
a national monument to be called the
Andrew Johnson National Monument; and

Whereas title to all of the land, buildings, and
other property required for the establishment.
of the said monument is vested in the United
States:

Now, therefore, |, Franklin D. Roosevelt,
President of the United States of America,
under and by virtue of the authority vested in
me by the aforesaid Act of August 29, 1935,
do proclaim that, subject to all valid existing
rights, the following-described parcels of land
with the buildings and improvements
thereon, situated in the Town of Greeneville,
Tenth Civil District of Greene County,
Tennessee, are hereby set apart as a national
monument to be known as the Andrew
Johnson National Monument:

Parcel No. 1—Andrew Johnson Homestead

All that certain tract of land situated on the
east side of Main Street between Summer and
McKee Streets, abutting Brumley on the
north and Bernard Warehouses,
Incorporated, on the south, and extending
from Main Street to College Street, formerly
known and designated as Water Street, and
more particularly described as follows:

128 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History

Beginning in the east line of Main Street at a
point northerly 128.6 feet from McKee Street;
thence with the line of Main Street, north
21°30’ east, 218.6 feet to corner with
Brumley; thence with her line, south 69°10'
east, 428.5 feet to College Street; thence with
College Street, south 21°35’ west, 190 feet to
corner of Bernard Warehouses, Incorporated;
thence with its lines north 69°34’ west, 262.7
feet; thence south 21°30' west, 26 feet;
thence north 69°34’ west, 165.5 feet to the
beginning and containing 1.95 acres, more or
less.

Parcel No, 2—Andrew Johnson Tailor Shop

All that certain tract of land situated on the
northwest corner of Depot and College
Streets, more particularly described as
follows:

Beginning on Depot Street, running north
29°52’ east, 66.3 feet to a stake on the corner
of the lot belonging to Charles Hull; thence
with his line south 64°25’ east, 81.6 feet to
Water Street, now College Street; thence with
Water Street south 30°39' west, 72.4 feet to
Depot Street; thence with Depot Street north
60°00'18" west, 80.4 feet to the beginning
containing 0,13 acres, more or less.

Parcel No. 3—Andrew Johnson National
Cemetery

All that certain tract of land, known as
“Monument Hill,” more particularly described
as follows:

Beginning at a fence post on the south side of
South Main Street, approximately 1200 feet
southwesterly from the intersection of
Charles and Main Streets (H. H. Grouchenour’s
corner); thence with Grouchenour’s line south
8°30' east, 150 feet; thence south 6°30’ west,
530.2 feet to an ash, corner to Grouchenour
and Terrell field; thence with the lines of said
field south 64°45‘ west, 495 feet to a stone;
thence south 51° west, 405.4 feet to a fence
post at the public road; thence with the
public road south 3°45’ west, 350 feet; thence
south 4° east, 133.3 feet to a post; thence
leaving said road, south 60° east, 144 feet
more or less to Vann’s land; thence with
Vann’s and Kitchen’s line north 63°45‘ east,
959 feet more or less to a fence post, a corner
of Kitchen’s and O’Keefe’s land; thence with
O'Keefe’s lines, three courses; north 19°15‘


limitation of $266,000.!”” Thus, to prepare for the
Early Home’s restoration and to help justify
increased funding, the Park Service initiated an
HSR study.

The study was assigned to the Denver Service
Center, a Service-wide facility for planning and
designing major architectural and engineering
projects. Historical Architect Russell Jones was
chosen to conduct the study, and in August 1975, he
submitted a “preliminary unedited draft” of an
architectural data section for an Early Home HSR
for review to the Southeast Regional Office. Jones’s
draft was not approved “for a number of reasons
and was returned to the Denver Service Center to
be revised and corrected accordingly.”!78

Despite this, on May 6, 1975, Rep. James Quillen
submitted a bill, HR 5147 “to increase
appropriation authorization for Andrew Johnson
National Historic Site from $66,000 to $266,000” in
Congress.!7? At the same time Tennessee Senator
Bill Brock introduced a companion bill in the
Senate asking for $200,000 to complete the project
begun over ten years previous. “President Andrew
Johnson was certainly one of the most important
figures in our history and, of course, of Tennessee’s
history. By providing these funds Congress will offer
an opportunity for thousands of people to share a
bit more of our heritage.”!8° In remarks before the
House in support of his earlier bill, HR 5147, for
additional funds to restore the Early Home, Quillen
summarized the life story and historical importance
of Andrew Johnson. Quillen then gave the reasons
for his 1963 bill, which both changed the park’s
name and funded the acquisition and restoration of
the home Johnson lived in as a tailor in Greeneville.
“It is time our Nation completed the portrayal of
Andrew Johnson’s life there,” Quillen remarked,
“....we owe him a tremendous debt and perhaps
this will in some small way make up for the
heartbreak he suffered during the years we were
unable to recognize the greatness of his love for his
Country.”!8!

177, SANR for 1974, February 19, 1975

178. David Arbogast, First Andrew Johnson House:
Architectural Data Section/Historic Structure Report
(Denver Service Center, 1978), 1.

179, SANR for 1975, February 16, 1976.

180. “Funds Asked to Complete Restoration on Andrew
Johnson's First Home,” Greeneville Sun, December 4,
1975, 1,6.

181. "Restoration of A. Johnson Home Here,” (May 1976],
unattributed newspaper clipping in AJNHS archives,

FIGURE 21, Superintendent Grady Webb (I) with
employee Tony Reaves (r) in 1988. Webb sought
practical use for the Early Home and proposed to
install a “Bally Building” for curatorial storage in
the historic structure.

Superintendent Abelson stated that the Park Service
planned, pending passage of Quillen’s bill, to
renovate the interior of the home and then furnish
two rooms. Abelson also noted that glass doors
would be installed along with a message repeater
that would allow visitors to see the interior of the
home without a NPS ranger being present.!8?

On June 8, 1976, the House passed Quillen’s bill,
thus raising the ceiling on NPS expenditures for the
Early Home. Quillen’s press secretary, Roger
Hoover cautioned that the bill did not make
additional money ready yet, but instead authorized
its appropriation when appropriation hearings were
held later that month. However, the Early Home
was expected to be on the agenda.183

In October 1976, an Omnibus Bill was passed and
approved by the president with provisions to raise
the funding limitation on the Early Home to
$266,000." 4 Naturally, NPS staff were pleased that
Congress had authorized significant new funding
for restoring the Early Home. An HSR was still
required to guide the restoration process, however.

182. Vickie Tweed, "NPS Architect Studies Andrew Johnson
Home at Depot-College,” Greeneville Sun, July 2,
1975.

183. “House Authorizes $200,000 for Restoring 1% AJ
Home,” Greeneville Sun, June 11, 1976.

184. See “An Act to provide for increases in appropriation
ceilings and boundary changes in certain units of the
National Park Service...," Laws Relating to the
National Park Service: Supplement IV [January1973 to
December 1978] (Washington, DC: National Park
Service, 1978), 316,

National Park Service 39


When Quillen introduced his bill, he had no idea
that the property was actually in probate.?38 Indeed,
it took some time for the news to reach everyone,
and donation-supporters continued to write the
Park Service into the summer.

For the veterans’ groups, the situation was gloomy,
although regional office staff attempted to console
them by noting that the top soil of Austin’s parcel
was probably unsuited for cemetery use anyway.
Moreover, similar bills that Rep. Quillen had
introduced to expand the national cemeteries
operated by the Park Service at Stones River and
Fort Donelson National Battlefields and at
Andersonville National Historic Site had also failed.
Despite all the bad news, the Park Service offered
hope for the veterans’ groups. Chief Ranger Jim
Small reminded everyone that the Service was still
examining the cemetery to see if additional grave
plots could be added within its existing boundaries.
He expected a decision by December.9?

Meanwhile, Superintendent Wilson resolved the
problem of who was to pay for “grave liners,”
concrete boxes in which caskets are placed and
which are designed to prevent sinking or caving in of
the grave after burial. The issue was relatively minor
but occasionally vexing because it involved the cost
of burials. Prior to 1989, VA regulations required
survivors of the veteran who was to be interred to
pay fora grave liner.>° Although not as expensive as
a standard burial vault, grave liners still cost several
hundred dollars per burial, which is a significant
expense for some families. As a result, government
regulations requiring veterans’ families to purchase
grave liners became a political issue. Such was the
case at the Andrew Johnson cemetery where
veterans’ relatives frequently objected to this cost.
As a result, in December 1989, Congress passed

338. Kristen Hebestreet, “Additions Unlikely for Cemetery
Site," Greeneville Sun, February 8, 1991, 1, 6. In fact,
Quillen, re-submitted his bill a final time as H.R. 310.
On November 14, 1992, the property that was the
subject of the bill was sold at a public auction by the
estate of Robert Austin for $33,110, and was no
longer available for donation. When informed about
the matter by park staff in February 1993, Rep.
Quillen’s legislative aid, Cheryl Bonifer, reportedly
stated that Quillen was not planning to push the bill
anyway. Superintendent, AINHS, Memorandum to
Rich Sussman/Files (re. H.R.310), February 4, 1993, in
folder marked “Hugh Lawing File,” located in the
superintendent's office, AINHS.

. Kristen Hebestreet, “Additions Unlikely for Cemetery
Site,” Greeneville Sun, February 8, 1991, 1, 6.

33!

S

Public Law 101-237, which required “the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs to provide a vault for each new
grave in an open cemetery within the National
Cemetery System,” thus relieving veterans families
of the cost of this burden. Unfortunately, the
National Cemetery System does not include all
national cemeteries, mostly those located on
military bases or academies, Arlington National
Cemetery, and those administered by the Secretary
of the Interior, that is, historic cemeteries within
national parks. As the Greeneville Sun put it,
Congress left the legislation “a bit murky legally.”34!

Southeast Regional Director James W. Coleman
sought specific legal guidance on addressing the
matter from the NPS solicitor’s office in January
1992, His hope was that the VA would pay for vaults
needed in NPS national cemeteries. Solicitor Roger
Sumner Babb informed Coleman that “National
Cemeteries administered by the National Park
Service are not part of the National Cemetery
System. Therefore, the Secretary of Veterans’ Affairs
is not required to provide vaults for NPS-
administered cemeteries under Public Law 101-
237.” He added one caveat, which was that the same
law did not mandate the use of vaults in NPS-
administered cemeteries.>42 Basically, the Service
did not have to require the use of vaults, but if it did,
it would either have to pay for them itself or charge
veterans families.

Given the political sensitivity of the issue, the Park
Service bit the bullet. Superintendent Wilson won

340. Grave liners also make it possible to relocate a
cemetery more easily at a later time. Wooden caskets
are subject to rot, which makes moving the casket or
sometimes digging a fresh grave near an old one a
potentially messy affair. Environmentalists oppose the
use of grave liners precisely because they prevent
natural processes of deterioration. A grave liner is
constructed of concrete that is approximately four
inches thick on all sides and is large enough to enclose
a casket. The requirement to use grave liners in VA
cemeteries was likely an important factor considered
when VA regulations prohibited burials on cemetery
slopes with grades exceeding 15 percent.

. Editorial, “This Week ‘The System Worked’,”
Greeneville Sun, December 14, 1991, A2. The grave
liner issue is also briefly mentioned in the SANR (for
1991), 199[2].

342. Roger Sumner Babb, Regional Solicitor, Southeast

Region, Memorandum (entitled “National Cemeteries
Belonging to the National Cemetery System”) to
James W. Coleman, Jr., Regional Director, Southeast
Region, January 24, 1992, in folder marked “Hugh
Lawing File,” located in the superintendent's office,
AJNHS,

34

68 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


r atm
in

FIGURE 42. View of the handicapped-access ramp
under construction (top) and after completion
in 1998 (below). tt was widely criticized for
intruding upon the historic landscape of the
National Cemetery.

about the need for new electrical wiring. Still, Corey
himself had “come up in the Service of always
having to live in required occupancy and never
fighting it.” He certainly understood Small’s desire
to acquire equity—Corey himself had applied for
the superintendency on the basis of not having a
required occupancy—but at the time he “thought it
was pretty necessary or needed that we have
somebody living here to protect the cemetery at
night and so forth, but he [Small] finally brought me
around.”>%° Corey decided that with modern
intrusion alarms systems and good cooperation with
the Greeneville police department, the occupancy
requirement could be ended.??!

Once that decision was made, Corey rethought how
the Cemetery Lodge could be used to facilitate the

attainment of other long-sought goals. If the Lodge
could serve as park headquarters, it would allow the

390. tbid., 29.
391. ibid., 29-30.

consolidation of administrative offices. Ranger staff
could be moved from the Visitor Center to the
upper floor of the Early Home while the offices of
the superintendent and the administrative officer,
then located in the Early Home, could be moved to
the Lodge. An important additional benefit was that
the Lodge‘s basement could be used for museum
storage purposes, resolving a long-standing problem
of inadequate storage.

As a result of this reconfiguration, it became
possible to think about opening more of the Early
Home to visitors. Corey even had the walls in the
former ranger offices in the Visitor Center torn
down to create a theater. These developments
directly inspired further efforts to develop a new
interpretive plan for the park that would include
newly designed exhibits for the Early Home and the
park’s first orientation film.>%? In late April 1997,
Andrew Johnson National Historic Site sponsored
an “open house” for the public to view the changes
made to the Cemetery Lodge.33

A Proposal to
Transfer the
Cemetery to the VA

In 1996, Congress established the Commission on
Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance
to review the adequacy of Federal programs that
assist service men and women adjusting to post-
service life and to recommend improvements. As
previously noted, Congress established the National
Cemetery System in 1973 under VA administration.
By 1998, the VA operated 115 national cemeteries,
but the Army still oversaw two—Arlington National
Cemetery and the U.S. Soldiers’ and Airmen’s
Home National Cemetery. The National Park
Service also managed fourteen historic national
cemeteries. Two of these were still active, those
being Andersonville and Andrew Johnson National
Historic Sites. Because the eligibility requirements
for interment were the same at all these cemeteries,
the Commission elected to debate the merits of
further consolidation to improve efficiency and to
better address the needs of veterans. In January

392. Ibid., 30-31.

393. Eugenia Estes, “Andrew Johnson Cemetery Lodge
Restored; Open House Set for 11am to 4pm Friday,”
Greeneville Sun, April 24, 1997, A7.

78 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


and privy, and collected a large amount of
information, some of which even showed what the
Johnson family “actually ate,” according to
Cornelison. The crew laid out a grid and ran
remote-sensing devices over the grounds to detect
and map sub-surface features. Shovel tests were also
conducted, which resulted in a few finds such as
nails, bones, and glass. The work was intended to
support the “historic landscape report,” but
Cornelison thought “the [archeological] potential is
certainly here to make it worth coming back in a few
years, if funding is available.” 14?

Although the CLR was originally scheduled for
completion in August 1998, completing the
archeological work delayed the project, and a draft
CLR was not completed and reviewed by park staff
until the spring of 2001. Treatment
recommendations called for preserving the few
historical landscape features that remained, but it
primarily called for using the landscape as an
interpretive tool.

A meeting was held to discuss various issues in the
report on May 15, 2001. Other than a few scant
references, such as Frank Lestie’s Illustrated
Newspaper and a single photograph of the
Homestead from 1875, very little was known about
the Homestead’s landscape during Johnson’s time.
Past researchers had failed to produce much else
and little new information was uncovered while
developing the CLR. As a result, the CLR based
many of its landscape recommendations upon an
account of the Homestead grounds made by
Martha Landstreet Willingham, a great-
granddaughter of President Johnson who lived at
the Homestead as a child between 1891 and 1901.
In 1956, she provided Andrew Johnson National
Historic Site Supt. Benjamin Davis with a detailed
account of the grounds and a not-to-scale drawing
of the grounds that provided information on the
circulation, fencing, buildings, vegetation and
hydrology of the property as Willingham
remembered it.'*

142, “Archeologists Unearthing Past at Andrew Johnson
Historic Site,” Greeneville Sun, May 16, 1998, A1, A7.
SEAC eventually produced a report on this work.
SANR for Fiscal Year 1998.

143. Draft Cultural Landscape Report for Andrew Johnson
Homestead, undated, 11, copy found in Cultural
Resources Division digital files (J:\cultural
landscapes\CLAPARKS\ANJO: accessed February 2007),
SERO.

For Superintendent Corey, the main attraction of
this approach was his need to provide a clear
rationale for any treatment recommendations so
that he could justify to the public any changes
proposed. Corey foresaw that there would be public
discontent with any plan that transformed the
estate-like feel of the Homestead grounds to
something more accurate but perhaps less
aesthetically appealing to some.!44

Given the paucity of information on the landscape
during Johnson’s lifetime, the Willingham account
and later accounts by Mrs. Andrew Johnson
Patterson remained important sources of
information. In the opinion of the CLR authors, the
Willingham and Patterson accounts most likely
showed a varied plant palette more indicative of
their late Victorian time period; but the circulation,
fencing, and outbuilding patterns were probably
more consistent with the 1875 scene, a theory that
future archeology might be able to prove. As is often
the case with such studies, the report synthesized
information from several accounts, only a few of
which were contemporaneous with Johnson’s
tenure on the property. Historians are familiar with
such problems, and although the existing
information was useful in a lot of different ways, it
required careful corroboration by other methods of
inquiry, especially archeology. Unfortunately, as the
draft CLR stated, “archaeological investigations
were completed at the site in recent years but no
final report has been published with findings.”!

That was true—SEAC did not publish its findings
from the May 1998 investigations until 2002, even
though SEAC’s researchers were cognizant that
their findings might feed into a CLR. The problem
was that neither investigation specifically
coordinated its methodology with the other’s work.
Another problem was that the investigation was
only a preliminary survey and not extensive enough
to address a number of issues raised by the CLR.!46

144, See "Actions Taken from ANJO Homestead CLR
Meeting Notes,” May 15, 2001, in copy found in
Cultural Resource Division digital files (J\cultural
Tandscapes\CLPARKS\ANJO: accessed February 2007),
SERO.

145. Draft Cultural Landscape Report for Andrew Johnson
Homestead, undated, 1, copy found in Cultural
Resources Division digital files (J:\cultural
landscapes\CLIPARKS\ANJO: accessed February 2007),
SERO.

National Park Service 33


Reconstruction to help celebrate the bicentennial of
Andrew Johnson’s birth in 2008.

Andrew Johnson and the Reconstruction era have
been controversial topics in American history, but
the park endeavors to present “a balanced story of
Johnson,” as Superintendent Corey stated in
2006.°°” The issue of objectivity is a real concern for,
as interpretive planning specialist John Beck noted,
it is often difficult “managing the story and legacy of

557. Corey, e-mail to Cameron Binkley and John Beck,
December 20, 2006.

a favorite son in a very small town.”>°8 Formally, the
park has focused upon Johnson’s self-professed role
as “the constitutional president” and the political
and civic lessons that can be derived from his
impeachment. Nevertheless, slavery and its role in
leading to the American Civil War are also discussed
at the historic site. If there is debate about elements
of park interpretation, the processes that led to that
presentation have been transparent and open to
public and professional input.

558. John Beck, e-mail to Cameron Binkley, December 11,
2006.

National Park Service 119


was still at an early phase, but it was a bit poignant
that dedication day press releases made such
announcements as “Fred Thompson to Cast the
First Impeachment Vote.” For the record, Senator
Thompson voted “not guilty” in the case of
President Johnson. On February 12, 1999, he
similarly voted President Clinton “not guilty.”495

NPS staff could not have predicted President
Clinton’s impeachment was going to happen while
they were planning the exhibits. However, once the
possibility became seriously debated in the media,
staff quickly saw the interpretive possibilities. As
Corey said later, “we felt like we might be right in the
thick of things in terms of the public eye.” To garner
potential media attention, the park did prepare
press packets for the dedication with a sense that
there might be a real impeachment going on. It
helped ensure “a nice turnout,” Corey noted.

As the possibility of an impeachment increased, the
park began to receive a lot of media attention.
Reporters and photographers from the Associated
Press and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution arrived in
late September 1998 in one of many visits by
journalists seeking to compare the impeachment of
Andrew Johnson with a potential similar
impeachment of President Clinton.*9” Like millions
of Americans, many in Greeneville were keenly
interested in the Clinton impeachment saga, but for
reasons perhaps unique—until December 19, 1998,
Greeneville had laid claim as the hometown of the
only U.S. president ever to be impeached. On
December 19, 1998, Greene Countians anxiously
awaited news from the U.S. House, which did vote
that day to approve two of four articles of
impeachment against the president. Many were
concerned about what impact the impeachment
might have on Greeneville and the national historic
site.

Whatever the long-term consequences, there had to
be at least a few changes made to the park’s

495. “Sen. Thompson to Cast Vote Here on Andrew
Johnson's Impeachment,” Greeneville Sun, May 13,
1998, A1, A7. Corey, Oral History Interview by
Cameron Binkley, 35; See United States Senate web
site: http:/Awwwsenate.goviindex.htm for a record of
“Senate Roll Call Votes” for the 106th Congress, 1st
Session (Vote 17, February 12, 1999, 12:08pm)

496. Corey, Oral History Interview by Cameron Binkley, 35.

497. "17' President Getting More Media Attention,”
Greeneville Sun, September 28, 1998, A1

FIGURE 53. Senator Fred Thompson casts his vote
of “not guilty during dedication ceremonies
i

for new exhibits at Andrew Johnson National
Historic Site on May 23, 1998.

interpretive displays. Chief of Operations Jim Small
told the Greeneville Sun that if Clinton were
impeached, the words “and only” would have to be
taped over on the display that stated: “On February
24, 1868, Andrew Johnson became the first and only
president ever to be impeached by the House of
Representatives.”4% Indeed, that did happen and
the park had to rescreen its displays. Park staff also
began to review NPS literature, such as brochures
and leaflets, to ensure that these would be
consistent with the impeachment of Clinton or any
other future impeachment.

As it turned out, most of these documents referred
to Johnson as the “first” president to be impeached
and not the “only” one, so that most would remain
accurate. As far as books and materials in the park’s
bookstore were concerned, those could not be
corrected by the Park Service if outdated. Small also
noted that NPS interpreters would, of course, make
any necessary changes in their verbal presentations.
The park’s interpretive exhibits had only that year
been updated with their first major revamping since

498, Cameron Judd, “A Clinton impeachment Would
Affect Presentations at Johnson Historical Sites—But
Not Very Much," Greeneville Sun, December 19, 1998,
Al, Ab.

National Park Service 103


Johnson that helped to motivate the later
impeachment episode.

In responding to Beck’s query about interpreting a
“favorite son” in a small town, Corey noted that
Margaret Bartlett had an influence on park
interpretation during its first decades while she
worked as an interpreter.>>” Bartlett was a living
authority on her great-grandfather President
Andrew Johnson, and park interpretive staff were
probably influenced by her views. She was well
known for her pronouncements on every aspect of
Johnson and his legacy. Her views, undoubtedly
genuine and steeped in oral tradition, may or may
not have been aligned with then-current
scholarship.

Elaine Clark, Hugh Lawing, and other staff who
served with Bartlett were clearly close to her.>>8
Respect for her authority compelled the Service to

537. Corey, e-mail to Cameron Binkley and John Beck. This
comment by Mark Corey is formed upon observations
rather than experience as Margaret Bartlett died
shortly after he became Superintendent of Andrew
Johnson National Historic Site.

538. See Clark, Oral Interview by Connie Aiken; and
Lawing, Oral Interview by Connie Aiken.

FIGURE 57, Postcard of Early Home of Andrew
Johnson painted by a relative of a park
employee. Courtesy of C. K. Hinkle.

arrange for Bartlett to visit Harpers Ferry Center to
have her oral memoirs recorded. Nevertheless, even
Lawing, who often cited Bartlett, drew limits on that
authority and after her retirement the sway of
Johnson family views on park interpretation waned.
Superintendent Corey later remarked, “I can only
imagine that not having relatives on the staff made
managing the site easier.”539

539. Mark Corey, e-mail to Cameron Binkley and John
Beck, December 20, 2006.

112, Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


By relocating park headquarters to the Cemetery
Lodge, Superintendent Corey was able to solve
several other park problems, including the
consolidation of administrative offices, improved
curatorial storage, increased access by visitors to the
Early Home, and creation of a theater in the Visitor
Center, which inspired further efforts to develop a
new interpretive plan, new exhibits, and the park’s
first orientation film. More significantly, the
Cemetery Lodge renovation resulted in an ADA-
compliant ramp that was roundly criticized for
detracting from the historic appearance and of the
Lodge.

Interpreting Andrew Johnson. Beginning 1973 and
continuing into the 1990s, the summer Piano Living
History program was a central feature of Homestead
tours. Local girls in period attire played period
tunes in the parlor at the Homestead on Sunday
afternoons under the supervision of Park Ranger
Elaine R. Clark who had sewn their outfits.°°° The
program won high praise for “exceptional
service.”5>! Visitation was erratic, however, and the
program proved difficult to sustain without Clark’s
many off-duty hours. In 1974, the Homestead was
included in the Greeneville Historic House tour,
sponsored by the Greeneville Heritage Trust, an
activity popular for many years. Clark and Margaret
Bartlett acted as hostesses and Christmas music was
played as during the summer Piano Living History
program. The program was supported by small
donations from sales at the park bookstore, run by
Eastern National Parks and Monuments
Association. Similar donations continued into the
2000s and made important contributions to park
interpretive activities.

In 1982, Andrew Johnson saw record crowds as a
result of the World’s Fair, which took place in
Knoxville, Tennessee, that year. Many staff
participated in manning an NPS booth at the Fair,
but Hugh Lawing was suddenly recalled to the park
to stand as acting superintendent after Lloyd
Abelson suffered a fatal heart attack on duty. A
World War II veteran, Abelson was buried in
Andrew Johnson National Cemetery.>>?

550. SANR for 1973, January 17, 1974. These dresses were
later used on special occasions, namely the annual
Christmas tours of the Homestead, but originally they
were produced for the summer interpretive program.

551. “Special Recognition for Mrs. Clark," Greeneville Sun,
December 10, 1973.

FIGURE 61, Junior Rangers being recruited at
the Visitor Center of Andrew Johnson
National Historic Site in 1987.

Anew type of living history story began at the park
in May 1988 when re-enactors representing the 8%
Tennessee Volunteer Infantry arrived at the historic
site and set up camp in what became an annual
ritual. The re-enactors were volunteers themselves
who enjoyed the activity of dramatizing and
educating the public on what life was like during the
Civil War and President Johnson’s impeachment
trial.

One of the biggest and perhaps most controversial
interpretive changes at the park took place in 1993,
when an NPS “Operations Evaluation”
recommendation that the park implement
scheduled guided tours of the Homestead was
implemented. The previous regime had allowed
visitors to wander through the building at their own
pace, a practice that did not foster good
interpretation and which also left the building and
its contents subject to vandalism or theft.

Exhibit Design. Renovations of the Cemetery
Lodge and Early Home also helped bring about
significant change in park interpretation. Once park
headquarters were consolidated in the Lodge, much
more interpretive space was available in the Visitor
Center and Early Home. In 1993, planning for a
major overhaul of the park’s exhibits got underway.
As management stated, the exhibits “do not seem to
effectively interpret major themes to the visitor,”

552. “Lloyd Abelson Dies at 60," Greeneville Sun,
September 14, 1982, 6.

National Park Service 117


As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the
Department of the Interior has responsibility for most
of our nationally owned public lands and natural
resources. This includes fostering sound use of our
land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife,
and biological diversity; preserving the environmental
and cultural values of our national parks and
historical places; and providing for the enjoyment of
life through outdoor recreation. The department
assesses our energy and mineral resources and works
to ensure that their development is in the best
interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship
and citizen participation in their care. The
department also has a major responsibility for
American Indian reservation communities and for
people who live in island territories under U.S.
administration.

NPS D-45, August 2008
Andrew Johnson National Historic Site
Administrative History


365 |D-45

Andrew Johnson National Historic Site

Administrative History

2008

Cameron Binkley

Cultural Resources Division
Southeast Regional Office


Appendix E: Visitation Statistics

Year
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953,
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968

Total Visits
5,149
8,138

14,655
16,738
25,650
22,830
21,864
23,664
25,988
31,106
30,587
36,449
32,800
34,200
35,900
34,800
37,300
37,700
41,900
47,800
48,900
48,100
50,600
47,600
47,500
49,000
46,500

1969

Year

1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995

45,900

Total Visits

47,600
46,900
63,887
55,200
48,000
48,900
47,200
45,600
42,552
47,674
65,591
74,100
77,578
119,410
84,889
68,607
72,600
77,095
76,566
71,350
71,017
82,076
64,481
41,703
59,538
63,196

National Park Service 135


park interpretation was either deficient or required
ongoing evaluation. The Statement noted four areas
in particular, discussing first the need to monitor the
new guided tour program instituted that January at
the Andrew Johnson Homestead. As previously
discussed, the new approach had benefits and
drawbacks as well as local critics.

Other areas of concern noted by the Statement
involved the park’s Mission 66-era museum
exhibits.4® These exhibits had become outdated
and required renewal. According to the Statement,
they “do not seem to effectively interpret major
themes to the visitor as judged by the number of
questions about the exhibits put to the ranger at the
information desk. There seems to be a particular
lack of effectiveness in dealing with Johnson’s
impeachment and trial.” Furthermore, said the
Statement, the park lacked an effective audio-visual
program. Indeed, except for a taped message in the
Tailor Shop, the Visitor Center and museum lacked
any kind of audio-visual presentation at all. It was
also difficult for elderly and handicapped people to
tour the Homestead and thus the Statement noted
the need to develop some type of effective
alternative educational method to attend to these
visitors’ needs.*°6

It was easy enough to institute a program of guided
tours at the Andrew Johnson Homestead, but the
development of new exhibits and interpretive
media, which were both expensive and required
careful planning, had to follow upon the completion
of the park’s major facility improvements. By early
1995, the Early Home had been fully renovated,
although public access was still limited to just two
rooms with meager interpretive exhibits, while
those at the Cemetery Lodge were well underway.
Perhaps more important, between 1994 and the end
of 1996, Superintendent Corey had begun seriously
thinking about transferring his administrative
offices to the Cemetery Lodge, which opened new
possibilities for interpretation at the park. For
example, if ranger offices were moved out of the
Visitor Center and the park administrative officers
were transferred to the Lodge, much more space

465. Mission 66 was a Federally sponsored program to
improve conditions in the national parks that was
begun in 1955 under Director Conrad L. Wirth, and
ended in 1966.

466. Andrew Johnson National Historic Site, “Statement
for Management/Basic Operations Statement,”
approved December 10, 1993, 9, in AJNHS archives.

would be available at the Visitor Center and the
Early Home for interpreting the story of Andrew
Johnson. It was time to develop a Long Range
Interpretive Plan. The effort to develop this plan
helped the park clarify what role the Cemetery
Lodge would play in managing and interpreting the
Andrew Johnson National Historic Site.46”

A Long Range Interpretive Plan seeks to lay out a
park’s major interpretive themes as well as a strategy
to express those themes over a long period. In
February 1995, Corey convened a three-day
meeting to solicit input from experts on Andrew
Johnson’s presidency and park interpretation in the
process of developing this important document. It
was also a chance to gather feedback from local
stakeholders. The meeting included park staff,
representatives of the Greene County Partnership
and Tusculum College, and experts of the NPS
Southeast Regional office from Atlanta.*8 John
Beck and Priscilla Nalls, interpretive specialists from
the regional office, facilitated that project.

Major development decisions had been made
already at Andrew Johnson National Historic Site.
Thus, those at the conference were able to focus
upon how these important changes might fit into
long-range interpretive plans. This meeting laid out
what story visitors to the park would hear in coming
years as well as what they might see in the form of
interpretive exhibits and audio-visual productions, a
special concern given the difficulty in interpreting
the central drama of Andrew Johnson’s
presidency—the highly legalistic, though gravely
Constitutional, crisis surrounding his impeachment.
Certainly, by the time the report was completed, the
park knew it wanted to create new exhibits.

After the meeting, park staff produced a write-up of
the proposed Long Range Interpretive Plan and
submitted it for review. The Appalachian System
Support Office reviewed the document.*®? It
compared the proposed plan to the park’s existing
Statement for Interpretation, Statement for

467. No decision on use of the Cemetery Lodge was made
in the Long Range Interpretive Plan. However, the
plan noted that possible uses for the structure
included housing, storage, or administrative offices.
National Park Service, “Long Range Interpretive Plan:
Andrew Johnson National Historic Site,” approved
February 20, 1996, 8, in AJNHS archives.

468. “Andrew Johnson Historic Site’s New Exhibits Ready
for Viewing,” Greeneville Sun, April 19, 1998, A1, A6.

96 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


FIGURE 30, View of the cemetery, lodge, and
Monument Hill, c. 1908.

Construction of Greeneville, which was awarded
$89,000. The new road with loop, curbs, and
sidewalks was completed in 1975. The same project
also expanded the parking area around the existing
utility building near the Cemetery Lodge.?”

The new access road was completely separate from
the historic entrance on Monument Avenue.
Unfortunately, to complete this project, it was
necessary to breach the historic cemetery wall,
create a new entrance, and relocate the historic
segment.” This task was accomplished by bringing
in a large crane that lifted one section of the wall
from its foundation. Workmen also had to pour oil
into the “tongue and groove” joints between the
wall sections to help ease them apart. Two sections
approximately twenty-four feet in length were
moved back to form an inverted open “V” shape,
allowing passage of the new road.2/” This procedure
was a risky because the wall was constructed about
1908 and was not reinforced with steel.

The National Cemetery was listed administratively
in the National Register of Historic Places in 1966,
as previously discussed. Under Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the
project plans were subject to review by the
‘Tennessee SHPO and the Advisory Council. Both
concurred with the finding that development of the
access road and new burial sites would not have an
adverse effect on the cemetery’s historic character,
and the project was approved.2”8

275. SANR for 1974, February 19, 1975.

276. SANR for 1974, February 19, 1975.

277. “New Entrance” and “14 Tons of Concrete,”
Greeneville Sun, March 4, 1975.

In retrospect, the wall sections apparently survived
the trauma of their dislocation, but there was an
impact. Mainly, the project created a new design
element that was historically inconsistent with the
layout of the cemetery, especially in comparison to
the front entrance, as a later NPS Cultural
Landscape Report determined.?”9

Resistance to breaching the wall probably existed at
the time. Hugh Lawing, who had served at the park
in 1975, claimed in retirement that “I have always
thought, and still do, that breaking through the back
wall to gain entrance to that portion of the cemetery
was a mistake.” He informed Superintendent Mark
Corey in 1993 that when the breach was being
contemplated one alternate proposal was to adapt a
road going from the main drive just above the utility
area that might have followed the natural contour of
the hill around to the back of the cemetery.2®° Why
this proposal was rejected in lieu of impairing the
historic wall is unknown. The suggestion may or
may not have been feasible, but there is little
evidence that it was much discussed.

There were other minor improvements in 1975,
notably a chain gate was installed to block traffic on
the main cemetery entrance road after hours. Such
changes, especially the new road, impressed upon
Superintendent Abelson the need for “a detailed,
overall Landscape Plan” for the cemetery. Without
it, he feared that short-term expediency would lead
to random site locations. His plan, dating to 1963,
only recorded existing sites and facilities and did not
map out new grave plots.?8' However, Regional
Landscape Architect Alan Woodrow was already

278. “Report on the Preparation of the Andrew Johnson
National Cemetery Plans,” a Report to accompany
Interment Plan/Cemetery Landscape Plan, Southeast
Regional Office, February 1984, 5, in AINHS archives

279. According to the 1993 report, “due to the historical
importance of the wall, reconfiguration of the Vann
Road entrance should be considered. The unnatural
way the wall segments were turned to create the
entrance opening mars the beauty of the original
design.” Regional Historical Landscape Architect Lucy
Lawliss recommended that the main entrance be used
as a proto-type to develop a more historically
appropriate design for the new gate, which was
eventually done. See Lucy Lawliss, Andrew Johnson
National Cemetery Cultural Landscape Report
(Atlanta: National Park Service, 1993), 21-22.

280. Hugh A. Lawing, Letter to Superintendent, Andrew
Johnson NHS, February 1, 1993, in folder marked
“Hugh Lawing File,” located in the superintendent's
office, AJNHS.

281. SANR for 1974, February 19, 1975.

56 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


FIGURE 22, Work to maintain the exterior of
Andrew Johnson's “Early Home” is a routine
activity at Andrew Johnson National Historic Site
but interior renovations took many years.

move museum storage out of the Visitor Center,
freeing office space. The museum collection was
then to be set up in a so-called “Bally building,” a
pre-fabricated, portable structure with security and
climate control features, often used at parks for such
purposes. The only problem with this proposal was
that Webb wanted to install the building inside the
Early Home.

In November 1987, NPS regional staff visited the
park to investigate the situation. In January 1988,
Historical Architect Rene Cote filed a trip report
with his recommendations. He and other cultural
resource specialists took a dim view of park efforts
to place a Bally Building within the early Johnson
house. The Chief of the Historic Architecture
Division asked the Regional Director to block the
move, asserting that it constituted an “adverse
effect” on an historic property. Unfortunately, the
park had already purchased the Bally Building.

According to Cote, there were manifold problems
with the installation of a Bally Building in the
historic home. First, the intent of the Federal
government in procuring the Early Home to begin
with was to “restore, furnish and open this house to
the public,” as indicated by the park’s enabling
legislation. The Early Home was never intended,
Cote argued, for museum storage. Second, while the
building’s interior needed costly restoration work,
adapting the building for museum storage would
also involve costs. In particular, Cote noted that the

200. It is not clear how Webb got approval to purchase the
Bally Building.

load-bearing capacity of the floor in the structure’s
parlor area, where the park proposed to install the
Bally Building, was insufficient. This floor would
have to be extensively reinforced to support the
Bally Building, heavy museum storage cabinets, and
some six thousand pounds of collections weight, all
of which would more than double the floor’s
existing load limits. Additional problems included
clearances that would be so tight that routine
maintenance of the home would be difficult and
would encourage mold growth. The existing
building also lacked support systems for
temperature, humidity and light that would meet
NPS standards. Besides aesthetic issues with placing

in “aluminum-skin cube in the midst of an early
19th century parlor,” it simply was not consistent
with preservation of the Early Home. Cote’s
conclusion was simple. “It is my opinion,” he wrote,
“that the installation of the Bally Building within the
1831 House is inappropriate and an undesirable
solution for curatorial storage.”201

Cote’s engineering analysis alone was probably
sufficient to kill the proposal and regional NPS
managers agreed fully with his assessment. Deputy
Associate Regional Director Paul Hartwig informed
Superintendent Webb that a meeting with regional
officials was required to work out a solution.20?

Cote offered several alternatives, which would form
the basis of much discussion and future decisions at
the park. His first alternative was to acquire a two-
story brick structure adjacent to the Early Home,
Tailor Shop, and Visitor Center complex. This
building was for sale for $60,000 and could provide
for all the park’s administrative and storage needs.
The major caveat, besides the cost, was that
congressional approval was required to expand the
park. But leasing might also be possible. If this route

201. Historic Architect (Rene Cote], Memorandum to Chief,
Historic Architecture Division, Southeast Region,
entitled “Trip report and recommendations, Andrew
Johnson National Historic Site,” January 5, 1988, in
“ANJO General” folder, park files, CRD, SERO.

. Cecil McKithan, for Deputy Associate Regional
Director, Cultural Resources, Memorandum to
Superintendent, AJNHS, January 26, 1988; and Chief,
Historic Architecture Division, Southeast Region,
Memorandum to Deputy Associate Regional Director,
Cultural Resources, January 18, 1988; and Historic
Architect [Rene Cote], Memorandum to Chief, Historic
Architecture Division, Southeast Region, entitled “Trip
report and recommendations, Andrew Johnson
National Historic Site,” January 5, 1988; all in “ANJO
General” folder, park files, CRD, SERO.

20.

8

42 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


Actually, the longer term success of the program was
due to Clark’s willingness to put in the extra hours
needed for supervision. As she later recalled, it was
difficult to schedule the girls’ time. Lawing,
Harrison, and other girls who followed only played
for two hours each, but visitation was unpredictable.
The girls were paid one hundred dollars per
summer using funds provided by Eastern National,
a national association in support of the National
Park Service. To manage her young charges, Clark
had to be with them during their Sunday afternoon
performances. If she was not around, she soon
found, the girls might not wear all the appropriate
attire, such as the wig, or might play inappropriate
music. They were fine when she was there, however,
so she made it a point to be there, which
necessitated off-duty supervision for many years.
When the program ended, Clark had no regrets,
because it had absorbed much of her time while
visitation remained sporadic.*4?

In 1974, the Homestead was included in the
Greeneville Historic House tour, sponsored by the
Greeneville Heritage Trust. Clark, using her Harpers
Ferry dress, along with a similarly attired Margaret
Bartlett, acted as hostesses. For the first tour, young
girls from a local girl scout troop volunteered to
decorate the home for Christmas as it would have
appeared in the late nineteenth century. Misses Ann
Lawing and Jenni Harrison were also enlisted to
play Christmas music of the 1870s. Warm cider was
served from the Johnson kitchen. This event would
become a local tradition, although in later years the
Homestead was not always included on the tour.

In 1982, the living history piano program at Andrew
Johnson was extended three extra months to match
the duration of the World’s Fair being held nearby in
Knoxville, Tennessee. Incidentally, park employees
Hugh Lawing, Opal Coffman, and Ronald Pyron
worked one week each to help staff the NPS booth
at the fair.44 Despite some minor glitches, the piano
program was considered a great success. There was
also a living history program with separate piano
events during the Christmas season for several
years. Costumed volunteers from the Anchor Club
of Greeneville High School, members of the Girl
Scouts, and youth from Asbury United Methodist

442. Clark, Oral Interview by Connie Aiken, 15-16.
443. SANR for 1974, February 19, 1975.
444. SANR for 1982, February 23, 1983.

FIGUI

E48, NPS interpretive staff during the
World's Fair in Knoxville, Tennessee, 1982.

Church were stationed in each room of the home to
greet and answer visitors’ questions. As for many
years previous, Elaine Clark dressed in period attire
and oversaw the event. She was accompanied by
Barbara Inman with piano performances by Becky
Goddard, Kendra Hinkle, and others. Over three
hundred visitors toured the Homestead during the
Christmas program in 191.445

Over the years, several young girls performed in the
living history piano program during the Christmas
tour and were supported by small donations made
from sales at the park bookstore, which has long
been run by Eastern National Parks and
Monuments Association. Usually, the girls received
a hundred dollars for the summer and twenty
dollars for the weekend. In 1987, Eastern National
was helping to support other small but useful needs
at the park. It had gross sales of $10,253 that year,
meaning the park received a $500 percentage
donation. These funds were spent on Upper East

445. “A.J. Homestead’s Open this Weekend,” Greeneville
Sun, December 5, 1991; and SANR (for 1991), 199[2].

National Park Service 91


FIGURE 8, In 1995, this property adjacent to the
park Visitor Center (extreme right) was briefly
considered for acquisition bye @ park to provide
additional space. (ANJO Coll.)

with him in his Washington office. “It was difficult
to disagree with a Senator,” reported Abelson, “but
he was realistic as he saw the impracticality of
adding a buffer zone to a buffer zone.” Abelson felt
that Senator Hatfield’s real aim in visiting the park
was to obtain a field-level view of the care and
maintenance of presidential homes.”

In April 1988, Andrew Johnson staff again
considered the possibility of adding a new building
to the park. John E, Ehrenhard, Acting Deputy
Associate Regional Director for Cultural Resources,
informed the park that the regional office was
willing to consider its request to acquire the brick
building on the same side of the street as the Early
Home to help meet park space needs. However,
Ehrenhard warned that the process was difficult,
requiring both a legislative amendment and
problematic funding for property acquisitions.
Acquisition of the property was not pursued.

61

The same issue rose again in April 1995. Deputy
Associate Regional Director Paul B. Hartwig
advised the Associate Regional Director for
Operations on a potential donation to the historic
site that might contribute to the “historic district.”
The building was adjacent to the park Visitor
Center. It had a historic exterior in good condition,
but extensive modification of the interior had
already occurred. The already-compromised
interior could be cost effectively rehabilitated and

60. SANR for 1979, February 27, 1980.

61. John E, Ehrenhard, Acting Deputy Associate Regional
Director, Cultural Resources, Memorandum to
Superintendent, AJNHS, April 25, 1988, in “ANJO
General" folder, park files, CRD, SERO.

adapted for curatorial and administrative needs.
Hartwig, however, thought that the building
contained more space than the park needed and,
when considered in the light of other regional
priorities, Hartwig concluded, “I do not think it will
come out very high.”® No new structures have
been added to the park since the Early Home in
1963.

Andrew Johnson
Homestead

NPS Architectural historian Ernest Allen Connally
conducted extensive research on Andrew Johnson’s
Homestead in the 1950s, and architect Henry Judd
later added important supplementary information
on its restoration, which he oversaw between 1957
and 1958.63 Hugh Lawing discussed the context of
their work in his administrative history and these
studies, along with an amendment to the HSR in
2001, remain the primary sources of information for
park management about the Homestead. After the
major restoration work was completed, the
Homestead was opened to the public and stayed
open without major interruptions for over four
decades. Little more than routine maintenance was
the norm for most of the 1960s and 1970s.

On May 12, 1978, one small addition was made to
the Homestead when a plaque was mounted on a
wall to honor Andrew J. Patterson and his wife
Martha for their efforts in promoting and acquiring
the Homestead for the National Park Service. Mrs.
Paul Metcalf of the Daughters of the American
Revolution (DAR) and Neal Guse, Southeast Region
Deputy Director, attended the ceremony.®4

During the renovation of the late 1950s, the Park
Service had been very careful in its restoration of
the presidential home and recreation of its historic

62. Deputy Associate Regional Director Paul B. Hartwig,
Memorandum to Associate Regional Director, April
25, 1995, in “ANJO General” folder, park files, CRD,
SERO.

63. Connally’s Historic Resource Study was extensive, but
even more detail was added by Henry Judd in his 1959
supplement. Together, their work has formed the
basis of NPS efforts to restore and preserve the
Andrew Johnson Homestead as it appeared during
the life of President Johnson. See Connally, Survey
Report: Restoration, and Judd, Restoration of the
Andrew Johnson Homestead.

64. SANR for 1978, January 3, 1979.

16 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


as well as landscape features such as roads,
walkways, a flagstaff, culverts, individual markers,
and fencing.

When the original National Register documentation
was completed in the 1970s, the historic context of
War Department and NPS administration of the
National Cemetery was not considered an
important part of the site’s historical significance.
By 1994, however, the National Register and NPS
management recognized that commemorative
movements were also important historical themes
requiring consideration and preservation. Because
the LCS survey identified numerous resources that
were potentially eligible for the National Register
within this context, an amendment to the original
nomination was appropriate.*4

Another reason to update the park’s LCS was to
chart the condition of the park’s resources. By the
early 1990s, the old cemetery stable was being used
as a maintenance building, and while it had
structural integrity, its setting had been severely
compromised by adjacent construction of a garage
and parking lot. According to Carroll, the scene
presented “a cluttered atmosphere in proximity to
the entrance gate,” which negatively affected the
“solemn approach achieved by Monument
Avenue.” Carroll also felt that the effects of nearby
residential development along Monument Avenue
needed to be evaluated. At the Johnson Homestead,
she surveyed the “spring wall” that sheltered the
spring and which once may have been the site of a
spring house. She also noted that there was little
documentation on the Tailor Shop and the 1830
Home, but that these buildings were already listed
and did not need additional documentation. *5

In August 1994, Karen Rehm, as Acting Chief,
Cultural Resources Division, Southeast Region,
wrote to Superintendent Corey about the LCS
update and the amendment to the park’s National
Register nomination to be prepared by her division.
Rehm outlined plans to update the park’s National

44. Maureen A. Carroll, LCS Team, Memorandum to
Karen G. Rehm, Senior Historian, June 10, 1994, trip
report in “ANJO NR/DOE Correspondence” folder,
Park National Register Nomination files, CRD, SERO.
Ibid. In forming her opinions of the National
Cemetery, Carroll was likely influenced by a recently
completed cultural landscape report (CLR) for the
cemetery by Lucy Lawliss, discussed extensively under
the section with that heading.

45.

12. Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History

Register nomination to include all the National
Cemetery features and the “Homestead Spring
Wall,” while identifying the “Machine Gun Marker”
as a non-contributing feature. This captured
German weapon had been placed in the park by a
veteran’s group but was not associated with the
cemetery’s historic development.“ The park’s new
approved List of Classified Structures was signed by
Deputy Associate Regional Director Paul Hartwig
on September 15, 1994.” More recent research for
a CLR indicates that the spring wall is not the
original dating to the Johnson Family period, but
rather a 20th century springhead that re-used
historic fabric, and the feature has been removed
from the park’s LCS.

The National
Register of
Historic Places

By way of a memorandum dated March 19, 1973,
the Director of the Southeast Regional Office
instructed Andrew Johnson National Historic Site
to prepare a National Register of Historic Places
nomination for historic resources in the park. The
historic resources of the park were, of course, well
known; in fact they were already listed in the
National Register, but they had not been
documented to the standards that had been
developed in the seven years since the National
Register was expanded.

Before passage of the National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA) in 1966, the national historic
preservation program outside the National Park
System revolved around two programs established
by the NPS in the 1930s, the Historic American
Buildings Survey (HABS) and the Historic Sites
Survey. The 1935 Historic Sites Act authorized NPS

46. Karen M. Rehm, Acting Chief, Cultural Resources
Planning Division, SERO, Memorandum to
Superintendent, AINHS, August 11, 1994, in “ANJO
NR/DOE Correspondence” folder, Park National
Register Nomination files, CRD, SERO.

Deputy Associate Regional Director Paul B. Hartwig,
Memorandum to Superintendent, AJNHS, September
15, 1994, in “ANJO NR/DOE Correspondence” folder,
Park National Register nomination files, CRD, SERO.
She also requested cost estimates for restoring the
stable and the fence around the Johnson Monument,
as recommended in the park’s cemetery Cultural
Landscape Report.

47.


important than any argument made at the time, was
how artifacts and the building interiors were subject
to environmental degradation by allowing the
building to be opened continuously. With the site
open continuously, humidity, heat, dust, and insects
could not as readily be controlled. Whether the
decision was more than right or wrong at the time, it
turned out to be better for preservation in the long
run. Over time, locals and park visitors adapted to
the new interpretative approach. Hugh Lawing, of
course, claimed that the positive response was
skewed because those visitors, at least local visitors,
who were unhappy with the new tours simply did
not go on them. Nevertheless, over time resistance
to the change was muted. Lawing himself even
admitted “that no permanent damage was being
done to the overall integrity of the area” by the new
interpretive program, which is about as much praise,
at least in writing, as he ever gave park staff under
the Corey administration. 43

The debate over the use of guided tours at the
Andrew Johnson Homestead would go on for years,
but there was one indisputable benefit—improved
security. In April 1993, only months after the tour
plan was implemented, a very curious exhibit was
placed on display at the Homestead. The exhibit was
a porcelain tea-set and music box designed as a
miniature locomotive. It once played eight separate
tunes. Its most unique feature, however, was the
depiction of both Confederate and French emblems
that symbolized the hoped for but never achieved
alliance between the Confederate States of America
and France. The locomotive was originally
presented as a gift to Andrew Johnson by a Mr. A.
Barratti, who acquired it in Richmond during the
period of Federal occupation. Apparently, Johnson
actually brewed tea using the locomotive. The tea-
set was a loan from the estate of Margaret Johnson
Patterson Bartlett. Its permanent home was the
Andrew Johnson Museum at Tusculum College. The
exhibition of the unusual, delicate, and easily stolen
tea-set at the Homestead certainly demonstrated
that the guided tour arrangement provided a more
secure environment for museum-quality
artifacts,44

463. Hugh A. Lawing, Letter to Mark Corey,
Superintendent, Andrew Johnson NHS, October 16,
2001, in folder marked “Hugh Lawing File,” located in
the superintendent's office, AJNHS.

464. “Locomotive Coffee/Tea-Maker on Exhibit at Johnson
Site,” Greeneville Sun, April 2, 1993.

Exhibit and
Interpretive Planning
in the 1990s and
Early 2000s

In the mid-1990s, Andrew Johnson National
Historic Site set out to update its interpretive
approach, which was spurred on by the changes
resulting from the relocation of park headquarters
to the Cemetery Lodge and by restoration of the
Early Home, as previously discussed. According to
Superintendent Mark Corey, “two wonderful
things” followed. First, when park headquarters was
relocated, it made interpretive space available in the
small Visitor Center, because the ranger offices
could be relocated across the street to the second
floor of the Early Home. Moving the ranger offices
was possible because the park was able to move the
superintendent’s office, formerly located on the
second floor of the Early Home, and the office of the
Administrative Officer, formerly located on the
home’s first floor, to the Cemetery Lodge. Second,
with the first floor of the Early Home vacant, more
of the building could be opened for interpretive use.
Such use was a long-sought goal of several park
superintendents.

Thus, renovations of the Cemetery Lodge and Early
Home made possible a much more expansive
interpretive program at Andrew Johnson than had
ever been contemplated before. However, the
renovation of these structures was not in and of
itself sufficient to produce a new interpretive
program. The park had to consult with numerous
experts and then acquire funds to develop approved
exhibit and long-range interpretive plans, required
by the Park Service to guide planning and exhibit
design processes. Such plans were also needed as a
prelude to any park film production.

The Long-Range
Interpretive Plan

In December 1993, the Southeast Regional Director
approved a “Statement for Management” for
Andrew Johnson National Historic Site. This
document, essentially an executive summary of the
park, its purpose, facilities, operations, and basic
needs, included a discussion of major areas in which

National Park Service 95


Maintenance of the collection would likely require
additional funding or have other implications.

Brown consulted a committee of Southeast Regional
experts and Assistant Director Ross Holland in
Washington on the proper care and best manner in
which to assure the long-term preservation of
Bartlett’s library, which was composed of many
nineteenth-century volumes once owned and used
by her grand-father and great-grandfather,
President Andrew Johnson. Some of the volumes,
whose bindings were deteriorating, needed
immediate conservation care.

After considering these issues, Brown declined to
accept the Johnson-Patterson Library. To preserve
the collection, he regretfully told Bartlett, “it should
have early and expert care and continued attention
by specialists in the library science field. In addition,
suitable and sophisticated environmental controls
should be provided in an appropriate building for
the continued preservation of the books.” In 1980,
Andrew Johnson National Historic Site did not
possess suitable museum-caliber storage facilities.
Brown thus concluded that “our interest and yours
in seeing the library kept intact in good condition
and in an area suitable for scholarly use dictates that
an operation other than the National Park Service
be entrusted with it.”

Abelson noted that many factors influenced the
decision not to accept the library of the former
president and his son. One factor was that the Early
Home, once restored, would not be an appropriate
venue to host a collection of materials that largely
post-dated the building’s association with the
Johnson family. “Ideally,” Abelson lamented, “the
Park Service should have accepted the “Johnson-
Patterson Law Office” some 20 years ago when it

96. “Park Personnel Visits Harpers Ferry; Mrs. Bartlett’s
Recollections Taped,” Greeneville Sun, May 27, 1980.
During an excavation in 1998, NPS archeologists from
the Southeast Archeological Center located structural
remains on the Homestead grounds believed to be
the Johnson smokehouse, but no archeological
evidence of other outbuildings has been found.
Archeologists in 1978 and 1979 also did not find
evidence to support Bartlett's assertion that the Early
Home’s basement was a kitchen when they examined
the property prior to its restoration. See Jay T.
Sturdevant and Charles F. Lawson, “Remote-Sensing
and Archeological Survey of the Andrew Johnson
Homestead at the Andrew Johnson National Historic
Site” (Tallahassee: Southeast Archeological Center,
2002)

was available.” Had it done so, he thought, the
Service would then have had the perfect venue for
the library.27 Thus, according to Abelson, “the Park
Service rejected her strings-attached donation on
the basis of no funds to staff and maintain a library
which we believe has no research value as far as
President Johnson is concerned.” Instead, Bartlett
finally donated her collection to Tusculum College,
where it is now housed in the President Andrew
Johnson Museum and Library.”

In 1981, Bartlett donated additional funds to
construct a replica of Andrew Johnson’s birthplace
at Tusculum College. This replica was dedicated on
November 24, 1981. Bartlett was a 1924 graduate
of Tusculum College and certainly her alma mater
was a viable alternative repository to the National
Park Service, both in terms of public access and
conservation. The President Andrew Johnson
Museum and Library, which opened in 1994 on the
campus of the two-hundred-year-old school, was
partially a result of Bartlett’s efforts to find a home
for the collection. It apparently helped to inspire
Harry Roberts, Brenda Knott, Ralph Phinney, and
other community leaders to found the museum,
which was first directed by Alvin Gerhardt.!°

In 1983, Hugh Lawing consulted with Mary Maruca
at NPS headquarters in Washington, DC, about
unusual accessioned items and some unique
curatorial problems at the park.!°! His concern was
partially related to several Johnson items owned by
Bartlett that were originally housed at the
Homestead, but which she had retained when the
structure was turned over to the Park Service. These
items were appraised by the park in 1983, with input
from Corina Booth of the Curiosity Shop in
Johnson City, to help plan future park purchases. In
fact, that year the park did purchase additional
Johnson-related items for its museum collection.

97. “National Park Service Here Declines Library
Donation,” [Greeneville Sun], June 27, 1980, in AJNHS
archives. The article was based upon a letter released
by Superintendent Lloyd Abelson from Regional
Director Joe Brown to Margaret Bartlett. The original
letter has not been located.

98. SANR for 1980, February 5, 1981.

99. SANR for 1981, February 8, 1982.

100. For more information about the efforts of Margaret
Bartlett to find a repository for the Johnson
collection, see Maria Taylor, “Tusculum Opens
Johnson Museum/Library and Coffin Collection,”
Greeneville Sun, September 9, 1994, B14-B15.

101. SANR for 1983, February 13, 1984.

24 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


The renovation allowed staff to set up a theater that
included four rows of seating and a sixty-inch
television screen connected to a modern DVD-
player.°? That was the easy part. The park also had
to justify the film, secure funding, and then script
and produce it.

The first question—why was the park unable to use
the existing film, “His Faith Never Wavered. ..”?
This film, a locally produced documentary about
the life of President Andrew Johnson, was
considered too long by NPS interpretive experts
who deemed its 38-minute length inappropriate for
park interpretive needs. NPS standards called for a
film’s length to be between 15 and 20 minutes to
accommodate the average park visitor’s interest
level. Thus, the project would have to start from
scratch. In June 1998, Superintendent Mark Corey
announced park intent to hold public meetings to
“discuss ideas and themes for the video.”

Funding for the film was made possible through the
NPS Fee Demonstration Program, authorized by the
Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997,
which established a three-year Recreational Fee
Demonstration Program. The program allows parks
to charge entrance and use fees where collecting
such fees is both physically possible and also a net
gain. Previously, fees collected at parks were
returned to the U.S. Treasury, but under this rule, up
to one hundred parks could keep all proceeds with
the stipulation that 20 percent of funds collected
would be made available for use by parks not part of
the demonstration program, such as Andrew
Johnson. The park applied for funds in this program
immediately to finance production of a park film.
This request was approved in 2000. According to
Superintendent Mark Corey, sixty-nine project
proposals were submitted that year in the Southeast
Region; only sixteen were funded—one of them
being Andrew Johnson’s proposal. Some $72,000
was made available for use on the project. Under
guidance of the National Park Service’s Interpretive
Design Center at Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, the

502. Tom Yancey, “Updated Andrew Johnson Video Shown
in New Theater Opened by Park Service,” Greeneville
Sun, May 13, 2000, A1, A6; Amy Overbay, “AJ Visitor
Center Upgrades Facilities and Services,” Greeneville
Sun, March 16, 2001, B21.

“National Park Service to Produce Video Program
about President Andrew Johnson,” Greeneville Sun,
June 11, 1998, A12; and NPS News Release, “Andrew
Johnson Video to be Produced by the National Park
Service,” no date, in AINHS archives.

50:

w

park contracted with Von Spaeth Productions of
Easton, Maryland, a small commercial film
production company.>°4

Park staff had considerable input into the script-
writing of the film, entitled “Andrew Johnson:
Defender of the Constitution.” As Superintendent
Corey later remarked, “a video, like a picture, is
worth a thousands words.” The story of Johnson’s
rise to the presidency during the Civil War and his
later fight with Congress over Reconstruction policy
is complicated. As Corey added, “it’s a topic that can
be covered, 1 think, much more effectively through
this film [to] help visitors understand about
President Johnson, than through any other
exhibit.” The film was also helpful in sowing
good relations with park advocates. For example,
the film features the voice of Senator Fred
Thompson of Tennessee representing President
Johnson. It also includes interviews with historians
Paul Bergeron of the University of Tennessee and
Robert Orr of Walters State Community College.°%
Both were pleased with the final results and their
experience in working with the film producers and
in editing the script along with Corey, Chief Ranger
Jim Small, and others at the park and the University
of Tennessee. Perhaps as important, the film’s major
themes were developed with public input. A
“brainstorming session” was held on September 30,
1998. Reportedly, the seventeen stakeholders who
attended arrived at a consensus.”

On June 1, 2000, shortly after the new film began
showing at the Visitor Center, long-time park
Administrative Officer Opal Coffman retired. In
August 2000, Corey announced the appointment of
Anita Clark to succeed her. Clark arrived from Great
Smoky Mountains National Park where she had
served as Secretary to the Chief of Resource
Education Division and had been named
“Employee of the Year” in 1999, Clark assumed
responsibility for budget, finance, human resources,
property procurement, and also scheduled
interments in the National Cemetery.5°8

504, Amy Overbay, “AJ Visitor Center Upgrades Facilities
and Services,” Greeneville Sun, March 16, 2001, B21.

505. Corey Interview, 30-31.

506. Amy Overbay, 821.

507. Yancey, Al, A6.

508. “Clark Named to Position at Johnson Historic Site,”
Greeneville Sun, August 31, 2000.

National Park Service 10s


126 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


FE rernitin

FIGURE 26. The Tailor Shop of Andrew Johnson inside
the Memorial Building, circa 1995.

Corey hoped to contract the project for less than
that, using funds derived from the Recreational Fee
Demonstration Program, which allowed parks to
retain 80 percent of proceeds from entrance fees.
The remaining 20 percent was then channeled to
parks that did not participate in the Demonstration
Fee Program, such as Andrew Johnson.
Architecturally, the design of the new facilities
allowed use by up to three-persons per side
(segregated by gender) while also providing both
handicapped access and diaper-changing facilities,
which were absent from the 1958 design. Because
Andrew Johnson is a Federal installation, local
approval was not required, but Corey announced
that he would seek approval for the design of the
new restrooms with Greeneville’s Historic Zoning
Commission and the State Historic Preservation
Office, both of which had already supported
preliminary designs.?28 Corey consulted with both
of these bodies prior to completing plans for the
project, and apparently always did so, a routine that
helped ensure good park-community relations.229

The contract for this project was awarded to

Hoilman Construction Company of Johnson Ci
and the contract was administered with the help of
Lewis Grooms of Great Smoky Mountains National

227. NPS News Release, "Expanded Public Rest Room
Facilities to be Constructed at Andrew Johnson Site
Visitor Center” [no date], in “Press Release and
Newspaper Clippings, 2000” file, AJNHS archives.

228. Ibid.

229. Eugenia Estes, “Professional Signs Cause Concerns,”
Greeneville Sun, January 1, 1997, A1, A9

48 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History

Park. Corey announced that “their team was great
to work with and built us a quality structure.”23°
The new facility, which opened in February 2001,
greatly eased the park’s congestion problem. The
rest room facility was essentially the last major piece
of a dramatically improved interpretive and
operational regime that Superintendent Corey had
undertaken to develop at Andrew Johnson since
first accepting his post in 1992.

Historic District
Development

Superintendents at Andrew Johnson National
Historic Site have always promoted the benefit of
the park to the development of downtown
Greeneville and Greene County, Tennessee. For
example, Superintendent Lloyd Abelson gave
frequent talks to the Kiwanis Club of Greeneville. At
their meeting in April 1972, he emphasized that “we
have something that very few other towns have and
we should take greater advantage of the fact that
Andrew Johnson lived in Greeneville.”231

In 1973, Abelson began working with the newly
formed Greene County Heritage Trust to designate
a National Register historic district in the area
surrounding the park, which he reported as not
being a controversial issue.232 Abelson was already
ona “first-name basis” with city and county
officials, and community leaders. Obviously, the fact
that Andrew Johnson National Historic Site was
located in the middle of town had always been
important to Greeneville.233 According to Abelson,
who helped establish the Heritage Trust, “we were
directly involved in having the area separating the
Homestead and Tailor Shop declared a Historic
District.”254 The new National Register district
encompassed most of the historic center of
Greeneville, roughly bounded by Irish, Nelson, W.
Church, College and McKee Streets, and was
formally listed on the Register in May 1974.25

230, NPS News Release, “Andrew Johnson Visitor Center's
New, Larger Restrooms Completed,” February 9, 2001,
A7, AJNHS archives.

231. “Kiwanians Hear Ableson On AJ History,” Greeneville
Daily Sun, April 14, 1972, 1, 8.

232. SANR for 1973, January 17, 1974,

233. SANR for 1972, January 12, 1973.

234, SANR for 1974, February 19, 1975.

235. See httpu/www.nr.nps.gov.


ee hl
FIGURE $2. Crowd gathered for ceremonies
dedicating the park's new exhibits. The
Memorial Building stands to left with Andrew
Johnson’s “Early Home” on the right.

Interpreting
Impeachment

President Johnson is most famous in history for his
impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives
in March 1868. In 1974, Andrew Johnson National
Historic Site experienced significant media
attention as the nation, embroiled in what would
become known as the “Watergate” scandal, focused
upon the possible impeachment of President
Richard M. Nixon. No other president had been

threatened with impeachment since Andrew
Johnson. Many long articles were published about
Johnson in major papers, and writers frequently
placed “a demanding workload” on Hugh Lawing,
the park historian at that time. Margaret Bartlett was
also often interviewed during that period and
appeared on at least three television talk shows,
including ABC’s “Reasoner Report.” Most of the
park’s staff, some in costume, also appeared in
footage taped at the park’s three sites.47

Nixon, of course, resigned from the presidency
before his impeachment could take place. His
successor, President Gerald R. Ford, later pardoned
the former president, removing him from further
legal peril. After this, national media interest in
Andrew Johnson and the historic site dissipated.
Although Nixon had been threatened by

493. SANR for 1974, February 19, 1975.

impeachment, until 1998 Andrew Johnson was the
only U.S. president to have experienced this
Constitutional process. That December, however,
Congress voted two articles of impeachment against
President William J. “Bill” Clinton for perjury and
obstruction of justice. The Senate later failed to
convict Clinton by a significant margin and the
president completed his term, as had Andrew
Johnson. However, as these events played out,
significant national media attention was again
focused upon the park and its story about the first
presidential impeachment.

Indeed, it was an exceptional interpretive
opportunity. By pure coincidence, the Clinton
impeachment scandal unfolded as park staff
prepared to dedicate new exhibits that interpreted
the Johnson impeachment. One of the new exhibits
even featured an interactive simulation of the vote
taken in the Senate trial on whether or not to convict
President Johnson after his impeachment. Thus, as
national news coverage began to focus on the
serious possibility of President Clinton’s
impeachment that fall, visitors to Andrew Johnson
National Historic Site were greeted with an exhibit
that fully explained the process and even allowed
them to participate by receiving a replica of the
“impeachment ticket” that was used for Johnson’s
Senate trial. Visitors were able to tear off a tab and
vote Johnson guilty or not guilty.49*

The planning process that led to an interactive
impeachment exhibit had taken years to develop
and implement. It was thus an exceptional
coincidence that the exhibit opened during the
context of a sitting president under investigation by
a special prosecutor and facing a hostile Congress
that within months drafted its own articles of
impeachment. Dedication Day ceremonies were
held on May 23, 1998, to mark the 130
Anniversary of Johnson’s acquittal on charges of
impeachment. At the dedication, Tennessee Senator
Fred D. Thompson cast the first symbolic ballot in
the ballot box of the exhibit. Ironically, within a few
months of casting that symbolic ballot, he was called
to vote for real in a Senate trial to determine the guilt
of the impeached President Clinton. Even more
ironically, Clinton was like Johnson in being a
Southern Democrat who faced impeachment by
House Republicans. The Clinton impeachment saga

494. “Andrew Johnson Historic Site's New Exhibits Ready
for Viewing,” Greeneville Sun, April 19, 1998, A1, A6.

102 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


safely and without damage to gravesites, grave liners
or caskets.” Wilson left open the possibility that the
Park Service might adopt some type of variance
from the general VA regulations governing
interments. The five- percent difference could help
resolve an important policy conundrum and local
contention over cemetery burials.

Wilson was already seeking more information on the
tule, which was being applied at the park due to its
inclusion in the 1984 cemetery burial plan. Wilson
told Hensley that the Park Service was searching
“for ways we can increase the number of sites
available for burial.” He also assured Hensley that it
was not simply a matter of “inconvenience” that
areas that exceeded a fifteen-percent slope were not
being used. “Convenience has nothing to do with
our planning process,” he stated. “We are
committed to managing our National Cemetery as
President Lincoln intended in 1862 when he
established the first twelve cemeteries. Our goal is to
use as much space as we possibly can to serve the
proud veterans of Greene County.” Wilson
concluded by adding, “if it is possible to safely go
outside the fifteen-percent parameter, we will.”329

Aweek or so later, Wilson told the Greeneville Sun
that NPS researchers were reviewing regulations
and exploring feasible ways to expand the number
of sites. “We agree with the VFW,” he insisted. “We
want to put as many sites as we can in the cemetery.
If we can bury ata slope that is 16 or 17 percent, and
we can do it safely, then that is what we want to do.”
However, the Service first needed to have one of its
landscape architects study the cemetery’s soil
conditions, slopes, and geology before any decision
could be made. Wilson seemed to want action on
the issue and promised that the Service would not
drag out its study. In fact, he stated “I’m ina hurry to
get it done. I’m shooting for January 1.7339

Unfortunately, in making this statement,
Superintendent Wilson did not realize that
significant expansion within the existing boundaries
of Andrew Johnson National Cemetery would
require more than a cursory review for compliance

329. Gordon J. Wilson, Superintendent, Letter to Larry J.
Hensley, Post Commander, November 6, 1990, in
“Cemetery/C.L. Plan-1992 & Interment Plan” folder,
AJNHS archives.

330. Doug Johnson, “veterans’ groups Seeking Additional
Burial Spaces in A, Johnson Cemetery,” Greeneville
Sun, November 15, 1990, A7.

under Section 106 of the NHPA. Past interment
plans, especially the 1984 revision that reduced the
number of available gravesites, had not met
significant resistance by preservationists. However,
Wilson, by proposing to abandon the VA’s
guidelines on slope limitations, offered a policy shift
that could lead to significant development within
the cemetery’s historic district.

SS
In 1963, newly elected Congressman Jimmy Quillen
submitted legislation authorizing the National Park
Service to acquire the Early Home of President Andrew
Johnson, The same legislation also changed the park's
name from Andrew Johnson National Monument,
established in 1942 by presidential proclamation, to
Andrew Johnson National Historic Site. Quillen was a
staunch conservative who both supported the Park
Service and at times opposed it. Notably, Quillen
authored three bills that sought to expand the
boundaries of Andrew Johnson National Cemetery and
supported similar measures to expand NPS-operated
national cemeteries in other states. The Service actively
opposed such measures, which it saw as undermining
the purposes of the National Park Service to preserve
heritage areas. Such legislation never passed.
Nevertheless, the congressman maintained strong
support for Andrew Johnson National Historic Site and
dedicated the park's new exhibits in early 1997 shorily
after his retirement. He represented East Tennessee for
seventeen consecutive terms in Congress. Quillen
passed away on November 2, 2003, and was succeeded
in office by Congressman William L. Jenkins.

Kirk Cordell, Chief of the NPS Cultural Resources
Division in Atlanta, was concerned about Wilson’s
proposal. He recommended that a special historical
study be conducted by a qualified expert. This
person would thoroughly assess the cemetery’s
character from a historical perspective and would
gauge how new development could damage that
character and how to mitigate such damage.?3! The
proposed study would be a “cultural landscape
report” or CLR, a new type of NPS study evolving
from academic and professional scholarship that
was beginning to be incorporated into NPS
planning processes during the 1980s.

ACLR is considered “the primary guide to
treatment and use ofa cultural landscape.” It
analyzes the historic context of a landscape ina
manner similar to the way the Service analyzes
historic buildings to determine how such properties

331. Lucy Lawliss, Interview by Cameron Binkley, February
7, 2007.

66 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


FIGURE 10, View of Homestead after its
restoration in 1956. (Judd HSR, 1959)

Reading the first several pages of this plan,
and remembering what has occurred or not
occurred at Andrew Johnson over the past 15
years, it is an indictment of past and present
management. Documents have been fading
for years, but nothing is done. The
Homestead was brought to maintenance
condition a dozen years ago, but has
deteriorated. There has been no routine
maintenance on the collections.

Brown asserted that the project statements
supported his contention, and he noted that
“Project C-002 indicates that no one realized the
shutters were deteriorating until one fell off or if
they did nothing was done.” Certainly, Brown
thought staff shortages were a problem, but he also
asserted that “the need of the park for preservation
and maintenance of resources far outweighs the
need for baseline data” recommended by the RMP.
Brown advised more training for park staff in
resource preservation and more staff time devoted
to painting shutters, cleaning out gutters, and
dealing with minor problems.”° With regional office
criticism of park care for the Homestead and
especially park collections growing, funding for
more preservation work was approved. In 1992, the
Collection Condition Survey was completed.

The Collection Condition Survey identified a
number of artifacts in need of conservation

70. Regional Historian Len Brown, Review Comments:
AJNHS, August 13, 1990, in “ANJO General” folder,
park files, CRD, SERO.

18 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History

treatment and improved storage conditions.
According to park managers, “the objects on display
at the Homestead were identified as being in the
most danger to environmental damage due to
uncontrolled temperature and humidity.” Park staff
placed some of these in better storage, but many
items had to remain on display at the Homestead,
which was the park’s central interpretive venue.
These items were subject to continued deterioration
due to the lack of effective climate control.”!

In April of that same year, Mark Corey transferred
from Ocmulgee National Monument near Macon,
Georgia, to become the tenth superintendent of
Andrew Johnson National Historic Site.”* Corey
soon realized that the park had a number of
pressing issues to resolve. His first priority was to
address contentious issues at the National
Cemetery where he also soon began pushing for an
extensive rehabilitation of the Cemetery Lodge.
Moreover, the Early Home had just been restored
and still needed an expensive interpretive plan.
Because of these competing issues, Corey placed
solving the moisture problems at the Homestead on
the back burner.

Solving curatorial problems at the Homestead
presented a conundrum. Greeneville experiences
hot, humid summers and cold, damp winters. That
environment can promote the deterioration of
poorly maintained masonry as a result of freezing
and thawing of water that can accumulate in cracks
and other voids within the masonry and the
deterioration of exterior wood from rot due to
moisture penetration However, this problem can be
and has been effectively mitigated by routine
maintenance. The most important issue was how
to improve the environmental conditions needed to
preserve the historic furnishings in the Homestead,

71. “Rehabilitation of President Andrew Johnson
Homestead,” PMIS Project 68569, Created February 2,
2001 (a statement in an internal NPS database called
the Project Management Information System).

72. Corey began as a seasonal NPS employee at Grand
Teton National Park in June 1973 where he first
worked as a fee collector. After ranger training, he
found positions at Grand Canyon and Everglades
National Parks before becoming chief ranger at
Guilford Courthouse National Military Park, near
Greensboro, North Carolina, in 1977. In 1984, after
over six years at Guilford, he became a district ranger
at Cape Hatteras National Seashore. He became
superintendent of Ocmulgee in 1988. Mark Corey,
Oral History Interview by Cameron Binkley (SERO:
National Park Service, 2006), 2-8


of cemetery management. In June 2001, he wrote
CLR author Lucy Lawliss “one of the most difficult
letters I have ever felt I had to write.” Lawing was
concerned with how new burial sections within the
cemetery were being laid out. He claimed that past
managers had dealt with burial increases by
surveying new sections and marking graves within
the said sections. Now, he believed, “either that
policy has changed or an inexperienced surveyor
has been permitted to lay out some sections in the
Cemetery which do not conform with any existing
restraints in force when earlier sections were laid
out!!” He was particularly upset by Section “Y,”
which after eight or nine rows of graves made a 45
degree turn, which had the affect of causing the
graves stones to appear strikingly non-uniform.*#
He wanted Lawliss to weigh in on the matter.
Lawliss called the park for advice.

8

Superintendent Corey explained the basis of his
decisions about the layout of the new cemetery
sections to Lawliss and her supervisor, Kirk Cordell.
The most recent interment plan had been approved
by Acting Regional Director Robert Deskins on May
21, 1993, Corey had gotten Deskins’ go-ahead for
the park to plan the layout of the sections on its own
without regional office assistance. In retrospect, he
admitted it would have been better to go through a
Section 106 compliance process before actually
laying out any new section. Again, the section was in
the CLR-designated development zone. In laying
out the “Y” and “W” sections of the cemetery,
Corey said he followed several principles, including
maintaining a minimal distance from the headstone
to adjacent sidewalk, maximizing the number of
sites while maintaining a safe work area, having the
rows follow the contour of the hillside for safety and
appearance, and designing the layout so that
headstones “will line up in straight lines set the same
distance apart from one another in order to give that
appearance of uniformity that you associate with a
national cemetery.”

To explain the sharp 45 degree angle in the “Y”
section, Corey offered that “we purposely decided
that we would not lay them out in an arch style.
There is only one section in the cemetery, “T,” that
is done that way and it is a real disappointment in
appearance, since arcs do not allow for the

418. Hugh Lawing, Letter to Lucy Lawliss, June 19, 2001, in
folder marked “Hugh Lawing File,” located in the
superintendent's office, AJNHS.

headstones to be seen from any direction as lining
up.” He noted that the CLR had not offered any
advice on how to map and lay out new sections, “so
we did it as best we could.”4!?

In her formal reply to Lawing, a letter vetted by park
staff, Lawliss stated that “I wrote the cultural
landscape report for the cemetery to help the park
preserve and protect the historic setting with a focus
on the Johnson Memorial at the top of the hill.
Although I mention how work should proceed in
the development zone, after reviewing the
document, I can see that I may not have provided
sufficient detail on how the new sections were to be
laid out"420 Shortly thereafter, Lawliss received a
letter or two from relatives of veterans buried in the
Andrew Johnson National Cemetery who, like
Lawing, complained about the 45 degree angle in
the “Y” section.47?

Not satisfied by the response he got from Lawliss,
Lawing wrote Southeast Regional Director Jerry
Belson that October. He claimed that the Park
Service was violating its own guidelines (he
referenced NPS-61, an NPS policy document
entitled National Cemetery Operations) in
designing the layout of new cemetery sections.
Lawing said “that the original pattern of grave-
section-lay-out was that of a rectangle or squares.”
He claimed that the NPS “desire to provide a few
more graves took precedent over ‘historic design’ as
mandated in NPS-61."422

Lawing was essentially correct in his analysis that
the park was departing from War Department
designs in adding further sections to the cemetery.
Unfortunately, several factors of consequence
affected how the National Park Service has had to
manage the cemetery landscape. The first factor is
by far the most important and that is simply the

419. Mark Corey, e-mail (entitled “Layout of ANJO
Cemetery Sections") to Kirk Cordell and Lucy Lawliss,
June 29, 2001, copy in folder marked "Hugh Lawing
File,” located in the superintendent's office, AJNHS.

420. Lucy Lawliss, Letter to Hugh Lawing, July 12, 2001, in
folder marked “Hugh Lawing File,” located in the
superintendent's office, AJNHS.

421, Mary B. Hankal, Letter to Lucy Lawliss, July 16, 2001,
in folder marked “Hugh Lawing File,” located in the
superintendent's office, AJNHS.

422. Hugh Lawing, Letter to Jerry Belson, Regional
Director, October 12, 2001, in folder marked “Hugh
Lawing File,” located in the superintendent's office,
AINHS.

84 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank all who participated in helping to complete this history of Andrew Johnson
National Historic Site, including John Beck, Mark Corey, Paul Carson, Anita Clark, George Collins, Kendra
Hinkle, Tommy Jones, Lucy Lawliss, Ali Miri, Jim Small, Lizzie Watts, and Jay Womack, with apologies for
anyone inadvertently not mentioned. None but the author is responsible for the views expressed.

National Park Service xi


should be treated, restored, and maintained to
preserve their historic qualities. Most important, a
CLR documents the characteristics, features,
materials, and qualities that make a landscape
eligible for the National Register. For this reason,
therefore, a CLR had to be conducted before a new
interment plan could be devised for the National
Cemetery.>>”

Unfortunately, the Southeast Region had no experts
trained in this profession. Cordell would thus have
to hire a “historic landscape architect,” a task he did
not realistically expect to accomplish until that
summer, To allay park concerns, Cordell agreed to
let Chief Ranger Jim Small undertake preliminary
research for the CLR. Cordell provided guidance
and even offered travel funds. Once the landscape
architect position was filled, he promised that “the
Andrew Johnson CLR will be the first order of
business.” Cordell hoped to complete the study by
December 31, 1991.9

As the drama over the proposed property donation
was debated, routine activities at the cemetery went
on as normal. In July 1990, Superintendent Wilson
had all 3,120 feet of the historic wall surrounding the
National Cemetery pressure washed. The wall, “to
our knowledge, hasn’t been washed before,” he
stated. The cleaning was intended to both brighten
the wall and remove moss. The cleaning took about
two weeks.?>4 Another preservation effort around
this time concerned the cemetery flagpole,
previously discussed.255

Wilson was not the only one anxious to appease
veterans’ groups. Rep. Quillen found that the Park
Service was moving too slowly despite its
willingness to increase the capacity of the existing

332. ACLR “analyzes the landscape’s development and
evolution, modifications, materials, construction
techniques, geographical context, and use in all
periods, including those deemed not significant.
Based on the analysis, it evaluates the significance of
individual landscape characteristics and features in
the context of the landscape as a whole. Typically
interdisciplinary in character, it includes
documentation, analysis, and evaluation of historical,
architectural, archeological, ethnographic,
horticultural, landscape architectural, engineering,
and ecological data as appropriate. It makes
recommendations for treatment consistent with the
landscape's significance, condition, and planned use.”
See Cultural Resource Management Guidelines
(Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1997), 91,
also referred to as Director's Order #28.

cemetery. In January 1991, he introduced H.R.396,
his third attempt to pass legislation mandating that
the Park Service “acquire certain real property
adjacent to the Andrew Johnson National Historic
Site in Greeneville, Tennessee, for inclusion within
the National Cemetery.” Quillen disagreed with
the position taken by the Park Service that its
mission was to protect the historic character of
national cemeteries within its jurisdiction. “The
Park Service’s argument doesn’t make sense,”
Quillen stated in a news release that also declared
that the Park Service should welcome a free
donation of land for use as additional burial space.
Quillen did offer one compromise: he argued that
the historic wall surrounding the cemetery would
not have to be breached. “I am sure those who first
envisioned the concept of this beautiful place,”
Quillen stated, “would be pleased to see it
expanded—with the wall intact—rather than to
leave it bottled up in the entanglements of
bureaucracy.”337

Almost immediately, however, Quillen’s bill was
superseded by events when Robert C. Austin died.
Austin was the Elbert Kinser Detachment member
who actually owned the property that the group had
hoped to donate to the Park Service for use in
expanding the National Cemetery. However, he left
no will. While many had assumed the veterans’
group had owned the property out right, it did not,
and the matter was left to Austin’s heirs to decide.

333. Chief, Cultural Resources Planning Division, Southeast
Region, Memorandum (entitled “Preliminary research
for Cemetery CLR”) to Superintendent, AJNHS, March
14, 1991, in “ANJO General” folder, park files, CRD,
SERO. One reason for stress was that Superintendent
Wilson had to explain to locals what the NPS position
was, since it could not be formulated until the results
of the CLR were available. At least on one occasion,
he asked Cordell to help make such a response. See
Gordie Wilson, Fax Transmission from Andrew
Johnson NHS to Kirk Cordell (entitled "Cemetery
Inquiry"), August 15, 1991, in "ANJO General” folder,
park files, CRD, SERO.
334, “Quite a Difference,” Greeneville Sun, July 9, 1990.
335. “National Park Service Celebrates 75" Year with
Rehabilitation Work,” Greeneville Sun, May 4, 1991.
336. H.R. 396, “A Bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior
to acquire certain real property adjacent to the
Andrew Johnson National Historic Site in Greeneville,
Tennessee, for inclusion within the National Cemetery
located in that site,” January 3, 1991, 102"4 Congress,
15 Session, in “Cemetery/C.L. Plan-1992 & Interment
Plan” folder, AJNHS archives.

- “Quillen Wants Interior Department to Accept
Property for Cemetery," Greeneville Sun, February 7,
1991, 1.

33

id

National Park Service 67


work represented a major intrusion into the
National Cemetery, but it was work consistent with
the newly approved CLR, which had designated the
lower cemetery as a development zone. The parking
lot was intended to provide access to the new
interment sections legitimated by the CLR after
veterans’ groups had pressured the Park Service not
to close the cemetery. Superintendent Mark Corey,
having debated the matter with his chief ranger
since arriving at the park, announced another
important project: “We will also begin renovating
the 1908 Cemetery Lodge, which is in need of new
electrical wiring, plumbing, and heating and air
conditioning systems, as well as other repairs.”

The historic Cemetery Lodge, constructed in 1908
and used by the War Department as the home of the
cemetery manager, had long been used by the Park
Service as a residence for park staff. Originally, the
Service felt it necessary for an employee with law
enforcement training to be housed at the Lodge to
provide security both for the cemetery and other
nearby NPS properties in downtown Greeneville.
Superintendent Lloyd Abelson had tried in the
1970s to obtain “concurrent jurisdiction” with local
law enforcement agencies, that is, the sharing of
authority with the Federal government and local
police for security at the national historic site, but
without much success. As long as a ranger was living
on the property, it was not a high priority. After
Chief Ranger Jim Small arrived at the park in 1990
and took up residence in the Cemetery Lodge along
with his family, the issue became more salient.
According to Corey, Small complained that the
Lodge’s water pipes were so clogged with mineral
deposits that it took around forty-five minutes just
to fill up a bathtub. Other problems included
chipping lead-based paint around all the
windowsills, which was especially an issue for the
Smalls who had a young, son 36?

The Cemetery Lodge is listed in the National
Register for its important contribution to the
historical standing of the National Cemetery.

365. “National Cemetery Officials Given Approval on
Projects,” Greeneville Sun, December 7, 1993.

366. Ibid.

367. Corey, Oral History Interview, 29. The Smalls also
expressed strong desire to move off-site to start a
farm and raise dairy sheep. See “Small Named New
Ranger for Andrew Johnson National Site,”
Greeneville Sun, September 12, 1990; Velma S. Presley,
"Civil War Sites Draw the Smalls,” (Greeneville Sun?],
no date, news clipping in AJNHS archives.

FIGURE 37. View of the Cemetery Lodge during
Fenovation in the 1990s.

However, as the property’s 1976 nomination states,
“periodically, the building interior has been altered
to meet the needs of the occupant. It bears no
historical significance other than the fact that it is
more than 50 years old, unless there is none other
like it built by the War Department as a National
Cemetery Lodge.”358

Given the use of the Lodge, the need to provide
reasonable staff accommodations, and apparently
previous considerable interior alterations that had
already degraded the historic integrity of the
structure’s interior, Corey chose to pursue a major
renovation of the facility. As part of the Section 106
process, the Service had to consult with the
Tennessee State Historic Preservation Office and the
National Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, but Corey hoped to have plans and
specifications available by the spring of 1994.
Incidentally, he also intended to implement some of
the CLR recommendations along the way, mainly a
tree replacement plan that would place more stress
in the buffer zone while removing approximately
twelve trees from the historic zone that were in
conflict with the historic cemetery design.

The discussion of the impending development,
including landscape changes made in accord with
the CLR, raises an important counterpoint to the

368. National Register of Historic Places Inventory
Nomination Form for AJNHS, approved November 24,
1976, as prepared by Hugh A. Lawing, Park Historian.
Copy available from the Keeper of the National
Register of Historic Places.

369. “National Cemetery Officials Given Approval on
Projects,” Greeneville Sun, December 7, 1993.

National Park Service 73


List of Figures

10
i

12

13

14

15
16

17

18
19
20

21

Andrew Johnson (1808-1875), seventeenth President of the United States. (Andrew Johnson
National Historic Site, hereafter ANJO, archives)
Andrew Johnson’s Tailor Shop as it appeared in the early twentieth century. jody Cook
Postcard Collection)...
Andrew Johnson’s Homestead as it appeared circa 1890-1900 after extensive remodeling by
Martha J. Patterson, the president’s daughter. (Courtesy of Eastern National Parks and
Conservation Association)...
Interpreter Elaine R. Clark (1) shows visiting children a bedroom in the Andrew Johnson
Homestead in 1965. (ANJO Coll.).......
Rangers provide interpretation before the new park visitor center in 1960. (ANJO Coll.)
This 1973 photograph of Andrew Johnson’s “Early Home” accompanies the park’s National
Register Nomination.
Park Historian Hugh A. Lawing prepared the original National Register nomination for
Andrew Johnson National Historic Site, which was accepted for listing on March 3, 197’
In 1995, this property adjacent to the park Visitor Center (extreme right) was briefly
considered for acquisition by the park to provide additional space. (ANJO Coll.
View of Homestead just prior to its restoration in 1956. (Judd HSR, 1959)
View of Homestead after its restoration in 1956. judd HSR, 1959
Workers repairing shutters on the Homestead. In 2001 Park staff began using these shutters
to help moderate heat gain as Andrew Johnson would have done himself.
Between September 1, 2004 and August 3, 2005, workers installed modern climate control
and fire suppression systems in the Homestead to protect the historic structure and its
furnishings. As a prelude, shown here, antiquated ceiling heat coils had to be removed
In 2005 Director Fran Mainella (I) presented Elaine R. Clark (r) a special award for her
long service at Andrew Johnson historic site. Rep. William L. Jenkins and Superintendent
Mark Corey are also shown. (ANJO Coll.)........
Interior Secretary Rogers C. B. Morton presented Margaret Bartlett with two service awards
at the Interior Building on September 9, 1974........
Margaret Bartlett with Hugh Lawing at Harpers Ferry Center in 1980. (ANJO Coll.)
“The Residence of President Johnson at Greenville, East Tenn,” published in Frank Leslie’s

INustrated Newspaper, September 23, 1865, made from an ambrotype by Marsh and Reiff of
Greeneville, Tennessee (Source: Benjamin H. Davis, The Home Andrew Johnson Purchased in 1851,
NPS, 1956) 27

This photograph of the Homestead, one of the few from the period, was taken on August 3,

1875, the day of Johnson’s funeral. Note the black ribbons on the shutters. (from Benjamin H.
Davis, “The Home Andrew Johnson Purchased in 1851,” National Park Service, 1956)
Supt. Lloyd Abelson, 1980. (ANJO Coll.).
Plan of the Homestead grounds, showing existing conditions in August 1999

Photograph showing non-historic chain link fence along the eastern boundary of the Andrew.
Johnson Homestead that Supt. Gordon Wilson had removed in the early 1990s.

Superintendent Grady Webb (1) with employee Tony Reaves (r) in 1988. Webb sought practical

National Park Service vii


By early 1997, Corey had an approved exhibit design
plan in hand. Funding to build the actual exhibits
was by then already slated. Corey had probably
helped his cause considerably by becoming involved
in regional NPS management decision-making. In
September 1995, he had been elected by other
superintendents to serve a two-year term ona
regional advisory team.*®? The purpose of the
advisory team was to hold an annual budgetary
meeting to deliberate and prioritize available NPS
funding for repair, rehabilitation, and cyclic projects
at the parks. As Corey had told his backers in
Greeneville, Andrew Johnson would have to
compete with other parks for a limited pot of funds.
Complicating matters at the time, the Park Service
was in the midst of a massive (and ultimately failed)
reorganization effort. The reorganization divided
the Southeast Regional Office into three “clusters”
based upon a quasi-ecological focus. Andrew
Johnson fell within the Appalachian Cluster, which
had about eighteen parks. Because the NPS system
was ina state of confusion, it was helpful both that
Corey participated in the decisions of the budgetary
council and also that he had simplified his own
park’s funding request. “We made one request that
year,” he later said, “and that was for whatever it was
we needed, I think it was around $200,000 to
actually get the exhibits fabricated.”49°

Corey’s single request was backed by an approved
exhibit plan which had been funded by the local
community, a fact that would not be lost on other
superintendents at the meeting responsible for
public relations. Moreover, the proposed exhibit
renovations would help implement the long-delayed
effort to open the Early Home to public use. With
Corey a participant in council deliberations and able
to make his case in person, the council approved his
funding request, but it was not entirely a sure thing
that he would get the funds. The Service, and other
Federal agencies, were facing budget cuts under the
Clinton administration, which was making a serious
effort to balance the Federal budget and reduce the
national debt. However, notwithstanding a potential
cut in the annual $3.3 million allocated to the
Appalachian Cluster for repair and rehabilitation,
Corey expected to get the funding.*?!

489. “Historic Site Superintendent Elected to Cluster
Council," Greeneville Sun, July 28, 1995.

490. Corey, Oral History Interview by Cameron Binkley, 33.

491. Tom Yancey, “Support Given Plan to Expand Park
Service's Johnson Exhibits,” Greeneville Sun, no date
late 1996], A1, A7, press clipping in AINHS archives.

FIGURE $1. James Quillen and Ralph Phinney cut a
ribbon to dedicate newly installed exhibits at
Andrew Johnson National Historic Site on May 23,
1

He thus took the project back to Harpers Ferry to
oversee the exhibit fabrication process. Harpers
Ferry hired a private firm named Exhibitology to
manufacture and instal! the exhibits on the first
floor of the early home, the Visitor Center, the tailor
shop area, and also the park’s wayside exhibits. The
exhibits opened early in 1998 with a dedication set
for May. Superintendent Corey thought the new
exhibits did a much more thorough job of
recounting the details of Andrew Johnson’s life and
times than the old exhibits, which had dated to
1957. Corey invited “everyone to please come by
and view the exhibits, because you will not believe
what has been done until you see it for yourself."492
The new exhibits were dedicated May 23, 1998.

492. Corey, Oral History Interview by Cameron Binkley, 34;
and “Andrew Johnson Historic Site's New Exhibits
Ready for Viewing,” Greeneville Sun, April 18, 1998,
Al, AB.

National Park Service 101


concerned about the fence issue. Given other park
priorities and limited funding, Corey told him, “Mr.
Phinney, this is going to be a recommendation, but
that doesn’t necessarily mean it will be done
anytime soon,”355

Another important recommendation made by the
CLR concerned the non-historic modifications
made to the old stable building adjacent to the
Cemetery Lodge. Once used to keep horses, the
structure has long since been used for maintenance
purposes. The CLR found that “the Maintenance/
Utility area has experienced the greatest integrity
loss of any area in the cemetery.” Lawliss noted that
its enlargement by the Park Service did not reflect
the design, materials, or construction techniques
formerly used by the War Department. Lawliss
acknowledged the difficulty in relocating the
maintenance area, but found that, given “the high
visibility of this area from the entrance, as well as the
incompatibility of its present use, the eventual
restoration of this landscape would be a priority if
there is to be any interpretation of the historic scene
by the park.”356

355. Corey, Oral History Interview, 19-20.
356. Lawliss, Andrew Johnson National Cemetery, 23.

Aut

SS

aes

SASS 8
Se? / OS

A

cane f

Lawliss recommended that the best place to locate
the maintenance area was outside the park and that
“the residential communities that bound the
cemetery have many sites which could satisfy
present and future maintenance needs.”35? In
subsequent years, relying upon his prerogative as
superintendent, Corey made no change. Once again,
this matter was not a priority to him in comparison
to other pressing issues. Moreover, a number of
obstacles, including funding, would have to be
overcome to change the status quo. For cemetery
purposes, a maintenance facility does need to be
reasonably near at hand. While Lawliss thought
property bounding the park suitable for this
purpose, Corey suggested that a local variance
would be necessary to rent and use such property
and would probably disrupt the neighborhood. He
thus took no action.358 In time, the National
Cemetery will become inactive. When it does, a
future superintendent may wish to revisit this issue
when maintenance needs are presumably reduced
to determine if efforts to restore the stable to its
historic appearance are feasible.

357. Ibid.
358. Corey, Oral History Interview, 20-21.

FIGURE 36, Portion of a map from the 1993 Cultural Landscape Report for Andrew
Johnson National Cemetery showing the cemetery divided into three management zones.

National Park Service 71


Management, and Resource Management Plan.
According to the review: “We find that the ANJO
Long Range Interpretive Plan to be on target,
beneficial to the park and visitors, and result
oriented. Therefore, we concur with your approval
of the plan and have no additional comments or
input to provide.”47

In summary, the Long Range Interpretive Plan
described how Andrew Johnson National
Monument was authorized in 1935 “for the benefit
and inspiration of the people” and how the National
Park Service secured ownership of the Andrew
Johnson Homestead, the state-owned Tailor Shop,
and the War Department’s Andrew Johnson
National Cemetery in 1942. It described the 1963
law authorizing acquisition of the Early Home and
congressional recognition of the site’s importance
through its designation as a National Historic Site.
In support of the legislation, the Department of the
Interior had informed Congress that the acquisition
and preservation of the Early Home would allow the
Park Service “to portray, fully, the story of Andrew
Johnson’s early life in Greeneville, Tenn.” The
significance of the site, of course, was in its
preservation of resources, and their interpretation
to the public, associated with the origin and family
life of the seventeenth U.S. President, his vocation as
a tailor and statesman, and his role as president
involving matters key to the U.S. Constitution.47!

According to Superintendent Corey, “in the
legislation acquiring the early home, you go back
and you go look at some of the committee minutes,
and it’s not actually in the legislation, but it was
certainly intended that that home would be used to
tell the story of the early life of Andrew Johnson,
and we had been using it as an office.” Thus,
development of an interpretive scheme for the Early
Home was a key feature of the long-range plan.

469. The Appalachian SSO was part of a system of
subordinate mini-regional offices or “clusters” as they
were known, set up to replace the regional offices
during a massive reorganization launched by Director
Roger Kennedy between 1994 and 1996. The
reorganization proved itself to be ill-conceived and
the cluster system was later abolished.

470. Acting Superintendent, Appalachian System Support
Office, Memorandum (entitled “Review of Long
Range Interpretive Plan”) to Superintendent, Andrew
Johnson NHS, February 20, 1996, in “ANJO Planning
Documents" folder, AJNHS archives.

. National Park Service, "Long Range Interpretive Plan:
Andrew Johnson National Historic Site,” approved
February 20, 1996, in AJNHS archives.

47

Corey believed that the park was obligated to fulfill
that promise and open up the Early Home with
exhibits telling the early story of Andrew
Johnson.*”? The home had been open under
Superintendent Gordon Wilson, of course, but its
interpretive exhibits were clearly insufficient and
access was still substantially restricted.

To develop the park’s interpretive story, staff and
advisors relied upon a two-step methodology. First,
they employed Freeman Tilden’s famous Six
Principles of Interpretation (Interpreting Our
Heritage, 1957).473 Tilden was an influential author
whose interpretive principles and theory have long
guided the National Park Service. His main point
was that interpretation should link the resources of
the site interpreted to larger processes, systems,
ideas, and values of which they are a part. No less
important, this interpretation should be engaging to
the visitor. The second step involved analyzing the
NPS “thematic framework,” an overall approach to
interpretation adopted by the Park Service in 1994.
The thematic framework emphasized eight key
categories that mixed people, time, and place. The
frameworks sought to integrate the diversity and
complexity of history while still being broad enough
in scope to allow individual parks to draw upon it
for their own stories. At Andrew Johnson, park staff
and those contributing to the development of the
Long Range Interpretive Plan chose to focus upon
two major themes: Peopling Places and Shaping the
Political Landscape. These categories allowed the
park to interpret the lesser known aspects of
Johnson’s life, including with regard to his family,
their arrival in Greeneville, and their role in the local
community. The second category, of course,
developed themes visitors would more likely expect,
namely Johnson’s involvement in politics, the
development, expression, and impact of his political
ideology, and his role in military affairs, both locally
and nationally.?”4

472. Corey, Oral History Interview by Cameron Binkley, 35.

473. See Freeman Tilden, Interpreting Our Heritage
(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1957).
Tilden’s six principles are: (1) Talk about what is being
displayed/described to the personality or experience
of the visitor; (2) Interpretation is revelation based on
information; (3) Interpretation is an art; (4) The goal is
provocation, not instruction; (5) Try to present the
whole instead of the part; (6) Don’t just dumb it down
for children.

474. National Park Service, “Long Range Interpretive Plan:
Andrew Johnson National Historic Site,” approved
February 20, 1996, 2-4, in AJNHS archives.

National Park Service 97


prohibition applied only to newly designed
cemeteries but that “there is absolutely no
prohibition placed on continuing burials in an
established section.” Indeed, he explained that
under the VA, “full and complete use of all available
burial sites” would have occurred and the VA would
have sought further expansion of the cemetery
through acquisition of adjacent lands. Holbrook
even stated that current NPS operations could have
remained in place through a memorandum of
understanding. He also stated that he had told both
Superintendent Corey and the editor of the
Greeneville Sun the same information. Holbrook
said “it is regrettable that it was not shared with the
Greene County Legislative Body or other local
veterans’ service organizations.”4!!

Asked to clarify this statement, Holbrook simply
said he just wanted those in Greenville to know that
the VA would not have closed the cemetery. Corey
admitted that Holbrook had made this argument to
him and that it was “possible” that the VA would
carry out these actions, but stated that it was equally
possible it may not have. He also reminded readers
that Holbrook spoke only as a member of the
Commission and not for the VA. Corey added that “I
resent the implication that I have somehow misled
the community.” In reply to the query of his own
reporter, Greeneville Sun editor John M. Jones stated
that while he had discussed the issue with the
Commission he did not recall the topic of sloped
land for burials being raised.*!? And there the
matter rested. The argument was already decided.

Is the National
Cemetery Losing Its
Historic Integrity?

In 1993, Historical Landscape Architect Lucy
Lawliss completed her Cultural Landscape Report,
or CLR, for Andrew Johnson National Cemetery.
Her report found that the integrity of the design of
the historic landscape was being compromised by
continued new interments. She determined that
neither the original cemetery layout, nor War
Department documents, supported the vision of a

411. Ibid,

412. Tom Yancey, “There are No Plans to Place A. Johnson
National Cemetery under VA, Former Official Says,"
Greeneville Sun, December 5, 1998, Al, A7.

landscape covered with headstones. Nevertheless,
Lawliss was cognizant of the pressure placed upon
the park by local veterans’ organizations, which
insisted that the Park Service find additional space
for veteran burials. She thus prioritized the
landscape by dividing the cemetery grounds into
three zones: a historic zone where cultural features
would be most protected, a development zone
where additional gravesites could be established,
and a buffer zone, mostly on the steep hillside, to
separate the two main areas. Lawliss found that the
core of the original monument, the obelisk
memorializing Andrew Johnston and the Cemetery
Lodge building used by the War Department
superintendent remained intact, although that was
largely because the extensive new interments were
hidden from view of the entrance. The CLR
recommended research on War Department
records to determine the standards associated with
development of a fourth class cemetery. Such
research would help park managers know how to
restore and manage those features within the
historic zone. These features still existed, but were
being eroded by policies that failed to consider the
area as a cultural resource. Unfortunately, park
managers could not be expected to perform such
research themselves if time and funding were not
available for the Regional Historic Landscape
Architect. Still, Lawliss was clear in concluding that
sufficient primary cultural landscape features
continued to exist in the historic zone warranting
both recognition and protection.‘" In approving
the CLR, Superintendent Mark Corey told Lawliss’s
boss Kirk Cordell that “the final report looks very
good. I’m very satisfied and you all should be very
proud of your effort."414

On the basis of the CLR, Corey found some nine
hundred additional veterans’ gravesites, thus ending
a difficult period in park relations with local political
and civic groups which had stridently lobbied the
Service to take such action or to expand the
cemetery that was strictly against long-standing
NPS policy. Opposing the cemetery’s expansion had
generated sour feelings between some locals and
NPS officials. The compromise was to find more
room within the cemetery. Once that decision was

413. See Lawliss, Andrew Johnson National Cemetery.

414. Mark Corey, Superintendent, Note to Kirk Cordell,
May 23, 1993, attached to signature page for the
Cultural Landscape Report for Andrew Johnson
National Historic Site, in “ANJO General" folder, park
files, CRD, SERO.

82 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


Cx x

FIGURE 28. Statue of President Andrew Johnson
across the street from Tailor Shop and the NPS
Visitor Center in the Greeneville Historic District.

Construction for the second phase of the Richland
Creek Walkway, located between the Greeneville-
Greene County Drug Commission Crime Lab (to
the rear of the park) and the Asbury United
Methodist Church, began in November 1990. The
project was to include a lighted brick walkway, a
pavilion, and both an automobile and pedestrian
bridge. Like the first phase, the second was also
intended to help clean up Richland Creek, help
create more park space, and perhaps more
downtown parking space. The town of Greeneville
had to match the Land and Conservation Fund’s
$20,000 grant before the project could begin, which
it did in May.2

50 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History

Meanwhile, Helen Horner, who directed tourism
for the Greeneville/Greene County Chamber of
Commerce, began to promote heritage tourism
using a new tax. The tax came from a two-percent
hotel/motel lodgings surcharge authorized by
Greene County in 1986. The tax made $32,000
available for use in advertising Greeneville and
Greene County’s tourist attractions. Horner used
these funds to produce brochures highlighting
nearby historical attractions, namely, the Andrew
Johnson National Historic Site, the Dickson-
Williams Mansion, the Davy Crockett birthplace,
and the reconstructed “Lost State of Franklin”
capitol. She had the brochures distributed at
interstate welcome centers, hotels, and restaurants
throughout the region. Horner said that many
tourists had told her personally that “they wished
they had spent the night in Greeneville, rather than
around Dollywood ‘with all that glitz and glitter’.”
Horner noted that 1987 saw the highest ever
increase in local tourism, with tourists spending 9.8
percent more in the state as a whole than the year
prior. More than 17,000 people visited the Andrew
Johnson National Historic Site Visitor Center, with
16,000 entering the Homestead.24>

Despite considerable progress in promoting tourism
and redeveloping its downtown area, Greeneville
still had a long way to go by the end of the decade. In
early 1991, Ralph M. Phinney stepped up to the
plate and began writing an “op-ed” for the
Greeneville Sun enunciating three main objectives to
help resurrect the downtown area. First, he
promoted the idea of erecting a life-size statue of
President Andrew Johnson in the historic district. In
making this proposal, Phinney praised the National
Park Service, but he thought a statue of the
president would do more to alert brief residents and
transients to the fact the Greeneville was the home
of a former U.S. President and included “one of the
most prized and interesting memorials
encompassing the complete life story” of Johnson.

Second, Phinney encouraged the restoration and
revitalization of the former Brumley Hotel,
including a ground floor restaurant offering
breakfast, a feature that the downtown area largely

244. Jim Cox, "Project Will Link Johnson Historic Site with
Homestead,” Greeneville Sun, November 29, 1990.

245. Ron Schaming, “Greene County Tourism Reaches All-
time High,” and Editorial, “Good News About Local
Tourism,” Greeneville Sun, February 8, 1988.


VISITOR
CENTER

FIGURE 2s, The Memorial Building, which
houses Andrew Johnson's Tailor Shop,
adjacent to the Visitor Center at Andrew
Johnson National Historic Site, circa 1995.

save Johnson’s political career cost the junior
Senator from Kansas his own, Modern scholars
have debated that point. Some note that Ross had
his own political motivations for breaking with his
party in voting for Johnson’s acquittal.2!3
Nevertheless, Director Walker agreed that it was
appropriate to mount such a plaque in the Memorial
Building at Andrew Johnson National Historic Site.
The bronze plaque commemorating Ross was
dedicated by Quillen in a ceremony in September
1973. The ceremony was attended by Greeneville
Mayor Thomas G. Love, Greene County Judge
Hubert Neas, and a large crowd of locals. Quillen
spoke about the importance of heritage tourism
after the new plaque was unveiled by Johnson’s
great-granddaughter, Margaret Bartlett.?!4

That same year, NPS staff began to notice that the
chimney of the Tailor Shop was deteriorating. The
problem was caused by moisture or, more precisely,
by a lack of moisture control within the Memorial
Building that housed the Tailor Shop. After
remedies by park staff proved unsuccessful,
architects from the Southeast Regional Office
investigated and found that the main problem with

213. See, for example, David Greenberg, "Andrew
Johnson: Saved by a Scoundrel: Edmund Ross Cast the
Deciding Vote to Acquit, but His was No ‘Profile in
Courage’,” Slate, January 21, 1999 (available online at
httpu/slate.msn.com).

214, “Congressman Quillen Tells How Ross’ Vote Saved
Andrew Johnson," Greeneville Sun, September 30,
1973, 1, 8; SANR for 1973, January 17, 1974.

46 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History

the chimney was moisture that caused bits of mortar
to crumble. The bricks that composed the structure
were also being degraded by moisture that caused
their facings to crumble into fine dust, and some
woodwork had suffered as well. Their
recommendations led to $10,000 in Senate add-on
funds, which the park received in October 1973.25
Various obstacles, such as lack of planning
assistance, the need to complete an HSR, and
confusion over the division of responsibility
between the regional office and the NPS Denver
Service Center (DSC) delayed progress. In 1975,
responsibility shifted from regional to DSC for
preparation of an HSR, which also meant using a
different funding source (construction, not
operations) and further delay. Abelson hoped that
“the chimney will not fall.”2!6

In 1976, after three years and no success in solving
the problem locally, historical architects from the
regional office again visited to assess the moisture
problem in the Tailor Shop. Ron Bishop and Todd
Rainwater determined that the moisture was rising
from the concrete floor of the Memorial Building
that housed the Tailor Shop. The moisture problem
was a result of a wet-weather spring beneath the
building’s foundation, and water pressure had
forced moisture up into the concrete floor.2"? They
thought that the park’s moisture problems would be
much more costly to repair than previously thought,
requiring both more research and overlapping
solutions.

In 1978, funds of $70,000 were programmed for use
in controlling the Memorial Building’s moisture
problem. The project was seen as a pilot research
program because the structure was experiencing a
set of moisture-related problems that were faced by
other historic NPS structures in the southeast
region. Funding came out of regional preservation
funds.?"8 In 1978, a contract was let to Moretti
Construction, Inc., of Charlotte, North Carolina, for
$33,700. The project actually began in January 1979.
The work focused upon moisture-proofing the floor
and chimney and other miscellaneous repairs and
upgrades.?!? Some 97 percent of this work was

215.
216.
217.

SANR for 1973, January 17, 1974.

SANR for 1975, February 16, 1976.

“Moisture Damage at Old AJ Tailor Shop is Checked,”
Greeneville Sun, December 6, 1976.

SANR for 1976, December 1, 1976; SANR for 1977,
January 5, 1978.

SANR for 1978, January 3, 1979.

218.

219.


in before the
new park visitor center in 1960. (ANJO Coll.)

FIGURE Ss, Rangers provide interpreta’

In 1956 architectural historian Ernest Allen
Connally, a luminary of the historic preservation
movement, drafted his survey report for the
restoration of the Johnson Homestead. Restoration
work began that summer.2> Museum Curator Vera
Craig later produced a historic furnishing plan for
the building. Henry A. Judd, an NPS architect,
oversaw the extensive restoration and compiled an
additional restoration report. It was decided that the
period of restoration should be 1869-1875, the last
years of Johnson’s life. The new visitor center and

25. Ibid., 78. See Connally, Survey Report: Restoration.
Incidentally, Connally was later hand-picked by
Director George B. Hartzag, Jr., to establish and direct
the Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation

8 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History

the restored Homestead were dedicated on April 26,
1958.26

As early as 1945, the Park Service had set a goal to
obtain the last important piece needed to complete
the historic site—the early home of Andrew Johnson
which was not owned by a Johnson descendant.
Congress had to authorize funding if the property
was to be purchased, and several years passed
without action. It was not until 1963, that Tennessee
Congressman James Quillen introduced a measure
that resulted in an appropriation of $66,000 to
purchase and restore the “Kerbaugh property” to its
period of significance while owned by Andrew
Johnson. The same legislation also changed the
name of the park from Andrew Johnson National
Monument to its current designation, Andrew
Johnson National Historic Site. The “Early Home”
was subsequently acquired by the Park Service on
February 3, 1964. Almost immediately after the
property was purchased, remaining appropriated
funds were exhausted due to the steep cost of
restoration. Complete restoration of the Early
Home, and public access to it, had to be
postponed.27

26. Lawing, Administrative History, 80-81; The Connally
and Judd historic structure reports have long
constituted fundamental park management
documents for the Homestead. See Henry Judd,
Restoration of the Andrew Johnson Homestead:
Second Supplement to the Survey Report (National
Park Service, 1959).

27. Lawing, Administrative History, 65-66, 85.


Resources and Stewardship that “we share major
concerns about the CLR treatment
recommendations and feel that they will need to be
changed considerably.” '* His formal statement
arrived on March 25. Corey informed Chief Kirk
Cordell that public comments on the draft fell into
two camps, those favoring an accurate restoration
and those opposed because they viewed any
treatment recommendations as based upon
recollections dating to around 1900, twenty-five
years after Johnson’s death. In Corey’s judgment
those in favor of the restoration “place considerable
trust in the NPS to return the property’s
appearance to the time of Andrew Johnson’s
occupancy.” Thus, he recommended that any
treatments be supported with evidence and depict
the appearance of the landscape during Andrew
Johnson’s occupation from 1851 to 1875,"169

Hugh Lawing, however, was not finished having his
say. On May 17, 2002, he wrote Congressman
William L. Jenkins detailing his assessment of the
draft Homestead CLR. Lawing accused the
National Park Service of “an attempt to change the
Historic period of the Homestead from 1851-1875
to include the dates of 1875-1942 set forth in the
Register of Historic Places.” Thus, he incorrectly
informed Rep. Jenkins, “the original enabling
legislation would be altered to the extent that the
homestead grounds would be changed to depict the
Patterson-era, not the Johnson-era.”!7° Jenkins
asked the Park Service to explain what was going

166. Richard Doughty, Phone conversation with Mark
Corey, March 7, 2002, reported by Mark Corey and
filed on May 7, 2002. Lawing soon followed with his
own note recounting his own conversations with
Doughty, including more discussion of the dating of
the period of significance statement in the park's
National Register Nomination update. They claimed
that the designation of the site’s historic importance
in 1935 by the Historic Sites Act trumped any later
claims that the Homestead’s grounds were important
during the post-Johnson period. These concerns again
illustrate how confusion relating to the 1995 update
later helped confuse the debate over the draft
Homestead CLR. Hugh A. Lawing, Letter to Mark
Corey, Superintendent, March 19, 2002; Both in folder
marked “Hugh Lawing File,” located in the
superintendent's office, Andrew Johnson National
Historic Site.

|. See, Jerry J. Smith, Letter to the Editor (entitled
“Writer Supports Objections to Johnson Homestead
Proposal”), Greeneville Sun, March 23, 2002, A2.

168. Mark [Corey], fax transmission to CRS, March 20,
2002, in folder marked “Hugh Lawing File,” located
in the superintendent's office, Andrew Johnson
National Historic Site.

3

16

on. On June 12, Paul Winegar, acting for Southeast
Regional Director Jerry Belson, assured Jenkins that

the draft CLR never intended to change the
landscape's era of significance from the
Johnson era to the Patterson era. We agree
that the period of significance is from 1851-
1875. The discussion of the National Register
documentation . . . attempted to convey the
fact that what the National Register lists as
the period of significance (1875-1942) is
flawed.

Winegar also emphasized that “the final CLR
should recommend treatment which can be
supported with evidence” and he offered to furnish
the congressman with a copy of the final report
once completed.!7! Five years later, however, a
revised report remained unpublished.

In December 2006, Mark Corey asked the author of
the present study to explain what happened to the
draft Homestead CLR. “We got a lot of public
comment on it,” the superintendent emphasized.
“Again, I’d say a lot pro and a lot con.” On both
counts, he felt “that there were some good points
there.” He acknowledged that those in Greeneville
had “grown used to, grown accustomed to the way
the Homestead yard has looked and has looked for
many years.” Nevertheless, Corey still felt
opposition could be overcome by sufficient
evidence. Unfortunately, “to my knowledge,” Corey
stated, “nothing else has been done on it any further
since about 2002.”172

Rehabilitating
Andrew Johnson’‘s
Early Home

In 1963, Congress authorized the National Park
Service to purchase the building that Andrew

169, Mark Corey, Memorandum (entitled “Comments on
Draft Homestead Cultural Landscape Report") to
Chief, Cultural Resources Stewardship Division,
Southeast Region, March 25, 2002, in folder marked
“Hugh Lawing File,” located in the superintendent's
office, Andrew Johnson National Historic Site.

170. Hugh A. Lawing, Letter to Honorable William L.
Jenkins, House of Representatives, May 17, 2002, and
“Listing of Errors and in Some Cases
Misrepresentations by Page Number,” April 8, 2002, in
folder marked “Hugh Lawing File,” located in the
superintendent's office, Andrew Johnson National
Historic Site,

National Park Service 37


by Arbogast for his “fabric study,” he provided a
draft report dated January 7, 1980, to the Southeast
Regional Office. Given the history of the HSR, and
apparently ongoing conflict between DSC and
regional office staff, further changes and delay
ensued. Arbogast’s final report was not approved by
the Southeast Regional Office until 1981.
Superintendent Abelson noted in his annual report
that year that “primary conflicts can only be
resolved after basement is excavated and porch and
dining room ceiling are removed.”!%

In 1980, Congress awarded $185,000 to the Park
Service to restore the exterior of the Early Home.
This was a welcome event. DSC planners scheduled
work to begin in 1982. At first Abelson hoped to
speed up the schedule.!%3 That did not happen,
however, because in November 1980, project
responsibility shifted from DSC to the regional
office in Atlanta where “illness and transfers
stopped progress” for a time.!94 Finally, a low-bid
contract of $69,705 was awarded on February 18,
1981, to Logan Construction Company of Asheville,
North Carolina. Archeological clearance was
apparently necessary. The task order thus directed
the firm to proceed with other work first. Later,
change orders would be issued. When issued, these
directed the installation of appropriate drainage to
handle water-related issues, probably including the
new spring. One item that did not have to await
archeological research was treatment of the
building’s interior walls, which were simply painted
and wall-papered using routine “cyclic” funds from
1981. Similar cyclic funds were used to paint the
building’s exterior the following year. After a pre-
construction conference was held in December
1981, a notice to proceed was set for January 4,
1982.95 Logan began work later that month and
expected to complete the project by May.!%

In the fall of 1982, a museum study team from
Harpers Ferry Center visited to evaluate the park’s
Mission 66 Visitor Center museum and to re-
evaluate the overall proposed interpretive use of the
Early Home. Logan Construction Company had
completed its contract for work the Early Home as

191. SANR for 1977, January 5, 1978.

192. SANR for 1981, February 8, 1982

193. SANR for 1978, January 3, 1979; SANR for 1979,
February 27, 1980; SANR for 1980, February 5, 1981.

194. SANR for 1980, February 5, 1981.

195. SANR for 1981, February 8, 1982.

196. “To be Restored,” Greeneville Sun, January 25, 1982.

planned. However, moisture control problems were
aconcern,197

After consultations with Harpers Ferry staff, park
management proposed “adaptive use” of the Early
Home to help solve museum and administrative
space shortage problems at the park. The park’s
Statement for Management opened the door on this
prospect. The Statement stated that “the most
important issue facing park management is whether
to restore the interior of the 1831 House to the
period of occupancy of Andrew Johnson.”
Legislation notwithstanding, park management
then felt that exterior restoration was entirely
adequate for interpretive purposes and that
restoring the interior to the period of Johnson’s
occupancy amount to a costly duplication of effort
that would cause undue confusion in visitors”
minds. “While preservation is certainly necessary
for protection of the exterior work,” the Statement
asserted, “a better use for the interior would lie in
the adaptive use mode.”!98

In August 1985, the Cultural Resources
Preservation Center of the Southeast Regional
Office critiqued issues related to the Early Home in
the park’s proposed Statement for Management.
“We agree with the park,” said the center’s chief, Bill
Harris, “that a decision is needed on level of
restoration for interior of the structure. In our
opinion, however, it is the park’s responsibility to
make that decision and it should be addressed in the
Statement for Management and not deferred to the
future.”!9? Superintendent Webb did make a
decision. He felt visitors would find it too repetitive
and confusing to find two homes of Andrew
Johnson within the park, and that interpreting two
homes would further impose on staff time. Thus, he
did not push for an authentic restoration of the
Early Home’s interior.

Meanwhile, the park was short on both museum.
storage and administrative office space. To solve
these problems cost effectively, Webb proposed to

197. SANR for 1982, February 23, 1983.

198, Statement for Management: Andrew Johnson
National Historic Site (NPS, 1984).

199. Chief of Cultural Resources Preservation Center,
Memorandum (entitled “Statement for
Management—Andrew Johnson”) to Chief, Planning
and Compliance Division, August 22, 1985, in AJNHS
files, “General Correspondence 5/2/71-10/20/93"
folder (1), Division of Architecture, SERO.

National Park Service 41


that “we’re all very pleased.” He noted that Corey
had studied the situation and had seemed interested
in finding more gravesites within the cemetery.
Similarly, Robert Eggebrecht of the local Elbert
Kinser Detachment of the Marine Corps League
greeted the news warmly and expressed an interest
in working with Corey"? The Greeneville Sun was
itself quite pleased. In its October 6 editorial, John
M. Jones, Jr., wrote: “Few things are a greater tonic
to the spirit than unexpected good news, especially
when the news is very good, and when it introduces
optimism and hope into a situation that previously
looked hopeless.” After recounting the story up to
that point, Jones acknowledged that new NPS
study’s findings would not solve the problem
forever. “The day will come,” he acknowledged,
“when even the projected new gravesites will have
been used. But that happens eventually to every
cemetery, and this one has already remained active
far longer than was originally planned.” Jones
credited the efforts of local park staff in solving “a
human problem that may not look big in
Washington, but which matters a lot here.”35°
Locals greeted the report warmly but there were still
some criticism. One of the main complaints came
from Johnson descendents who objected to the
recommendation to remove the modern fence
surrounding the president's family grave plot. Doing
so would expose seven family graves to likely public
access.>>! The fence was used to prevent visitors
from disturbing family grave plots but was added
after the original Johnson monument was fenced.
Not only was the secondary fence non-historic, but

349. John M. Jones, Jr., “Proposal Would Expand Grave
Space in AJ Cemetery,” Greeneville Sun, October 5,
1992, 1, 3. Similarly, Colonel J. Roger Bragdon, Post
Commander, The American Legion Post 64,
acknowledged being “impressed with amount of
work, expertise and concern for the welfare of
veterans and the history that is shown” in the CLR by
Lucy Lawliss. Colonel J. Roger Bragdon, Letter to Mark
Corey, Superintendent, AJNHS, October 16, 1992, in
folder marked “Hugh Lawing file,” located in the
superintendent's office, AJNHS.
350. John M. Jones, Jr, “NPS Delivers Good News,”
Greeneville Sun, October 6, 1992, A2

- Ralph Phinney stated this concern had bothered
family members but when the Park Service agreed to
only shorten the height of the second fence, and not
remove it, the family’s concerns were satisfied. Wendy
Welch, “National Cemetery to Make Room for 900
Additional Gravesites,” Greeneville Sun, June 4, 1993,
At, A3; See also NPS News Release, National Cemetery
Landscape and Interment Plans Approved, June 3,
1993, in folder marked “Hugh Lawing File,” located in
the superintendent's office, AJNHS.

35

it was inconsistent with the original design and
created a cluttered appearance.

The original draft CLR recommended, therefore,
that this fence be removed, but Johnson family
descendents objected for the same reasons the
second fence was installed. Hugh Lawing sided with
them, citing evidence of several past fences installed
around various family members’ graves as well as
the wishes of some family members as expressed to
him personally. Lawing claimed, especially, that he
would “always remember standing on the walkway
near Andrew Johnson Bachman’s grave with his
widow, Ethel, while visitors to the cemetery were
walking across her husband’s grave.” Lawing also
stated that other family members expressed similar
sentiments either to the superintendent or to their
congressional representative in support of a second
fence.3>? “From a practical standpoint,” he noted,
“the fence affords more protection for the
presidential marker which certainly deserves all the
protection that can reasonably be afforded, plus the
obvious desires of the family members regarding a
fence, would in my way of thinking make the
decision whether to leave or remove the fence
extremely easy.”353

Corey agreed and took up the point with Lawliss,
who modified her recommendation. Instead of
removing the non-historic fence, Lawliss
recommended that “to increase the integrity of the
historic scene, the recommendation is to lower the
outer fence twelve inches so that a visitor can
distinguish the more ornate, circular fence around
the Johnson Monument.”>»4 This recommendation
was approved by the Park Service, but Corey later
decided that it would be a safety hazard to reduce
the height of the fence, fearing possible impalement
of anyone who might fall upon it. In the end, Corey
sided with locals and the fence was neither removed,
nor modified, as recommended by the cemetery
CLR. Ralph Phinney, whose cousin Margaret
Bartlett was the last person to be interred in the
Johnson family grave section, was probably the most

352. Hugh Lawing, “My Recollections Concerning the
Fence Surrounding Johnson Descendents,” statement
dated February 1, 1993, in folder marked “Hugh
Lawing File,” located in the superintendent's office,
AJNHS.

353. Hugh A. Lawing, Letter to Superintendent, Andrew
Johnson NHS, February 1, 1993, in folder marked
“Hugh Lawing File,” located in the superintendent's
office, AJNHS.

354. Lawliss, Andrew Johnson National Cemetery, 25.

70 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


132, Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


2002

September-December
2002

September 1, 2004, to
August 3, 2005

Fall 2006

A five-year cooperative agreement is signed with Main Street: Greeneville to help initiate guided tours of
Greeneville’s historic district.

Connie Aiken of Appalachian State University conducts a series of recorded oral interviews with several
former and current park staff.

‘The Homestead is closed for renovation, which causes significant declines in visitation and book sales,
as expected.

The present administrative history project begins. A recorded and transcribed oral history interview of
Superintendent Mark Corey is conducted in December and filed in park archives.

National Park Service 125


The study’s fourth and final theme is the story of
how park managers and local community leaders
have closely cooperated to support each other’s
objectives. Greeneville included the historic site as a
key element in plans to redevelop its central historic
district and the Park Service has encouraged that
role. As a result, the town has developed a special
interest in how the historic site is managed. The
partnership between park and town leaders has
been a consistent and vital force in supporting the
mutual goals of both.

The study is organized into five chapters. In the first
chapter, a summary of Hugh Lawing’s
Administrative History of Andrew Johnson National
Historic Site is presented. Lawing’s report covers the
creation, establishment, and early development of
Andrew Johnson National Monument, how the
park expanded and was redesignated Andrew

Johnson National Historic Site by Congress in 1963,
and how the park was managed until 1971.5 Chapter
II discusses general park management issues since
that time, Chapter III discusses management of
Andrew Johnson National Cemetery, and Chapter
IV discusses park interpretation. The study
concludes with a management summary of
observations drawn from the historical record. The
study also includes a brief bibliography as well as
appendices that are intended to be useful as a
management reference.

5. See Hugh A. Lawing, Administrative History of
Andrew Johnson National Historic Site (NPS, 1971),
which also includes much information on Andrew
Johnson and his family that is not pertinent to the
purpose of this study. Readers interested in that topic,
or for greater detail on management issues of that
period, should refer to Lawing’s original study.

National Park Service 3


Appendix B: Principal Legislation

(1) Congress authorizes War
Department appropriations to acquire
“Monument Hill” and to establish a
national cemetery. Act of June 12, 1906

(34 Stat. 259).
An Act Making appropriation for the support
of the Army for the fiscal year ending june
30, 1907: That the Secretary of War is hereby
authorized to accept, under the will of
Martha J. Patterson and from the heirs of W.
B. Bachman, all descendants of Andrew
Johnson, late President of the United States,
free of cost to the Government, the tract of
land where said Andrew Johnson‘s remains
now lie, known as “Monument Hill,”
consisting of not exceeding 15 acres and
situated in Greene County, and in or near the
town of Greeneville, Tennessee, and upon
presentation of good and perfect title to said
tract, the Secretary of War is authorized and
directed to establish thereon a national
cemetery of the fourth class.

(2) Secretary of War designates the
Andrew Johnson monument and
Andrew Johnson National Cemetery,
Greeneville, Tennessee, as a national
monument under authority of
Antiquities Act of June 8, 1906 (34 Stat.
225)

War Department Bulletin No. 27, July 17,
1915.

(3) Congress authorizes Andrew
Johnson Homestead National
Monument. Act of August 29, 1935 (49
State 958).
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That when
title to the site of the Andrew Johnson

Homestead and the site of the tailor shop in
which Andrew Johnson worked (now owned
and administered by the State of Tennessee),
located in Greeneville, Tennessee, together
with such buildings and property located
thereon as may be designated by the
Secretary of the interior as necessary or
desirable for national-monument purposes
shall have been vested in the United States,
said area and improvements, if any, together
with the burial place of Andrew Johnson,
now administered as a national cemetery,
shall be designated and set apart as a
national monument for the benefit and
inspiration of the people and shall be called
the “Andrew Johnson National Monument.”
(16 U.S.C. sec. 450a.)

Sec. 2. That the Secretary of the Interior be,
and he is hereby, authorized to acquire on
behalf of the United States out of any funds
allotted and made available for this project
by proper authority or out of any donated
funds, by purchase at prices deemed by him
reasonable, or by condemnation under the
provision of the Act of August 1, 1888 (25.
Stat. 357), or to accept by donation, such
land, interest in land, and/or buildings,
structures, and other property within the
boundaries of said national monument as
determined and fixed hereunder, and he is
further authorized to accept donations of
funds for the purchase and/or maintenance
thereof. (16 U.S.C. sec. 450p.)

Sec. 3. That the administration, protection,
and development of the aforesaid national
monument shail be exercised under the
direction of the Secretary of the Interior by
the National Park Service, subject to the
provisions of the Act of August 25, 1916 (39
Stat. 535), entitled “An Act to establish a
National Park Service, and for other
purposes,” as amended. (16 U.S.C. sec. 450q.)

National Park Service 127


that work because of an adverse effect ruling, even

from the Advisory Council. Thus, once the process
was completed to legal standards, the Park Service

proceeded with its plans.

Between July and September 1990, the Early Home
was thoroughly renovated. First, a lengthy planning
process was completed that included analysis of
painted finishes and considerable architectural
investigation to design new electrical, heating, and
air conditioning systems. With this background,
historical masons and carpenters restored the
appearance of the building’s historic interior.
According to Superintendent Wilson, “the
crumbling walls and flaking paint have been
replaced with fresh coats of paint, made to match
the original paint. Mixtures of horse hair, sand,
lime, and soot were used to plaster the cracks and
holes in the wall.”

The building, acquired in 1963, was finally opened
to the public on August 31, 1991, in time to
commemorate the 75th Anniversary of the National
Park Service. While the building was primarily to be
used for park administration, one ground floor
room was set up for visitors to see how the home’s
interior had been restored to its appearance during
Johnson’s time. Wilson said that future use was to
include opening the site to the public for exhibit
purposes. Nevertheless, the superintendent invited
locals “to come to see what we have done.”!!

No actual furnishings survived from the period of
Johnson’s occupation, so the Park Service decided
to interpret the structure itself. A temporary exhibit
in the Early Home featured photographs tracing the
rehabilitation process of that building, including
before and after images. Wilson had been anxious
to see the home opened as many visitors asked
about it. “That’s been a frustration for us and the
visitors,” he told the Greeneville Sun. “It’s another
piece of Andrew Johnson’s life we’re here to tell
people about. We’re pleased to finally be able to
open the room to the public.”2!2

211. “National Park Service Celebrates 75" Year with
Rehabilitation Work,” Greeneville Sun, May 4, 1991.

212. Eugenia Estes, “1831 Andrew Johnson House to be
Opened to Public Sunday,” Greeneville Sun, August
31, 1991,

FIGURE 24, A postcard-depiction of the Memorial
Building constructed by the State of Tennessee
in 1923 to house Johnson's Tailor Shop. Vody
Cook Postcard Collection)

Tailor Shop,
Memorial Building,
and Visitor Center

The Tailor Shop of Andrew Johnson was purchased
by the state of Tennessee in 1921 from the Johnson
family. In 1923, it was enclosed by a “Memorial
Building,” a one-story two-room brick structure
intended to protect the well-preserved but frail
wooden shop in which Johnson worked before
becoming a politician. The Memorial Building was
transferred to the National Park Service by the state
when the park was established in 1942, and the Park
Service later constructed an attached Visitor
Center. Both buildings are located across the street
from Johnson’s Early Home. When the park’s
original National Register Nomination was
completed by park historian Hugh Lawing, he
included the Memorial Building itself as a listed
historic resource. The structure was by then over
fifty years old, one of the register’s important
criteria for significance, and it also represented state
and local efforts to preserve and commemorate the
life of the seventeenth U.S. president.

One important event related to the Memorial
Building occurred in the early 1970s. Congressman
James H. Quillen had contacted NPS Director
Ronald H. Walker, suggesting that a plaque be
posted at the site to honor U.S. Senator Edmund G.
Ross, who cast the deciding vote in Andrew
Johnson’s impeachment trial in the US. Senate on
May 16, 1868, thus saving his presidency. Ross and
others afterward claimed his vote of “conviction” to

National Park Service 45




u “NS

FIGURE 34, View of the War Department flagpole in
the cemetery in 1990.

Efforts to Expand
the National
Cemetery

In May 1987, Rep. Jimmy Quillen introduced a bill
in Congress to allow the National Cemetery at
Andrew Johnson National Historic Site to receive a
donation of land.>° Legislative action was required
because the land in question was located outside the
national park’s authorized boundary. Senators Jim
Sasser and Albert Gore, Jr., introduced a companion
bill in the Senate. The intent of the legislation was to
direct the Secretary of the Interior to approve the

310. SANR for 1987, February 18, 1988.

acquisition and administration of five lots totaling
1.2 acres adjoining the National Cemetery. These
lots were actually procured for donation to the park
by the Elbert L. Kinser Detachment, a local branch
of the Marine Corps League, and Andrew Johnson
Post 1990, a branch of the Veterans of Foreign Wars
(VFW). The veterans’ groups had purchased the
property adjacent to the cemetery at the
intersection of Vann Road and Crescent Drive in the
“Sunnyside Addition.” They wanted to give it to the
park to allow local veterans to continue to be
interred in the National Cemetery. Rep. Quillen
stated that “this is a very commendable and
thoughtful act upon the part of those involved in
this unselfish proposal.” “If my bill is approved,” he
stated, “up to 500 new sites will be available to
provide a final resting place for the deserving
veterans who have served us all so well.”3!!

On June 23, Senator Sasser again stated that “the
acquisition of this land is necessary because there
are less than 250 gravesites in the cemetery.”
Reportedly, if nothing was done to expand the area
available for graves, the cemetery would be filled
within the next seven to eight years. Sasser filed
similar comments in the Congressional Record for
himself and Sen. Albert Gore, Jr. He also explained
that the expansion would not cost the taxpayers and
re-emphasized that it would “ensure that eligible
the East Tennessee area will have an
appropriate and dignified final resting place.”3!2

The National Park Service opposed the Quillen-
Sasser-Gore legislation. Superintendent Webb
explained the issue to Southeast Regional Office
staff in early July 1987, and his basic arguments
would be used throughout the forthcoming debate.
Among these, he noted that the entire park was
intrinsically historic, having been donated by the
family of the late president Andrew Johnson to
commemorate his life and role in American history,
that the purpose of the Park Service was to protect
the integrity of historic sites, not to administer active
cemeteries, that the Quillen bill would jeopardize
these aforementioned purposes and would entail

311. “Quillen Bill Would Allow More Land for AJ
Cemetery,” Greeneville Daily Sun, May 23, 1987;
“Proposal Would Allow Cemetery Expansion,”
Johnson City Press, May 24, 1987.

312. Ron Schaming, “Land Donated: National Cemetery
Expansion Planned,” Greeneville Sun, June 23, 1987.
Senator Sasser’s comments were also recorded in the
Congressional Record, May 28, 1987.

62 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


interiors. Most of the furnishings in the Homestead
were not museum reproductions or period pieces
but actually belonged to Johnson and were supplied
to the Park Service by his descendants. At that time,
the use of air-conditioning was not yet widespread,
even in the South, and rigorous climate control of
house-museum environments was still relatively
rare. As a result, little thought was given to the lack
of modern environmental controls in the building
and how that might affect the long-term care and
preservation of these museum-caliber artifacts. By
the 1980s, however, there was a growing awareness
of the curatorial issues at historic-house museums,
including the Homestead, particularly the inherent
conflict between preservation of the historic
building, authentic presentation of the building to
visitors, and appropriate curation of historic
furnishings and decoration.

By 1981, the Southeast Region had acquired its first
Regional Curator, Dale Durham, who made his first
visit to Andrew Johnson in December of that year.
He commended the park “for having the most
complete catalogue of Museum items” he had seen
but still had a few concerns, one of which was
security. After he estimated the value of the park’s
artifact collection to be about $1.5 million dollars,
staff began to think more seriously about park
security needs. Durham made it a point to return
the following year to work on artifact curation with
Hugh Lawing and Elaine Clark. He made several
other visits to the park during his tenure. In 1989,
park staff, to address Durham’s concerns, installed
an enhanced lock system and “significantly
improved” staff accountability for keys.°”

In January 1988, William Sites, a plant pathologist
with the U.S. Forest Service, was called to the park
to investigate its pest and preservation problems
stemming from moisture. Sites concluded that “the
Tailor Shop, 1830’s House, Andrew Johnson
Homestead, and their contents are in excellent
condition.” Sites did find some pest problems
related to furniture stored on dirt floors at the
Homestead but thought thorough annual
inspections, routine maintenance to keep out liquid
water, and better dehumidification (also
recommended by NPS architect Rene Cote), were
the park’s main preservation needs.®8 The Sites

65. SANR for 1981, February 8, 1982.
66. SANR for 1982, February 23, 1983.
67. SANR for 1989, February 16, 1990.

FIGURE 9. View of Homestead just prior to its
restoration in 1956. (Judd HSR, 1959)

report reduced the priority placed on solving the
curatorial space problem.

In April, Regional Curator Durham followed up the
Sites visit. He reviewed the park’s curatorial
program, assisted staff with accountability issues
and cataloguing, and made several minor
recommendations. Most importantly, Durham said
that the park needed a Collection Condition Survey
completed by professionally trained staff. The
survey was to help ensure that the best possible
treatment was available for the park’s museum
collection, which Durham had already assigned a
high intrinsic value for association with the life of
President Andrew Johnson. Durham was also
concerned that, despite repeated conversations,
park staff were still storing cleaning items,
Christmas decorations, and interpretative literature
in the drawers and cabinets of the historic
furnishings within the Homestead. Such behavior
resulted in unnecessary wear and tear on those
furnishings and was against NPS policy.5?

In August 1990, a draft Resource Management Plan
(RMP) was developed for the historic site and
reviewed by regional office staff. Regional Historian
Len Brown was particularly critical:

68. William H. Sites, Department of Agriculture, Letter to
Grady, Superintendent, AJNHS, January 14, 1988, in
“ANJO General” folder, park files, CRD, SERO.

69. Dale Durham, Regional Curator, Memorandum to
Deputy Associate Regional Director, Cultural
Resources, April 20, 1988, in “ANJO General” folder,
park files, CRD, SERO.

National Park Service 17


FIGURE 33, Early-20th-century view of Monument

Hill and Johnson Family cemetery plot. Jody
Cook Postcard Collection)

Johnson National Cemetery to give its monuments a
thorough cleaning and to try to mitigate past
damage. One expert on the team, Sam May,
explained to the Greeneville Sun that procedures
being used would safely remove lichen, moss, or
other growth from the Italian marble of the
monument marking Johnson’s gravesite. The team
also repointed and sealed cracks and joints to
prevent moisture penetration that could lead to
expansion cracking when that moisture later froze.
Nistal-Moret added that the emphasis on safely
cleaning the monuments was not incidental. He
stated that the hundred-year-old marble of the
Johnson Monument had, in fact, been damaged in
the 1970s by a commercial cleaning company that
had used acid solutions, which had etched and
stained the monument’s surface. In fact, the two
associated urns were so damaged that they had to be
removed from the site altogether and taken to
Atlanta for more meticulous repair.2 These were
later returned. The damage to the Andrew Johnson
Monument was caused by workmen hired by
Superintendent Lloyd Abelson in August 1974 from
A-Plus Renovation, Inc. of Greeneville. Cleaning the
monument was a chore, Abelson reported then, that
had not occurred since the 1960s. Unfortunately,
the superintendent would have done better to have
done nothing.*9” Besides the monument, Abelson
had twenty-five grave stones within the Johnson
family circle “commercially cleaned, repaired and
sealed.”298

296. Bill Wilburn, “Monumental Makeover at Johnson
Gravesite,” Greeneville Sun, July 23, 1987, 1, 6.

297, “Andrew Johnson Monument Gets Cleaning,”
Greeneville Daily Sun, August 27, 1974, No other
major cleanings are reported in the annual reports
between 1974 and 1987.

In August 1989, new park Superintendent Gordon
Wilson began Section 106 consultation over
proposed action regarding the cemetery’s flagpole.
The flagpole, which stands some seventy-five feet
high, was erected by the War Department around
1908 and is arguably the most noticeable feature of
the cemetery. Some rusting of the flagpole was
evident near its base and at mid-level. Gordon
wanted to remove and replace the flagpole.

Cultural resources staff in the regional office
objected to Gordon’s proposal, finding insufficient
justification for replacing the flagpole. Regional
Historical Architect Bill Sowers recommended
“repair and maintenance of existing would be
preferred. If not feasible, new should match historic
in form, detail, and finish.”299 On August 29, 1989,
Kirk Cordell, Chief of the Region’s Cultural
Resources Division, phoned Wilson to discuss the
status of his request: “I told him,” reported Cordell,
“that absent any additional information from the
park, we will need to treat the pole as part of the
original, and therefore historic, design of the
Johnson gravesite.” Cordell got Wilson to agree to
place the project on hold until NPS architects had a
chance to inspect the flagpole.30°

Staff architects Rene Cote and Steve Sherwood later
inspected the flagpole. Their report, supported by
the chiefs of the Historic Architecture and Cultural
Resources Divisions, argued that, despite surface
rusting, the flagpole could be repaired. Associate
Regional Director Robert L. Deskins discussed the
information with Chief Ranger Mark Woods on
January 24, 1990, and followed up with a
memorandum stating “that the existing flagpole is
historic and should be preserved.”301

298. SANR for 1974, February 19, 1975.

299. Billy Sowers, Regional Historical Architect, “Replace
flagpole, Andrew Johnson Nationa! Cemetery,”
Section 106 “staff review and certification” form,
August 28, 1989, in “Andrew Johnson NHS, Jan. 1990-
May 1991" folder, Section 106 files, CRD, SERO.

300. Kirk A, Cordell, Record of Telephone Conversation
with Gordon Wilson regarding “XXX on flag pole
replacement,” August 28, 1989, in “Andrew Johnson
NHS, Jan. 1990-May 1991” folder, Section 106 files,
CRD, SERO. Cordell had support from the Deputy
Associate Regional Director for Cultural Resources to
oppose Wilson‘s request, according to a memorandum
in the same file drafted for the Deputy Associate
Regional Director's signature on August 18.

301. Robert L. Deskins, Associate Regional Director,
Operations, Memorandum to Superintendent, AJNHS,
February 15, 1990, in “ANJO General” folder, park
files, CRD, SERO.

60 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002

59,102
67,309
60,207
51,779
59,897
49,551
48,878

2003
2004
2005
2006

Source:

51,910
50,196
48,552
50,701

National Park Service statistics.

136 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


the parking problem. The implication of these facts
was that for part of 1978, the park lacked the
necessary law enforcement muscle to handle a
serious incident, which was, of course, a potentially
grave situation.

In 1979, the parking problem worsened due “to
food stamp recipients taking over the Visitor Center
parking lot.” That year, 191 parking violation
citations were issued. Aside from parking problems,
the park’s crime rate in 1979 was zero.2© In 1980,
the number of citations issued declined to 124, but
they rose again to 194 in 1981. The situation showed
no sign of improving and Superintendent Abelson,
in conjunction with adjacent property owners,
“requested that the state move their Food Stamp
Office to a site that provides some customer
parking.” The state responded by telling Abelson to
wait until March 1981 when Human Services
Department planned to initiate a mail-out program.
Instead of resolving the matter, however, the new
program merely scattered Human Services visitors
throughout the month and continued to create
parking problems. There also was no progress in
resolving the concurrent jurisdiction problem in
either 1981 or 1982.757

In 1982, problems continued to be caused by use of
the Visitor Center parking lot by visitors to the
Tennessee Human Services Department. Fewer
tickets were issued than in 1981, but an effort was
made to increase the violation penalty from three to
ten dollars in the hope that it would act as a
deterrent.258 In 1983, new park Supt. Grady Webb
took up the parking lot problem. He first sought an
increase in fines. By 1984, Webb’s reports seemed to
indicate that the problem was actually getting worse
as “tobacco sellers” a nearby tobacco warehouse
were now also being cited as abusing the parking
lot. Nevertheless, according to Webb, “things will
be changing.” Chief Ranger David A. McCormack
contacted the U.S. Attorney’s office to establish
“collateral forfeiture” for parking violators.
“Hopefully,” Webb reported, “this will alleviate
some of the parking problems experienced in the
past.” However, during Webb’s tenure no lasting
resolution of the parking problem was achieved.

256. SANR for 1977, January 5, 1978; SANR for 1978,
January 3, 1979; SANR for 1979, February 27, 1980.

257. SANR for 1980, February 5, 1981; SANR for 1981,
February 8, 1982.

258. SANR for 1982, February 23, 1983.

Instead, Webb continued to issue parking tickets,
both real and courtesy, to penalize lot users who
were not visiting the park.’ 59

Under Superintendent Mark Corey, trouble with
the Visitor Center parking lot continued. Like
superintendents before him, Corey first tried
warning notices. His strategy seemed to succeed in
1993, because the number of warnings actually
declined. However, that year the Tennessee Human
Resource Center moved its offices, which
temporarily reduced use of the lot by non-park
visitors.2°° The next year, however, the problem
returned, Corey eventually acknowledged that
merely warning violators was not sufficient. In fact,
he reported that “the parking situation in the Visitor
Center lot had become unmanageable.” As a result,
the park began issuing tickets in an effort to keep its
Visitor Center lot open for park visitors. In 1994-
1995, some thirty citations were written, which
quickly resulted in an improved situation.”6! The
problem finally diminished when the nearby Smoke
Stack Park and Andrew Johnson Park parking lots
opened, creating more space for historic district
visitors in general.

While Andrew Johnson was still under the
administration of Grady Webb, Great Smoky
Mountains National Park initiated a legislative
proposal to obtain concurrent jurisdiction for itself
and parks in the vicinity. Webb distributed the
proposal to local political leaders and law
enforcement agencies in 1988. Superintendent
Gordon Wilson reported in 1989 that the park “has
established quality working relationships with area
law enforcement groups.” ©3 However, it was not
until Mark Corey took over as superintendent that
this issue was finally resolved. In 1997 an agreement
was reached between the National Park Service and
the state of Tennessee, and the jurisdiction of all the
properties within the park was changed to
concurrent for both the Federal and state
governments. This change ended the long-existing
problem of local law enforcement agencies not
having any authority at the National Cemetery.?64

259. SANR for 1983, February 13, 1984; SANR for 1984,
January 18, 1985; SANR for 1987, February 18, 1988.

260. SANR for 1993, February 15, 1994.

261. SANR for Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, December 1,
1995.

262. SANR for 1988, February 10, 1989.

263. SANR for 1989, February 16, 1990.

264. SANR for Fiscal Year 1997.

National Park Service 53


Tom Garland and State Representative Joe Bewley
quickly entered the fray of Nashville politics to
champion the commercial interests of their
Greeneville constituents. Reports were printed that
their efforts met stiff resistance by state highway
officials who were unwilling to get up the signs
indicating where drivers could leave the interstate to
find the historic Andrew Johnson site, but they
persisted.3!

“Incredibly,” noted the local paper in May 1976,
“there are no public signs at all on I-81 indicating
that the former President’s home, tailor shop, and
burial place are here, in a well preserved, well
administered national monument!” The paper went
on to say “that this omission could have occurred in
the first place is amazing. That it continues, after so
much talking and evidence-producing, is almost
unbelievable.” According to the paper, the lack of
highway signs meant that many visitors already
intent on seeing the historic site were having a hard
time finding their way. For example, park guides
were told stories about visitors having to drive
twenty-five miles out of their way because of a
missed park sign. The paper was furious: “What
does it take to get some results on this reasonable
and much needed item?” It urged the governor
himself to press Federal highway officials for
action.>? But the issue seemed to boil down to red
tape. After political leaders expressed optimism for
getting the sign problem handled, especially with
regard to those directing travelers to the Andrew
Johnson site, one local paper admitted that “the
wheels of government grind as slowly as any, and
highway matters are no exception.”>

Around this time, the park’s main problem was a
decline in visitation. In 1973, 55,164 guests visited
the cemetery. By November 1976, however, only
44,838 visitors had been logged as visiting the
cemetery. Abelson specifically attributed this
decline to “lack of signs on the Interstate and road
work on 11-E.”34

Finally, in 1977, efforts by Abelson, Bewley,
Garland, and others paid off and the state approved

31.
32.

Tweed, "Signs for Johnson Historic Site.”

“Action Badly Needed on I-81 Signs,” (Greeneville
Sun?], May 31, 1976, press clipping in AJNHS archives.
“Progress, Still Work to Do,” [Greeneville Sun?], no
date [late 1976), press clipping in ANJO archives.
SANR for 1976, December 1, 1976.

33.

34.

10 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History

the placement of highway signs along I-81 to alert
travelers to the whereabouts of the park in
Greeneville. Contacted for his reaction, Rep.
Bewley probably summed up the view of many
when he stated that “I’m so glad the project is
completed and so many people’s efforts have been
realized. It’s good too that everyone was patient and
remained in a good humor, and I hope the people
come over from the interstate and visit Greene
County.”

However, one problem remained—the Greeneville-
Baileyton road exit. The issue here was purely
jurisdictional, because the state and county officials
played tug-of-war over who was responsible for
funding road maintenance. At the time, Federal
highway funds were used to assist state counties
with road maintenance as long as the road was
classified as secondary. If the road was classified as
primary, the state stepped in with aid. State officials
thus claimed they could not use state funds on a
secondary road, and could not fund park
directional signs even though Superintendent
Abelson claimed that such signs had existed at the
intersection prior to construction work done on the
road, which he called the 11E Bypass.?° Somehow
this bureaucratic conundrum was overcome and in
1979 new signs announcing “Historic Site—Home
of Pres.—Andrew Johnson—Next Right” were
erected at the Greeneville-Baileyton exit of 1-81.57

Meanwhile, new entrance and directional signs at
the park itself were added for the parking lots of the
Visitor Center and Homestead. These were
apparently needed to address changes in traffic
flow.°8 The signs, purchased from Prison Industries
and erected in 1978, were supposed to bring the
park’s sign program fully up to date.>? However, the
very next year, “Visitor Only” signs were added to
the Visitor Center parking lot to help address the
continuing problem of the lot being used by visitors
to the state’s human services offices.” In 1982,
visitation hours were added to park directional signs
at the north and south exits of Interstate 81. Local
signs were also modified to adjust for longer hours
during the Knoxville World’s Fair that year.

35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.

SANR for 1978, January 3, 1979.

Tweed, “Signs for Johnson Historic Site.”
SANR for 1979, February 5, 1981.

SANR for 1977, January 5, 1978.

SANR for 1978, January 3, 1979.

SANR for 1979, February 5, 1981.


period setting.”!°° On May 23, the following year, a
small tornado struck the Homestead grounds. The
tornado uprooted five large trees, including a
historic pecan tree at the rear of the building, and
damaged seven others.!!° This was probably not the
type of attrition that Abelson had in mind, but the
event illustrated how difficult it was to restore or
maintain a living landscape as a “typical period
setting.” However, Abelson was uncertain what the
“period setting” was supposed to be—which trees
should he replace and with what? In 1975, Abelson
drafted a proposal for funding development of a
historic landscape plan for the Homestead grounds.
He hoped to get this “special need” study by tying it
directly to the storm damage, but for unknown
reasons, funds were not forthcoming,!!!

Without a plan and left to his own discretion,
Abelson did engage in some landscaping at the
Homestead. In April 1976, he had park staff uproot
the roses around the site. In their place the park
planted strains of roses which had been introduced
to the United States prior to 1850.!1? In 1977,
Abelson again asked for regional office support to
complete “a simple 1865-1875 Period Landscape
plan” for the Homestead. He noted that the existing
general plan was outdated and did not reflect the
historic period’s conditions.!!> Again, it was not a
top regional priority and Abelson received no
funding.

In 1979 a wedding was held on the Homestead
grounds, for which a special use permit was issued.
In addition, the Greeneville Art Guild rejuvenated
its long-running Hobby Fair co-sponsored by the
Park Service and held at the Homestead each year.
The event typically included craft demonstrations
and exhibits. That year, there were bagpipes, story-
telling, square-dancing, and clogging. The adjacent
tobacco Warehouse was used as a flea market. “It
was an outstanding success,” Abelson happily
reported, and he noted his desire to extend the
event to two full days, “if overnight protection
problem can be resolved.”

A problem for park officials of the time was that
local law enforcement officials were not authorized

109. SANR for 1974, February 19, 1975.

110. SANR for 1975, February 16, 1976.

111. Ibid.

112. “A New Look,” Greeneville Sun, April 19, 1976.
113. SANR for 1977, January 5, 1978.

THE REMDENCE OF PREDIDENT JOuNON AY GAFFMVILLE, FACT
FIGURE 16. “The Residence of President Johnson at
Greenville, East Tenn,” published in Frank Leslie's
lilustrated Newspaper, September 23, 1865, made
from an ambrotype by Marsh and Reiff of
Greeneville, Tennessee (Source: Benjamin H. Davis,

The Home Andrew Johnson Purchased in 1851, NPS,
1956

FIGURE 17. This photograph of the Homestead, one
of the few from the period, was taken on August 3,
1875, the day of Johnson's funeral. Note the black

ribbons on the shutters. (from Benjamin H. Davis,
“The Home Andrew Johnson Purchased in 1851,”
National Park Service, 1956)

to police park property, which belonged to the
Federal government.!14 Somehow, however,
Abelson made arrangements to guard vendor goods
overnight, and a two-day Hobby Fair was held on
October 11 and 12, 1981. It was again co-sponsored
by the Greeneville Arts Guild and the park and was
held at the Homestead with thirty-one exhibitors
who were housed under borrowed Army and
funeral home tents. The TVA Nolichucky
Environmental Center provided an energy exhibit

114, SANR for 1979, February 27, 1980.

National Park Service 27


completed by early 1980. Problems in acquiring
“hard to get railing and floor grill” materials were
cited as reasons for the project not being completed.
Included in the Memorial Building contract was the
requirement to raise the Tailor Shop several inches
off the floor.220

In 1985, park staff sought to include repair of the
Memorial Building’s slate roof as part of the park’s
proposed Statement for Management. Regional
CRM staff objected and pointed out that existing
plans and specifications allowed park staff or a local
contractor to perform needed repairs “as a simple
preservation maintenance project that should not
require being addressed in a management
document.”22!

In 1988, Superintendent Grady Webb contacted the
Tennessee Valley Authority regarding a “heat/
cooling loss study” for the Memorial Building to
help prepare for the installation of a heating and
cooling system.?2? The following year, a DSC
engineer and a historical architect from the regional
office developed plans for installing a new climate-
control system in the Memorial Building. However,
the NPS estimate for the work was about $10,000
and bids for the contract exceeded $23,000. All
levels of NPS management agreed the cost was
excessive and the contract was not awarded. The
same year, however, NPS preservation specialists
did replace deteriorated window framing and
woodwork in the tailor shop, installed UV filtering
on the Memorial Building’s windows, and
attempted to repair faults in its concrete foundation,
but with mixed results. That same year, a new
intrusion alarm was also installed in the Visitor
Center complex with the cost-efficient help ofa
technician detailed from Colonial National
Historical Park.?23

During the early to mid-1990s, park attention was
focused upon the rehabilitation of the Cemetery
Lodge. However, minor repairs and maintenance of
the Memorial Building continued. In 1993, the park

220. SANR for 1979, February 27, 1980.

221. Chief of Cultural Resources Preservation Center,
Memorandum (entitled "Statement for
Management—Andrew Johnson") to Chief, Planning
and Compliance Division, August 22, 1985, in AJNHS
files, “General Correspondence 5/2/7 1-10/20/93"
folder (1), Division of Architecture, SERO.

222. SANR for 1988, February 10, 1989.

223. SANR for 1988, February 16, 1990.

replaced missing slates on the Memorial Building’s
roof as well as those missing from the Cemetery
Lodge and its stable.224 Between 1994 and 1996,
park maintenance staff replaced deteriorated bricks
and repointed the masonry of the Memorial
Building and the Homestead’s chimneys. A “snow
catcher” was installed on the roof of the Memorial
Building as a safety feature.?2> Such routine
maintenance continued into the 2000s.

In 1998, the park’s Visitor Center, which is not a
historic property, was thoroughly renovated so new
exhibits could be installed (this topic is discussed in
more detail in the section on interpretation). Older
exhibits installed during the park’s Mission-66
development were removed by the maintenance
crew but donated to the nearby Nathanael Greene
Museum. The center was then re-carpeted,
repainted, and rewired to accommodate the new
exhibits while new power-assisted doors were
installed as an aid to accessibility by the
handicapped. New exhibits were set up in the
Memorial Building with sound effects added to
simulate the sounds that might have been heard ona
visit to the Tailor Shop in the 1830s,

Three years later, a final important upgrade was
made to the Visitor Center complex to provide
better public “necessities.” From 1958 to the end of
the twentieth century, visitors to Andrew Johnson
National Historic Site found only two single-
occupant rest rooms in the Visitor Center, one
female, one male. Given that the largest number of
visits was by school groups, the predictable result
was long lines. Not only did visitors receive less
interpretation while waiting in line, but space
devoted to waiting was space not used for
interpretation. Superintendent Corey first began
planning to correct the problem in 1996, but it was
not until 1999 that funding was authorized. That
year, worn-out plumbing beneath the Visitor
Center’s concrete slab floors ruptured, rendering
the park’s rest rooms unusable for about a month.
Shortly thereafter, regional authorities authorized
Corey to expend up to $99,000 to construct a
modern facility.227

224, SANR for 1993, February 17, 1994.

225. SANR for 1993, February 17, 1994; SANR for Fiscal
Years 1994 and 1995, December 1, 1995; and SANR for
Fiscal Year 1996.

226. SANR for Fiscal Year 1998.

National Park Service 47


to survey historic sites, buildings, objects, and
antiquities of national significance, and to work in
cooperation with other government agencies,
organizations, and individuals to preserve the
nation’s heritage. These programs were suspended
during World War II and not reactivated until the
late 1950s, when large, new Federal programs for
urban renewal, dams and river basins, and the
interstate highway system began to destroy
irreplaceable historic resources. In 1960, NPS
officially announced a new program to list historic
buildings and sites surveyed under the Historic Sites
Act as Registered National Historic Landmarks.

There were wide-ranging efforts in the early 1960s
by the Federal government as well as by
organizations, businesses, and citizens to address
growing concerns about environmental issues,
natural and cultural. By then nearly half of the
buildings and structures listed in the original HABS
survey had been lost. In 1965, the United States
Conference of Mayors created a Special Committee
on Historic Preservation to investigate the country’s
historic preservation needs. In January 1966, the
committee published their findings in a book-
length report entitled With Heritage So Rich that
recommended an active role for the Federal
government in historic preservation, including
establishment of a national register of historic sites
and structures. Heavy lobbying led to passage of the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), signed
by President Johnson on October 15, 1966. The
NHPA authorized the Secretary of the Interior “to
expand and maintain a National Register of Historic
Places composed of districts, sites, buildings,
structures, and objects significant in American
history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and
culture.”48

While the NHPA offered little protection for
historic buildings and sites from the actions of
private property owners, it included a provision that
offered some protection for significant historic
resources from actions of the Federal government,
which itself was often responsible for their
destruction by funding projects that failed to
consider the importance of preserving historic sites,
buildings, and structures. Section 106 of the NHPA
established a process that required all Federal
agencies to consider the effect of their actions on

48. NHPA Section 101 (a){1)(A).

historic properties listed in the National Register of
Historic Places prior to undertaking any action that
involved Federal funds, lands, permits, or licenses.

The National Register of Historic Places initially
consisted of the National Historic Landmarks listed
prior to October 1966, and all of the historical units
of the National Park System, including Andrew
Johnson National Historic Site, which were
automatically listed as of October 15, 1966. The
NHPA authorized grant funds for states to conduct
statewide historic surveys and to prepare
preservation plans for historic resources. Each state
had a “liaison officer,” who became known in the
early 1970s as the “state historic preservation
officer” or SHPO, but actual appropriations to
support the program were negligible, and the new
partnership with the states barely survived.

Expansion of the National Register to include
properties with local and state significance required
the development of new criteria, standards, and
procedures, which were not available until the fall
of 1968, and a standard “National Register of
Historic Places Inventory-Nomination Form,”
which appeared in December 1968. After the states
received their first grant funds in the spring of 1969,
the national historic preservation program slowly
evolved, but in those early years, documentation
that later became a routine part of the National
Register nomination process was often, at best,
limited.

In 1971, President Nixon strengthened the national
historic preservation program with Executive Order
11593, “Protection and Enhancement of the
Cultural Environment,” which directed all Federal
agencies, “with the advice of the Secretary of the
Interior, and in cooperation with the liaison officer
for historic preservation for the State or territory
involved, [to] locate, inventory, and nominate to the
Secretary of the Interior all sites, buildings, districts,
and objects under their jurisdiction or control that
appear to qualify for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places.”4? The required surveys and
nominations were to be completed no later than
July 1, 1973.

49. Most of the Executive Order's provisions were later
incorporated into the NHPA when it was amended in
1980. Liaison officers became the State Historic
Preservation Officer or SHPO.

National Park Service 13


134 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


FIGURE 43. In 1996 a special commission
considered transferring all national cemeteries
to the Department of Veterans Affairs,
including Andrew Johnson. Here a Student
Conservation Association volunteer cleans
headstones in the National Cemetery.

slope limitation, as it presumably would have to
under VA administration, numerous designated
burial sites would be eliminated. Given the history
of the issue, local groups were likely to ally
themselves with the Service against the proposed
transfer.

In June 1998, Corey took this argument public with
a press release that explained the potential transfer.
He concluded the statement by saying, “Local
citizens should know that most of the 900 grave sites
added to the cemetery five years ago, do not comply
with the Veterans Administration policy that grave
sites must be located on slopes of less than 15
degrees. Therefore, if the Veterans Administration
were to administer the Andrew Johnson National
Cemetery then J assume that most of those new sites
could not be used.”3 Corey’s intent was certainly
to rally public support behind the park. The
Greeneville Sun readily reported on the
Commission’s proposal, Corey’s opposition, and
noted in its headline that the “shift could cut
available gravesites.”4°

One of the first to respond was Ralph Phinney, who
wrote Bob Holbrook on the veterans’ and service

399. NPS News Release, “Congressional Commission to
Consider Transfer of Andrew Johnson National
Cemetery from the National Park Service to the
Department of Veterans Affairs,” undated [June
1998], in “National Cemetery” folder, AJNHS archives.
Original emphasis.

400. Bill Jones, “Commission Weighing Shift of Johnson
Cemetery Control to VA,” Greeneville Sun, June 11,
1998, A1, AG.

members’ commission on June 29. Phinney
specifically claimed that no one had put him up to
writing. Instead, he felt compelled to speak his mind
as a 103-year-old man worried that any move to
transfer the National Cemetery to the VA “would
indeed kill the goose that laid the golden egg.” He
called the cemetery the “crown jewel” of the overall
Johnson historic site and did not want it jeopardized
by segregating the cemetery from the rest of the
park.4" Phinney, representing the family and
descendants of Andrew Johnson, thus registered
opposition to the proposed transfer, not on the
grounds of veterans concerns, but out of fear that it
might degrade the commemoration of President
Andrew Johnson

Others from Greeneville wrote their congressmen
opposing the transfer, which prompted Senator
Fred Thompson to write NPS Director Robert
Stanton about the matter.*92 On July 20, 1998,
Director Stanton wrote Holbrook to recommend
that the Commission not attempt to transfer the two
active NPS national cemeteries at Andrew Johnson
and Andersonville National Historic Sites. He
pointed out that both cemeteries were integral
historic resources closely tied to the interpretation
of their respective sites. “To remove these two
cemeteries,” he insisted, “from that role would be a
serious mistake.” Like Corey, he also noted that no
improved efficiency could possibly be derived from
such a transfer.493 Corey replied to Senator
Thompson’s congressional inquiry by conveying to
him the director’s letter to Holbrook, his own June
news release, and assurance that the Park Service
agreed with the concerns of Greeneville citizens
who objected to the transfer. Corey, after all, had
helped frame those views.404

Curiously, while Commission Chairman Principi
had written the Park Service for its view on

40

. Ralph M. Phinney, Letter to Bob Holbrook,
Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans
Transition Assistance, June 29, 1998, in “National
Cemetery” folder, AJNHS archives.

402. Fred Thomson, United States Senator, Letter to Billy
Williams, July 8, 1998, in “National Cemetery” folder,
AJNHS archives.

403. Robert Stanton, Director, National Park Service, Letter
to Robert Holbrook, Commission of Servicemembers
and Veterans Transition Assistance, July 20, 1998, in
"National Cemetery” folder, AJNHS archives.

404, Mark Corey, Superintendent, AJNHS, Letter to Fred

Thompson, United States Senator, August 7, 1998, in

"National Cemetery” folder, AJNHS archives.

80 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


At the end of October 2001, the Homestead CLR
was sent to the park. On January 14, 2002,
Superintendent Corey issued a press release
announcing that “significant changes to the existing
appearance of the landscaping surrounding the
Andrew Johnson Homestead are recommended” by
the Park Service and soliciting written comments
from the public. Corey also noted that once the
report was completed, it would guide management
actions for the Homestead grounds for many years
to come,!47

On January 26, the Greeneville Sun reported the
news. The National Park Service, it stated,
“proposes sweeping changes in the landscape
surrounding the Andrew Johnson Homestead.”
Among others, the plan’s recommendations
included uncovering the natural spring that had first
attracted the Johnsons to the property in the 1830s,
adding fencing to distinguish lots owned by
Johnson from others added later, and rotating
mower schedules to allow grass to grow at differing
heights to help distinguish the differing lots. Trees
would be added, others removed, and garden walks
and garden areas would be established.!*8 Together,
these changes would greatly alter the “estate-like
feel” of the Homestead’s grounds to which many
local residents were accustomed but, at the same
time, were also intended to provide a much better
understanding of the Homestead’s property, and
surrounding lots now in NPS ownership, during
Johnson’s lifetime.

When asked to explain how the plan developed,
Corey stated that “the Cultural Resources
Stewardship Division of the National Park Service’s
Southeast Regional Office in Atlanta, Ga., initiated
the report by suggesting to local staff members how
much it was needed.” The report had taken some
three or four years to write, Corey noted, and would

146. See Jay T. Sturdevant and Charles F. Lawson, “Remote-
Sensing and Archeological Survey of the Andrew
Johnson Homestead at the Andrew Johnson National
Historic Site” (Tallahassee: Southeast Archeological
Center, 2002).

Andrew Johnson News Release, “National Park

Service Requests Public Comments on Proposed

Changes for the Landscaping of Andrew Johnson

Homestead,” January 14, 2002, in folder marked

“Hugh Lawing File,” located in the superintendent's

office, Andrew Johnson National Historic Site.

148. Amy Overbay, “Park Service Proposes Making Andrew
Johnson Homestead Site Much More Historically
Accurate,” Greeneville Sun, January 26-27, 2002, A1,
Al2.

147

probably take another three to five years to
implement. “Now is a good opportunity,” he stated,
“for us to consult with the community to see how
they feel about this.”!49

The park received a few positive comments
welcoming an “accurate” restoration of the
Homestead’s grounds. Local historian Robert Orr,
writing to Corey about the report, thought “the
general idea of returning the grounds of the Andrew
Johnson Homestead to the probable use of the land
during Johnson’s retirement in the 1870s is a good
one.” He also thought that “the next step [should]
be an archeological survey of the grounds.”
Apparently unaware that archeology had already
been done, Orr hoped such a “deliberate approach”
would uncover more of the outbuildings and “yield
good results.”!°° In theory, historical archeology
might “ground-truth” parts of the Willingham and
Patterson recollections; but, as the methodology
section of the CLR acknowledges, archeological
testing of this nature was not conducted, primarily
because of the great cost for what was likely to be
little new information.

Amore important note arrived on February 12 from
Herbert L. Harper, the Tennessee Deputy State
Historic Preservation officer, who concurred with
the park that the actions proposed by the CLR
would “not adversely affect” the National Register-
listed property. Legally, Corey had approval to
proceed with the contemplated plan, but one
opinion had not yet been heard.!5!

On February 15, a letter to the editor from former
NPS historian Hugh Lawing was published in the
Greeneville Sun with his thoughts on the CLR.152
His “epistle,” as he later called it, was followed by a

149. Amy Overbay, “Park Service Proposes Making Andrew
Johnson Homestead Site Much More Historically
Accurate,” Greeneville Sun, January 26-27, 2002, Al,
Al2.

Robert Orr, Letter to Mark Corey, National Park

Service, February 25, 2002, in folder marked “Hugh

Lawing File,” located in the superintendent's office,

Andrew Johnson National Historic Site.

. Herbert L. Harper, Deputy State Historic Preservation
Officer, Letter to Mark Corey, Andrew Johnson
National Historic Site, February 12, 2002, in folder
marked “Hugh Lawing File,” located in the
superintendent's office, Andrew Johnson National
Historic Site.

Hugh A. Lawing, Letter to the Editor (entitled
“Retired Johnson Site Historian Opposes Landscaping
Changes"), Greeneville Sun, February 15, 2002, A2.

150.

15

34 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


family residence.” The report even recommended
major changes, including installing a new HVAC
system, which did not previously exist in the
building. Still, the HSAR also recommended that
“the interior character of the historic structure
which is representative of its own time be preserved
as much as possible” during renovations. It
especially recommended that “in the rehabilitation
process all of the decorative cast iron radiators
remain untouched in their place.”3”6

Unfortunately, maintaining all of these elements
proved impossible, for one simple reason. As stated
by Superintendent Corey:

Significant alterations are having to be made
to the structure's interior to make it
comfortable by contemporary standards.
These radiators block a wall from being used
in each and every one of these small rooms
making it very difficult to arrange
contemporary household furnishings of the
occupant. Maybe we could agree to leave one
or two for historic appearances.?”7

Despite this initial position, Corey eventually
compromised, and only two of seven of the steam
radiators were removed from the building. After the
radiators were removed, they were stored in the
maintenance garage. Corey acknowledged to the
Greeneville Sun that those radiators that were kept
were there because of preservation concerns. Corey
noted the kitchen radiator specifically. It was not
only lovely in design, but included a curious
feature—a compartment in which the radiator could
warm food waiting to be served while warming the
room at the same time.

Corey also told the paper, somewhat misleadingly,
that the Lodge’s interior was restored as much as
possible to how it originally appeared. He noted that
the building’s hardwood floors, covered for years by
carpeting, were uncovered and refinished.
Nevertheless, he also acknowledged other changes,
such as the building’s floor plan. Both the dining
room and the first-floor rest room were modified
and expanded in size.378 In designing the

376. “Historic Structure Assessment Report: Cemetery
Lodge (Building Number 2), Andrew Johnson National
Historic Site” (Atlanta: National Park Service, 1993) 5.

377. Superintendent, Andrew Johnson NHS, Memorandum
(entitled HSAR for Cemetery Lodge) to Chief, Historic
Architecture Division, June 1, 1993, in AJNHS files,
“Rehabilitate Cemetery Lodge, Package 408, 6-1-93 to
1-30-96” folder (#2), Division of Architecture, SERO.

FIGURE 39. Woodwork was stripped of paint and
deteriorated plaster removed.

renovation, Corey’s original aim was to make the
structure more comfortable as a residence. He
argued for the replacement of all antique plumbing
fixtures, such as sinks, toilets, bathtubs, the
installation of a new full bathroom and additional
lighting to address resident complaints, and the
expansion of the kitchen.>”? He also removed all of
the building’s plaster walls and ceilings and replaced
them with sheetrock. Hugh Lawing found little
justification for this action and complained that “the
interior had been destroyed too.”389

These considerable interior modifications were
inconsistent with an emphasis on historic

378. Eugenia Estes, “Andrew Johnson Cemetery Lodge
Restored; Open House Set for 11am to 4pm Friday,”
Greeneville Sun, April 24, 1997, A7.

. Superintendent, Andrew Johnson NHS, Memorandum
(entitled HSAR for Cemetery Lodge) to Chief, Historic
Architecture Division, June 1, 1993, in AJNHS files,
“Rehabilitate Cemetery Lodge, Package 408, 6-1-93 to
1-30-96" folder (#2), Division of Architecture, SERO.

380. Lawing, Oral Interview by Connie Aiken, 25.

37!

S

National Park Service 75


part of a series on USS. presidents entitled
“American Presidents: Life Portraits.”2>!

In June 1995, Phinney and other supporters
gathered at the corner of Depot and College Streets
in the Greeneville Historic District to formally
unveil Gray’s cast-bronze statue of President
Andrew Johnson, That same year, Phinney
succeeded in having an exact copy of Gray’s statue
placed before the Tennessee State Capitol in
Nashville. Statues of Presidents Andrew Jackson
and James K. Polk, also noted Tennesseans, were
already standing, but Southern animosity to Andrew
Johnson, who remained steadfastly loyal to the
United States throughout the secession crisis, had
prevented any similar honor for him. Johnson was
the only Southern U.S. Senator to remain with the
Union when his state seceded, and he was even
more reviled as the stern military governor of
Union-occupied Tennessee. But times change and
Phinney, who was a hundred years old in 1995, was
able to secure key endorsements, including that of
the Tennessee Historical Commission. The state
legislature then voted funds for the casting. The
statue’s design and Greeneville prototype had
already been purchased by the Bartlett estate,?>2

On August 1, 1995, the Greeneville Sun remarked
that “these compelling twin memorials to our most
distinguished son is a tribute to the vision,
diplomacy and determination of Ralph Phinney.
There simply would have been no statutes without
him, and they will be his enduring legacy, just as
they will be Mrs, Bartlett’s.”253

Security at

Andrew Johnson
National Historic

Site

Law enforcement issues have generally not been

particular concerns for staff at Andrew Johnson
National Historic Site. Most criminal activities have

251. Eugenia Estes, “C-SPAN Crew Here Preparing for
Andrew Johnson Broadcast,” Greeneville Sun, June
24, 1999

252. Editorial, "Andrew Johnson and Ralph Phinney,”
August 1, 1995, 2.

253. Editorial, “Andrew Johnson and Ralph Phinney,”
August 1, 1995, 2.

52 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History

amounted to minor vandalism, with parking
violations at the park’s Visitor Center parking lot the
most significant policy problem for many years.
There have also been a few reported thefts. An
entrance sign for the Andrew Johnson Homestead
was stolen in 1971, but later found and returned by
the USS. Forest Service.2>4 More seriously, in 1973,
Mrs. Andrew Johnson’s reading glasses were stolen
from a room in the Homestead where they were on
display.2>>

Law enforcement jurisdiction at the historic site was
somewhat of a problem in the early 1970s. The park
has never had more than one assigned law
enforcement ranger. This situation meant that the
park’s law enforcement coverage was problematic.
One ranger could not be on duty all the time,
although the ranger’s required residence in the
Cemetery Lodge and on-call availability mitigated
the thin coverage. Still, unless personnel transitions
were managed with great precision, the park risked
experiencing periods of no effective law
enforcement coverage. NPS facilities operated on
alarms after hours, however, and the alarms were
connected to the local police department.

In 1977, Superintendent Abelson sought support
from the regional office to allow the park to
establish “concurrent” jurisdiction with local law
enforcement authorities, which would allow local
police to exercise authority on park property.
Unfortunately, the regional office was slow to act in
converting the park’s exclusive and proprietary
jurisdiction. In January 1978, the park actually lost
its law enforcement-commissioned ranger while the
city still had no authority to enforce the law on park
property. Abelson complained about the situation
again in his 1978 and 1979 park annual reports
while also noting that he had sent park technician
Ron Pyron to the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center (FLETC) for a nine-week course to
qualify for a law enforcement commission in 1978,
with a forty-hour refresher course the following
year. Abelson and park historian Hugh Lawing were
also authorized limited commissions to issue
parking citations in 1978, necessary because the
Tennessee Human Services Department or
“Welfare Office” across the street from the Visitor
Center had expanded that year, greatly increasing

254. Lloyd A. Abelson, Superintendent, Log of Events,
September 1971.
255. SANR for 1973, January 17, 1974.


ER te . =
2 peRemOES H81eT nO weston sma, Oy, w vusewoies nes
Cine PEcommmuvbATens (REET Fuok):

we

a BuUSTING Roo

FIGURE 40. This Cemetery Lodge floor plan with
annotations by park staff for desired changes to
ongoing renovations in 1993. Originally, the
renovation was intended to suit an NPS resident
Later, staff decided to relocate the park's
headquarters to the building.

preservation, although they were compatible with
historic War Department and NPS use of the
Cemetery Lodge as a residence. The building’s own
National Register Nomination, drafted by Hugh
Lawing, acknowledges as much, although why so
much historic fabric had to be removed was a point
of debate. The overall need for the renovation was
incontestable, however. The wiring, almost ninety
years old when replaced, was likely a significant
safety hazard.>*! Paul B. Hartwig, Deputy Associate
Regional Director, reported to Commissioner J.W.
Luna, the State Historic Preservation Officer for
Tennessee, that while the Park Service thought that
the proposed project would have an effect on the
property, “the effect will not be adverse.”38?

381. According to the “Development/Study Package
Proposal,” signed by Mark Corey, August 25, 1992, “if
not rehabilitated within 3-5 years, the building may
need to be vacated and placed in mothball status,
leading to more rapid deterioration.” Document
located in AJNHS files, “Rehabilitate Cemetery Lodge,
Package 408, 6-1-93 to 1-30-96" folder (#2), Division
of Architecture, SERO.

Only two major changes were made to the exterior
of the Cemetery Lodge. First, a handsome new
aluminum plaque was mounted next to the front
entrance. A feature at a number of national
cemeteries, the plaque displayed the text of
President Abraham Lincoln’s “Gettysburg
Address.” It was a replacement for an earlier similar
plaque that had disappeared, possibly during World
War II. The historical weight of Lincoln’s words,
made while he consecrated the first national
cemetery, can hardly be better appreciated than
when read by visitors to the cemetery where
Lincoln’s own successor lays buried.>83

The second major change to the exterior of the
Cemetery Lodge evolved from management
decisions made during the renovation. By the time it
was complete, Corey had had time to think a lot
more about how the Cemetery Lodge might be
used. He arrived at a new park operations plan that
was to help improve park interpretation, visitor
services, and staff morale. As discussed further
below, he chose to designate the Lodge as park
headquarters. Unfortunately, as a result, it became
necessary to add a further and contentious
modification—Corey had a ramp installed to
provide handicapped access to the building. This
decision distressed some locals and probably a few
NPS historic preservationists. The decision
unavoidably degraded the integrity of the Lodge as a
contributing element of a nationally significant
historic landscape.>*4 The ramp was constructed on
the east face and, while styled to match existing
features, was a highly noticeable alteration that
jutted forth from the original building several feet to
connect with the front porch, which also had to be
modified because the front door sill was several

382. No response is reported in SERO files, a lack of which
tends to indicate SHPO concurrence. Paul 8. Hartwig,
Deputy Associate Regional Director, Letter to
Commissioner J.W, Luna, State Historic Preservation
Officer, Department of Environment and
Conservation, February 10, 1994, in AJNHS files,
“Rehabilitate Cemetery Lodge, Package 408, 6-1-93 to
1-30-96" folder (#2), Division of Architecture, SERO.

383. Eugenia Estes, “Andrew Johnson Cemetery Lodge

Restored; Open House Set for 11am to 4pm Friday,”

Greeneville Sun, April 24, 1997, A7; and SANR for

Fiscal Year 1996.

As defined by the National Register listing of the

property and the conclusions of the Cultural

Landscape Report “a Historic Zone exists that is in

view from the main entrance with enough integrity to

warrant recognition.” See Lawliss, Andrew Johnson

National Cemetery, 27.

38

S

76 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


During the 1990s, the National Park Service
especially began to respond to national criticism
about limitations in its interpretation of slavery, the
central issue of the Civil War. The Service had
previously only interpreted the history of battles at
Civil War battlefields. However, because there are
relatively many battlefield parks but few parks
directly related to the institution of slavery, such as
plantations or slave markets, the issue of slavery was
not as well represented in the national park system.
In 1999, Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. introduced
a provision to the Interior Department
appropriations bill that directed the Secretary of
Interior “to encourage the National Park Service
managers of Civil War battle sites to recognize and
include in all of their public displays and multi-
media educational presentations the unique role
that the institution of slavery played in causing the
Civil War and its role, if any, at the individual battle
sites,”533

On this count, Andrew Johnson National Historic
Site was ahead of the curve. Early in 1993, the park
recognized African American Heritage Month by
putting on display a special exhibit devoted to the
history of slavery. The displays were designed
around slave narratives recorded by Works Progress
Administration (WPA) workers during the Great
Depression. These recordings of the stories and
memories of emancipated slaves provide perhaps
the best documentation of their lives before and
during the Civil War since most slaves were illiterate
and few written accounts exist. Some of the WPA
narratives by former slaves in Tennessee were
included in the Andrew Johnson exhibits.°>4

The relationship of slavery to the Civil War has also
been incorporated into the interpretive exhibits, as
encouraged by Representative Jackson. The fact that
Andrew Johnson himself was a slave-owner is
acknowledged, as well as the fact that he freed the
slaves of Tennessee after Abraham Lincoln
appointed him the state’s military governor. The
park’s web site displays images of Johnson’s slaves,
although there is no discussion about those
slaves.°?> In 1995, the park put on temporary exhibit

533. National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion
of History, “Section on Interpretation of Slavery at
National Park Sites in Interior Appropriations
Legislation,” NCC Washington Update, vol. 5, no. 42
(December 13, 1999): newsletter distributed via
subscriber e-mail.

534. "Andrew Johnson Site Exhibit to Feature Slave
Narratives,” Greeneville Sun, February 10, 1993.

535. See http:/www.nps.gowanjo (accessed April 2007).

FIGURE 56. Photogray

ph of Dolly, one of Andrew
Johnson's slaves, with his grandson Andrew
Johnson Stover. This appears on the park's official
NPS web site.

a display about the Freedman’s Bureau Bill of 1866
that Johnson vetoed. The Freedman’s Bureau had
been created in the spring of 1865 to manage the
condition and treatment of newly freed slaves and to
combat the so-called “black codes” that had so
egregiously oppressed the civil liberties of African-
Americans in the South. The bureau was originally
intended as a temporary war-time expedient. When
Congress attempted to reauthorize the agency and
included in the 1866 bill a measure to confiscate
lands held by former Confederates to be turned over
to former slaves, Johnson vetoed the bill. His
reasoning was that it unconstitutionally deprived
Southerners of their property without the due
process of law, since at the time the bill was passed,
no seceding state congressmen had been re-seated
in Congress, although the states had been
readmitted to the Union.>*® This veto was one of the
grievances of the radical Republicans against

536. “Freedman’s Bureau Bill on Exhibit at Johnson Site,”
Greeneville Sun, April 5, 1995.

National Park Service 111


FIGURE 59. This 1973 photograph of Andrew
Johnson's "Early Home” accompanies the park's
National Register Nomination.

The present study examines in more detail the most
significant issues that have faced park administra-
tors since the early 1970s. These issues range from
those surrounding the logistics of and facilities for
visitation to those of interpretation and public
relations.

Signage. Andrew Johnson National Historic Site
would have many fewer visitors were it not for
deliberate efforts by park managers to ensure that
adequate signs were located along appropriate
routes to the park. The historic site is off the beaten
path, being located in the small town of Greeneville,
‘Tennessee. The issue became especially important
after a major highway bypass was constructed in the
late 1970s.

Lcs. Initially, the park’s inventory of historic
structures was limited to the Homestead, the Early
Home, the Visitor Center, Tailor Shop, and a few
other site features. In 1994, the inventory was
updated by a survey that documented all structures
in the park constructed prior to 1950. Driven by the
potential for the existence of other historic contexts
and areas of significance beyond those that were
stated in the park’s enabling legislation, this new
survey found up to twenty structures that were
determined eligible for listing in the National
Register, most of them in the national cemetery.

National Register. National Register nominations
were prepared by park staff in the 1970s. However,
instead of four separate nominations for the

Homestead, Early Home, the Tailor Shop and the
Andrew Johnson National Cemetery, those sites
were nominated to the National Register as part of a
single historic district. Later, an update was
completed by support office staff to better
document the significance of the National Cemetery
and its cultural landscape. That update expanded
the park’s period of significance to include the
National Cemetery as it developed between 1875-
1942,

The Homestead. In the late 1950s, the Park Service
faithfully renovated Andrew Johnson Homestead,
but as was typical for the period, did not provide
climate control to better protect the condition of
historic furnishings placed in the home. In 2001, the
Andrew Johnson Homestead, Historic Structure
Report Amendment found that early restoration
work had “endured remarkably well,” but noted
problems due to a lack of climate control.54° A
major follow-up renovation was scheduled to install
modern climate control and fire suppression
systems while park staff began to regulate heat gain
within the building by adjusting the building’s
shutters and windows as Andrew Johnson himself
would have done.>*! The Homestead was closed for
renovation from September 1, 2004, to August 3,
2005, resulting in a significant decline in park
visitation and bookstore sales. The renovation had
threatened loss of historic fabric in the Homestead,
but park managers, architects, and regional cultural
resources staff worked successfully to mitigate any
loss.

The Johnson Family. For much of the park’s
existence, the descendants of Andrew Johnson were
among the park’s most vocal advocates, especially
the President’s great-granddaughter Margaret
Johnson Patterson Bartlett. In 1980, Hugh Lawing
and Elaine Clark escorted Mrs. Bartlett to Harpers
Ferry Center for oral interviews to document her
memories of the Homestead and family traditions
concerning the life of her famous ancestor.>? That
same year, NPS management rejected Bartlett’s own
offer to donate her “Johnson-Patterson Library,”
which the Service felt needed “expert care and
continued attention by specialists in the library
science field” in a climate-controlled venue not then

540. Andrew Johnson Homestead, Historic Structure
Report Amendment (NPS, 2001), 1-3.

541. Amy Overbay, “AJ Visitor Center Upgrades Facilities
and Services,” Greeneville Sun, March 16, 2001, B21.

542. SANR (for 1980), February 5, 1981.

114 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


such graffiti exposed on a wall in Mrs. Johnson’s
room.5!

As envisioned, renovations were extensive, costing
$629,100.52 The building’s entire electrical system
and its antiquated but non-historic heating system
were replaced. The recommended environmental-
control system was installed to deal with persistent
humidity problems and new security and fire
suppression systems were installed as well. Some
structural repairs were also made, the non-historic
porch decking and cedar roof were replaced, and
new wallpaper was hung on the interior. A
ceremony was held to open the building after its
“rehabilitation.”®>

Long-time employee Elaine Clark, who had served
at the park for forty-three years, was chosen to cut
the ribbon for the opening. She had held important
responsibilities for preserving the Homestead’s
historic objects and furnishings and had also
performed numerous and well-remembered living
history presentations at the site.°4 The tailoring
shears she used to cut the ribbon had belonged to
Andrew Johnson and were from the park’s
collection.85

The Role of
Margaret Bartlett
at Andrew
Johnson

As ably told by Hugh Lawing in his account of the
park’s first years, Margaret Bartlett was a key
influence on the creation and operation of the
historic site named after her great-grandfather
President Andrew Johnson. Indeed, she always
insisted that her full name, Mrs. Margaret Johnson
Patterson Bartlett, be used to connote her direct
link to her famous ancestor. After helping to create
the historic site, Bartlett went on to serve as a park
guide, interpreting the Andrew Johnson

81. SANR for Fiscal Year 2005,

82. “Andrew Johnson Homestead to Reopen this
Wednesday,” Greeneville Sun, August 2, 2005, A7.

83. “Andrew Johnson Homestead to Reopen this
Wednesday,” Greeneville Sun, August 2, 2005, A7.

84. “Andrew Johnson Homestead to Reopen this
Wednesday,” Greeneville Sun, August 2, 2005, A7.

85. SANR for Fiscal Year 2005.

Homestead, in which she herself was born and
raised, for countless park visitors. She was and will
forever retain a special place in the annals of NPS
history for her lifelong enthusiasm and efforts to
preserve the legacy of President Andrew Johnson.
Bartlett served as Acting Superintendent from
October 7, 1942 to March 3, 1943, and briefly as
Custodian from March 4, 1943 until April 24,
1943.86 It was uncommon for women to serve as
superintendents in this period.8”

In 2006, Curator Elaine R. Clark retired after
serving forty-four years at Andrew Johnson
National Historic Site. She began her career
on January 23, 1962. She was first hired as a
GS-4 Museum Aide, but served in numerous
positions. In 1973 Clark organized the
Homestead piano living history
demonstrations that took place for many
years. She made the dresses for the young
girls who performed and worked overtime to
oversee them. She retired as park Curator,
GS-9, the position she most loved and which
she learned mostly on the job with the help
of NPS training courses. In a 2002 interview,
Clark recalled that one of her most
memorable experiences was accompanying
park historian Hugh Lawing on their trip to
Harpers Ferry Center where they recorded
the oral memoirs of Margaret Bartlett. On
July 3, 2005, Clark received special
recognition for her long service to the
historic site when NPS Director Fran Mainella
visited to present her with a special plaque
during a “covered dish picnic. "89

On September 9, 1974, Secretary of the Interior
Rogers C. B. Morton presented Mrs. Bartlett with
the thirty-year Meritorious Service Award at his
offices in the Interior Building in Washington, DC.
The award and special ceremony was a suggestion
made by park historian Hugh Lawing. The
Department sought to honor Bartlett for her
accomplishments, her aid to the National Park
Service, and her unique link to President Andrew

86. Mark Corey, e-mail to Cameron Binkley and John
Beck, December 20, 2006.

87. SANR for 1974, February 19, 1975; “Recognition
Shown Mrs. Bartlett by National Park Service in
Washington,” Greeneville Daily Sun, August 9, 1974;
“Mrs. Margaret Bartlett Recipient of Special Service
Awards in Washington,” unidentified press clipping,
September 10, 1974, in AJNHS archives.

88. All information obtained from Clark, Oral Interview
by Connie Aiken, passim.

89. SANR for Fiscal Year 2005.

National Park Service 21


47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

39

60

61

active burials cease...
Jennie Harrison, circa 1973, performed in the parlor of the Andrew Johnson Homestead
during the park’s Piano Living History Program. Harrison’s period dress was sewn by
Ranger Elaine R. Clark...
NPS interpretive staff during the World’s Fair in Knoxville, Tennessee, 198
Park Guide Daniel Luther presenting a tour of the Andrew Johnson Homestead in July 2007......... 94
NPS staff Jim Small, Elaine Clark, and Kendra Hinkle photographed with Susan Swain, a
reporter for the C-Span cable-television channel, which covered the park in the 1990s. ... a
James Quillen and Ralph Phinney cut a ribbon to dedicate newly installed exhibits at Andrew
Johnson National Historic Site on May 23, 1998. ...
Crowd gathered for ceremonies dedicating the park’s new exhibits. The Memorial Building
stands to left with Andrew Johnson’s “Early Home” on the right.
Senator Fred Thompson casts his vote of “not guilty” during dedication ceremonies for
new exhibits at Andrew Johnson National Historic Site on May 23, 1998.
Superintendent Mark Corey speaking at the dedication ceremony on May 23, 1998.
In 2003, Andrew Johnson National Historic Site signed a cooperative agreement with Main
Street: Greeneville to facilitate guided tours of the historic district. Brochure courtesy of Main
Street: Greeneville. ......
Photograph of Dolly, one of Andrew Johnson’s slaves, with his grandson Andrew Johnson
Stover. This appears on the park’s official NPS web site...
Postcard of Early Home of Andrew Johnson painted by a relative of a park employee. Courtesy
of C.K. Hinkle. ..

Another postcard view of Monument HII] in Andrew Johnson National Cemetery. (Jody Cook
Postcard Collection)... 7

This 1973 photograph of Andrew Johnson’s “Early Home” accompanies the park’s National
Register Nomination.
The entrance to Andrew Johnson National Cemetery showing the Cemetery Lodge, which

became park headquarters in 1997 after extensive renovations and the installation of a modern
handicap access ramp. ....

Junior Rangers being recruited at the
in 1987......

isitor Center of Andrew Johnson National Historic Site

National Park Service ix


west, 521.5 feet to a fence post; north 6°30’
east, 646 feet to a stake; north 8°30’ west,
150 feet to a stake on the south side of South
Main Street, thence with South Main Street,
south 82°45’ west, 50 feet to the beginning,
containing 15 acres, more or less,

The area set apart for the National
Monument contains 17.08 acres, more or less.

Warning is hereby expressly given to all
unauthorized persons not to appropriate,
injure, destroy, or remove any part or feature
of this monument, and not to locate or settle
upon any of the lands thereof.

The Director of the National Park Service,
under the direction of the Secretary of the
Interior, shall have the supervision,
management, and control of the monument
as provided in the act of Congress entitled
“An Act to establish a National Park Service,
and for other purposes,” approved August
25, 1916, 39 Stat. 535 (U.S.C, title 16, secs. 1
and 2), and acts supplementary thereto or
amendatory thereof.

In witness whereof, | have hereunto set my
hand and caused the seal of the United States
to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington this 27" day
of April in the year of our Lord nineteen
hundred and forty-two and of the
Independence of the United States of
America the one hundred and sixty-sixth.
[seal]

Franklin D, Roosevelt

By the President:

Cordell Hull,

Secretary of State.

(5) Congress authorizes acquisition of
Andrew Johnson’s early home and
changes the name of Andrew Johnson
National Monument. Act of December
11, 1963 (77 Stat. 349).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That the
Andrew Johnson National Monument
established by Proclamation Numbered 2554

of April 27, 1942 (56 Stat. 19550, pursuant to
the Act of August 29, 1935 (49 Stat. 958), is
hereby redesignated the Andrew Johnson
National Historic Site.

Sec. 2. The Secretary of the Interior may
procure with donated or appropriated funds,
by donation, or by exchange the following
described lands, or interests therein, located
in Greeneville, Tennessee, and when so
acquired such lands shall become a part of
the Andrew Johnson National Historic Site:

Beginning at a point which is the intersection
of the east right-of-way line of College Street
and the north right-of-way line of Depot
Street; thence continuing along the north
right-of-way line of Depot Street south 62%
degrees east 165 feet to its intersection with
the west side of Academy Street; thence
leaving the north right-of-way line of Depot
Street 64% degrees west 184 feet to a point
on the east right-of-way line of College
Street; thence leaving the west right-of-way
of Academy Street north 64% degrees west
184 feet to a point on the east right-of-way
line of College Street; thence with the east
right-of-way line of College Street south 25%
degrees west 83.7 feet to a point of
beginning, containing 0.35 acre, more or less.

Sec. 3. There are authorized to be
appropriated such sums, but not more than
$66,000 for acquisition, restoration, and
development cost, as are necessary to carry
out the purposes of this Act.

(6)Congress authorizes relief for Mrs.
Margaret Patterson Bartlett. Act of
December 21, 1963 (Private Law 88-
136).
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That the
Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and
directed to pay, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Mrs.
Margaret Patterson Bartlett, of Greeneville,
Tennessee, great-granddaughter of former
President Andrew Johnson, the sum of
$10,000, which shall not be subject to any
Federal tax liability, in full settlement of her
claims for compensation in lieu of the living
quarters which she understands were to have

National Park Service 129


Appendix F: Eastern National Park
and Monument Association Sales

1W971----------------- Not Available
1972------+------+----- $1,475.43
1973----------------- $1,511.74
1974----------------- $1,714.15
1975----------------- $1,912.15
1976----------------- $2,206.70
1977----------------- $2,867.40
1978----------------- $2,904.17
1979 -- ----- ee ee ee eee $2,349.45
1980----------------- $2,962.85
1981----------------- $3,292.52
1982----------------- $5,332.86
1983----------------- $4,294.38
1984----------------- $5,815.00
1985----------------- $7,181.49
1986----------------- Not Available
1987----------------- $10,253.00
1988----------------- $11,783.31

1989 ----------------- $12,138.97
1990----------------- Not Available
1991 ----------------- $12,184.94
1992 ----------------- ‘Not Available
1993 ----------------- ‘Not reported
1994----------------- ‘Not reported
1999 ----------------- Not reported
1996----------------- Not reported
1997 ----------------- $13,351.00
1998 ----------------- $14,668.00
1999 ----------------- $19,269.00
2000 ----------------- $15,940.00
2001 -----------------! $15,238.00
2002----------------- $13,920.00
2003 ------------ approx. $16,020.00
2004----------------- $15,517.83
2005 ----------------- $15,318.78
2006 ----------------- $20,899.17

National Park Service 137


is very little.”!6° Convinced that such was the case,
Lawing soon resolved to take his concerns to a
higher level.

In publishing Lawing’s letter, the Greeneville paper
included a rather briefer response from
Superintendent Corey, who again called upon
concerned residents to read the report and offer
their comments. “The question,” he wrote “is
whether the treatment recommendations will better
assist the visitor in understanding what the
landscape looked like during Andrew Johnson’s
occupancy than what presently exists.”

Park staff began reviewing incoming public
comments on the draft Homestead CLR. Most were
some variation of a statement made by the Greene
County Partnership, which welcomed “an authentic
recreation of the historic look of the property... to
enhance the value of the site as an attraction for our
tourism markets.” 16! Nevertheless, the term
“authentic” was soon a point of considerable local
public debate.

In response to Corey’s renewed request for public
comment on “whether the treatment
recommendation will better assist the visitor in
understanding what the landscape looked like
during Andrew Johnson’s occupancy,” a second
letter from Hugh Lawing was published in the
Greeneville Sun on February 25, 2002. “How could
this understanding by the visitor,” Lawing asked,
“be enhanced by creating a garden scene that came
into existence some 10 years after Johnson’s

death?” 162 Again, there was a misunderstanding of
the intent of the CLR. The Willingham and
Patterson accounts were certainly resources for the
report, but the intent was never to recreate that
particular garden. Curiously, these objections have

160. Ibid. Lawing’s document was carefully read by
Superintendent Mark Corey, who made numerous
annotations in the margin, mostly in concurrence with
Lawing.

- Gary L. Farlow, President, Greene County Partnership,
Letter to Mark Corey, Superintendent, Andrew
Johnson National Historic Site, February 20, 2002, in
folder marked “Hugh Lawing File,” located in the
superintendent's office, Andrew Johnson National
Historic Site.

162. Actually, Lawing was responding to Corey's response

to Lawing's first letter to the editor of the Greeneville
Sun on February 15, 2002. See, Hugh A. Lawing, Letter
to the Editor (entitled “How Could Changed Johnson
Homestead be More Authentic?”), Greeneville Sun,
February 25, 2002, A2.

16°

36 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History

never been directed at the 1958 plan, the result of
which is a garden scene significantly different from
the Johnson time period and provides less
understanding of that era than the proposed plan.

There were other comments as well, many like a
short hand-written note by Kathy D. Baker saying
“Homestead should be left the way it is. We can’t go
back in time.” She also thought the changes would
present a “cluttered” look.!® Another comment
indicating how public comment was leaning was
from the influential Helen Horner of the Chamber
of Commerce. She thought the park should
“interpret Willow Spring instead of Gum Spring”
and “establish footprints for the Good-Lamon
House and the Printing Office with interpretive
signage” as recommended by the draft study.
However, she, too, felt that placing fence lines along
the property lines would present a “sort of hodge-
podge look.” More decisively, she told
Superintendent Corey, she “likes the way the
Homestead grounds look now and that we should
not change it unless we are sure of how it looked
during Johnson’s life.”!®4

In early March, Alderman W. T. Daniels wrote
briefly to state “We people of Greeneville and
Greene County are looking forward to the
restoration of the landscaping as it was during the
Andrew Johnson era.”!® Finally, Corey took a
phone call from “a well-respected local historian
Mr. Richard Doughty” whose only comment was to
say that “he agreed with Hugh Lawing that the CLR
should be based on Frank Leslie’s description and
not the descriptions of Mrs. Willingham and Mrs.
Patterson,” !66 Eventually, others in Greeneville
offered public support for Lawing’s view,167

After a three-hour meeting with park staff on March
20, Corey informed the Division of Cultural

163. Kathy D. Baker, Letter to Superintendent, February
27, 2002, in folder marked “Hugh Lawing File,”
located in the superintendent's office, Andrew
Johnson National Historic Site.

164, Helen L. Horner, Phone conversation with Mark Corey,

February 27, 2002. Corey later had Horner verify her

statement, which she did by signing it on March 3,

2002. See folder marked “Hugh Lawing File,” located

in the superintendent's office, Andrew Johnson

National Historic Site.

W. T. Daniels, Alderman, Letter to Mark Corey,

Andrew Johnson National Historic Site, March 5, 2002,

in folder marked “Hugh Lawing File,” located in the

superintendent's office, Andrew Johnson National

Historic Site.

16!

&


22

23
24

25

26
27

28

29

30
31

32

33

34
35

36
37
38

39
40

41

42

43

44

45

46

use for the Early Home and proposed to install a “Bally Building” for curatorial storage in the
historic structure.....

Work to maintain the exterior of Andrew Johnson’s “Early Home?” is a routine activity at
Andrew Johnson National Historic Site but interior renovations took many years.......
Photo of Superintendent Wilson standing in the renovated parlor of the Early Home.....
A postcard-depiction of the Memorial Building constructed by the State of Tennessee in
1923 to house Johnson’s Tailor Shop. (Jody Cook Postcard Collection)...
The Memorial Building, which houses Andrew Johnson’s Tailor Shop, adjacent to the
Visitor Center at Andrew Johnson National Historic Site, circa 1995...
The Tailor Shop of Andrew Johnson inside the Memorial Building, circa 1995.
A C-SPAN crewman (1) chats with a park maintenance employee. The cable television
network broadcast from Homestead twice in the 1990s...
Statue of President Andrew Johnson across the street from Tailor Shop and the NPS
Visitor Center in the Greeneville Historic District. ....
Margaret Bartlett’s cousin Ralph M. Phinney shown cutting the ribbon for the dedication
of new exhibits at Andrew Johnson National Historic Site in 1998.
View of the cemetery, lodge, and Monument Hill, c. 1908...
Section of a 1975 NPS map showing the new road that provided access to the lower cemetery.
The road required a breach in the historic wall along Vann Road.......
This photograph from the summit of Monument Hill within Andrew Johnson National
Cemetery shows War Department-era graves, a portion of the historic cemetery wall (lower
left), and the cemetery’s steep slopes, which commonly exceed a 20 percent grade...
Early-20th-century view of Monument Hill and Johnson Family cemetery plot. (Jody
Cook Postcard Collection)...
View of the War Department flagpole in the cemetery in 1990.
Superintendent Grady Webb and Associate Regional Director Carrol W. Ogle at Webb’s
retirement in late 1988.....
Portion of a map from the 1993 Cultural Landscape Report for Andrew Johnson National
Cemetery showing the cemetery divided into three management zones. 71
View of the Cemetery Lodge during renovation in the 1990:
View of hall during renovation.
Woodwork was stripped of paint and deteriorated plaster removed.
This Cemetery Lodge floor plan with annotations by park staff for desired changes to ongoing
renovations in 1993. Originally, the renovation was intended to suit an NPS resident. Later,
staff decided to relocate the park’s headquarters to the building...
Two of seven historic cast iron radiators were permanently removed from the Cemetery Lodge
to increase interior space.....
View of the handicapped-access ramp under construction (top) and after completion in 1998
(below). It was widely criticized for intruding upon the historic landscape of the National
Cemetery......
In 1996 a special commission considered transferring all national cemeteries to the Depart-

ment of Veterans Affairs, including Andrew Johnson. Here a Student Conservation Association
volunteer cleans headstones in the National Cemetery.....

A view of the Vann Road entrance to the National Cemetery in 1994 when it was being recon-
figured to better match the historic front gate.

Map of the “Y” section of the National Cemetery. The design of this section, in particular, was
criticized by retired NPS historian Hugh A. Lawing.

Balancing heritage preservation with the needs of veterans at Andrew Johnson National
Cemetery is a delicate responsibility for NPS managers, a fact likely to remain true until

viii_ Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


FIGURE 20. Photograph showing non-historic
chain link fence along the eastern boundary of
the Andrew Johnson Homestead that Supt.
Gordon Wilson had removed in the early 1990s.

features known to have existed in Johnson’s
time.!25 Was this the aspen selected by Margaret
Bartlett in 1971?

Based upon Webb’s revelations, Acting Regional
Director Neal G. Guse, Jr., concluded that “the
original landscape plan of 1957-58 has been severely
modified by park managers over the past 25 years.”
“We heartily agree,” he went on, “that the
landscaping of a historic area should not be left to
the ‘whims of the person momentarily in charge,”
and he approved Webb’s “Development/Study
Package Proposal” to prepare an 1865-1875 period
landscape plan. “Hopefully,” Guse concluded, “the
new landscape plan will rectify that mistake and not
become subject to the tampering that negated the
earlier plan.” !26

In May 1983, Webb set out to prepare an 1865-1875
period landscape plan for the Homestead property.
As with Abelson, he did not get far. His own

125. Aspens were also noted in Frank Leslie’s Mustrated
Newspaper account of the ground in 1865. Acting
Regional Director, Memorandum (entitled “Historic
Landscape Plan, Andrew Johnson Homestead”) to
Superintendent, Andrew Johnson, June 22, 1983, in
Andrew Johnson National Historic Site files, "General
Correspondence 5/2/71-10/20/93” folder (1), Division
of Architecture, SERO.

126. Ibid.

30 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History

proposal hinted at a difficult mission. According to
Webb, the park planned to “review existing research
which has shown that few details of the original
layout exist.” To mitigate what was expected to be
insufficient information about the Homestead’s
historic landscape, Webb sought to “research typical
period East Tennessee landscaping and adapt to
existing layout, considering the practical, no frills
character of President Johnson.” !2?

In the 1980s, the landscape problem faced by
Homestead managers was that its grounds retained
only a few original plantings “overshadowed by
post-family additions and typical modern Park
Service landscaping.” According to Webb, the
pecan, azalea, rhododendron, periwinkle, Baltic ivy,
and yew on the property were not contemporary
with Johnson. Webb hoped to get an NPS historic
landscape architect or an “A & E contract with an
accredited university” to draft the landscape plan.
Then, again like Abelson, he expected park staff to
implement the plan through “attrition, gradual
elimination or addition.”!28

One thing that was known about the Homestead
landscape was that several of its willow trees
descended from those alive in Johnson’s time. The
aspen planted by Bartlett notwithstanding, the
willows had usually been replaced as they died with
cuttings from the originals. A few historic
references, notably the Civil War-era report in
Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper, described a
garden at the Homestead kept by Johnson. This was
the reason, along with Margaret Bartlett’s prodding,
that Abelson had park staff create a small herb
garden on the grounds in 1980. More extensive
research would be needed, however, to recreate a
more authentic landscape. The Park Service also
knew the location of several outbuildings, but NPS
policy opposed restoring such structures unless
they were key to the site’s interpretation. !7?

Webb and Guse apparently had hoped to use
operational funds to finance the landscape plan

127. Grady Webb, “Development/Study Package Proposal:
Historic Landscaping Plan: A. Johnson 1851
Homestead,” approved June 22, 1983 by Acting
Regional Director Neal G. Guse, in Andrew Johnson
National Historic Site files, “General Correspondence
5/2/71-10/20/93” folder (1), Division of Architecture,
SERO. The fairly subjective statement by
Superintendent Grady Webb about Johnson's “no
frills character was later scratched out.

128. Ibid.


rules nor blessed with such a depth of expertise.
Students can learn about and compare collection
plans, funding levels and sources, and staff
backgrounds, size, and education, etc. This training
represents their first professional field experience.
Superintendent Corey was also a member of the
Tusculum College museum’s Andrew Johnson
Historical Association, although he worked with this
group as a private individual.°78

The museum and the park have also partnered to
help celebrate the bicentennial of Andrew Johnson’s
birth, scheduled to take place in 2008, Museum staff
wrote grants, while park staff contributed time for
planning. As planned, the event is expected to
include a military band concert and a major
symposium on Reconstruction, with such featured
experts as Dr. Paul Bergeron of the University of
Tennessee (editor of the Andrew Johnson papers),
Dr. Robert Orr of Walters State Community
College, and the award-winning author of
Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, Dr.
Eric Foner, DeWitt Clinton Professor of History at
Columbia University, among others.°?? During the
1990s and after, cooperation between Andrew
Johnson National Historic Site and the President
Andrew Johnson Museum and Library, as well as
between the park and local civic leaders, especially
through Main Street: Greeneville, has been a vital
and mutually beneficial component supporting
interpretive, educational, and historic preservation
causes in Greene County.

Objective Interpre-
tation at Andrew
Johnson National
Historic Site

In 2006, while this history was being researched,
John Beck, a Southeast Regional Office Resource
Education and Planning specialist, asked
Superintendent Mark Corey if he had “some
observations on what it’s like managing the story
and legacy of a favorite son in a very small town.”53
Corey replied that:

528. George Collins, Interview by Cameron Binkley
(Tusculum College, Tennessee, 2006).

529. Ibid.

530. John Beck, e-mail to Cameron Binkley, December 11,
2006.

Of course the local folks are proud of Andrew
Johnson and his legacy, as am |. | have never
considered telling what | view as a balanced
story of Johnson as difficult. | believe our
exhibits and films and tours do that well. We
do not go out of our way to highlight some
of the more unkind stories that contemporary
historians have written about Johnson. As my
mother always told me, there are always at
least two sides to a story. | also consider this
place to be a site that should be a tribute to
the Johnson story. | would suspect that
management at the LBJ historic site operates
the same way, and the Jimmy Carter site, the
Truman site, the Adams site, etc.53!

The complex process used by the National Park
Service to develop and present historical
information tends to mitigate bias through a
deliberate consultative process. That process
includes input from park staff; regional experts in
both cultural resource management and
interpretation; other specialists from outside the
region, such as from Harpers Ferry Center, with its
exhibit planning and interpretive presentation
expertise; and, perhaps most importantly, an
ongoing dialogue or exchange of views with both
local and national scholars.

In addition to consulting with scholars and other
subject-matter experts, the National Park Service
solicits public input on most major management
changes, especially interpretive changes, although
the transition to a guided-tour program at Andrew
Johnson in 1993 was an unfortunate exception to
this rule, being what former park historian Hugh
Lawing labeled “arbitrarily decided.”5>
Nevertheless, that was an issue of how to manage
interpretation, not what was being interpreted; and
in general, the process has been fairly transparent.
Local and national experts on Andrew Johnson,
including Hugh Lawing, as well as Paul Bergeron,
Robert Orr, and Eric Foner, and many others,
including Johnson-Patterson family members, have
all had opportunities to make their views known as
revisions to the park’s interpretation of Andrew
Johnson were being developed.

531. Mark Corey, e-mail to Cameron Binkley and John
Beck, December 20, 2006.

532. Hugh A. Lawing, Letter to Mark Corey,
Superintendent, October 16, 2001, in folder marked
“Hugh Lawing File,” located in the superintendent's
office, AJNHS.

110 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


Chapter 2: Andrew Johnson
National Historic Site

All of the primary components of Andrew Johnson
National Historic Site were in place by 1971.
Similarly, Congress has passed no legislation related
to the site since it authorized the National Park
Service to purchase Andrew Johnson’s Early Home
in 1963. Nevertheless, important management
decisions have been made since 1971. These have
brought significant change to the park, its
operations, and interpretive programs. In this
chapter, general park management issues will be
discussed as they have developed since 1971. The
topics include the preservation and rehabilitation of
the Andrew Johnson Homestead, the Visitor Center
complex, which includes the Early Home of
Andrew Johnson, his Tailor Shop within the
Memorial Building, the Lodge located in the
National Cemetery, and the Visitor Center.
Management of Andrew Johnson National
Cemetery is discussed in Chapter III and
interpretive programs in Chapter IV.

Getting to
Andrew Johnson—
Park Signs

In 1972, Andrew Johnson National Historic Site
began to survey and plan for the location of signs
and markers to aid the traveling public in finding the
park. This activity is an important undertaking for
small national parks, which are often especially
difficult to find from main roadways.
Superintendent Lloyd Abelson hoped to complete
50 percent of the sign program in 1973, with the
balance in 1974. Another reason that the park was
renovating its signage was the construction of a new
highway, Interstate 81, which when completed
would actually bypass Greeneville. Abelson
immediately requested that signs be placed along
the new corridor to alert passing motorists to the
location of the historic site.

In 1974, Superintendent Abelson reported
completing the conversion of NPS signs and
markers. Some thirty-eight new directional signs
were installed to replace or supplement the old sign
system.”8 However, updating old signage at the
historic site and around the town was one thing;
Abelson soon found that getting state highway
department approval to place historic site signs
along Interstate 81 to be quite an exercise.

By May 1973, Abelson had learned that state
Transportation Department officials would not
allow road signs on interstates for attractions that
were beyond five miles in distance. He thought,
however, that an exception surely could be made for
the presidential site. Abelson contacted the
Tennessee Historical Commission for help, which
played arole in determining the location of roadside
historical markers. However, the Commission
merely returned the request to the state
Transportation Department. In July, Earl Williams,
Jr., a state traffic engineer, wrote Abelson stating
that there was now a “new policy” passed by the
state legislature and that because the Andrew
Johnson site was eleven miles from the interstate, it
would have to have visitation of 480,000 per year to
qualify for signs. That figure was far above the
annual visitation for Andrew Johnson.”? Abelson
soon realized that political pressure would be
needed to get action.

The park’s sign problem actually affected the entire
community. Interstate historic park signs not only
alerted passing motorists to the location of Andrew
Johnson National Historic Site, but of course served
to attract tourists in general into the now bypassed
downtown area. Even Tusculum College was
deemed too far out of range for a sign, State Senator

28. SANR for 1974, February 19, 1975.

29. Vickie Tweed, “Signs for Johnson Historic Site Went
Up on [-81 this Week,” Greeneville Sun, no date [ca.
1977], press clipping in AJNHS archives.

30. SANR for 1974, February 19, 1975.

National Park Service 9


4 Andrew Johnson Nationa! Historic Site Administrative History



Contents

List of Figures .

vii
Acknowledgements i

Introduction

Chapter 1: Lawing’s Administrative History, 1942-1971

Chapter 2: Andrew Johnson National Historic Site

Getting to Andrew Johnson—Park Signs.
The Park’s Historic Structures.
The National Register of Historic Places .
Acquiring more space?...
Andrew Johnson Homestead
The Role of Margaret Bartlett at Andrew Johnson.
The Homestead Cultural Landscape...
Rehabilitating Andrew Johnson’s Early Home
Tailor Shop, Memorial Building, and Visitor Center
Historic District Development...
Security at Andrew Johnson National Historic Site .

Chapter III: Andrew Johnson National Cemetery

Interment Planning in the 1970s and 1980s .
Monument and Flagpole Repairs...
Efforts to Expand the National Cemetery
The National Cemetery Cultural Landscape Report
Renovation of the Cemetery Lodge.......
A Proposal to Transfer the Cemetery to the VA
Is the National Cemetery Losing Its Historic Integrity? ......

Chapter IV: Interpreting Andrew Johnson...

Tour Fees
Park Interpretation in the 1970s an: IS
Guiding Visitors at Andrew Johnson Homestead
Exhibit and Interpretive Planning in the 1990s and early 2000s
The Long-Range Interpretive Plan
The Exhibit Plan .....
Interpreting Impeachment
“Andrew Johnson: Defender of the Constitution”...

National Park Service v


April 27, 1942

1942

April 26, 1943

1942-1954

1956

April 26, 1958

December 11, 1963

February 3, 1964

Summer 1973

June 18, 1973

1973-1977

August 1974

December 1974

November 1974

1974-1975

March 3, 1977

January 1979

1980

President Franklin D. Roosevelt issues a Presidential Proclamation establishing Andrew Johnson
National Monument.

Emery faces two immediate problems: how to manage the landscape surrounding the Homestead and
how to address groups representing local veterans opposed to NPS plans to close the National
Cemetery.

Superintendent James W. Holland arrives to replace Emery who is called to service during the Second
World War. Emery later returns. (Note: See separate appendix for appointments of subsequent
superintendents.)

Funding limitations prevent further development of the historic site during these years of routine
operation.

Ernest Allen Connally drafts his survey report for the restoration of the Johnson Homestead.
Restoration work begins that summer under the direction of Henry A. Judd, an NPS architect.
Restoration is funded through the national Mission 66 program.

The new Andrew Johnson National Monument Visitor Center and the restored Andrew Johnson
Homestead are dedicated.

A measure by Rep. James Quillen is approved to appropriate $66,000 to purchase and restore Andrew
Johnson's “Early Home.” The same legislation also changes the name of the park to its current
designation.

The Early Home is acquired by the Park Service but restoration funds are soon exhausted and
completion of the restoration stalls.

‘The Piano Living History program begins with local girls in period attire playing period tunes at the
Homestead on Sundays.

Congress enacts the National Cemeteries Act creating the National Cemetery System under the Veterans
Administration (VA). The National Park Service retains control of its own national cemeteries, but
adopts VA cemetery management guidelines.

Andrew Johnson National Historic Site experiences declining visitation due to [a poor economy and?] a
new interstate that bypasses Greeneville. The main problem is inadequate highway markers to alert
travelers to the historic site and downtown Greeneville, which is rectified by the state in 1977 after a
campaign by town boosters.

A-Plus Renovation, Inc,, a commercial cleaning company in Greeneville, cleans the monuments in the
National Cemetery. (See July 1987 entry.)

‘The Homestead is included in the Greeneville Historic House tour, sponsored by the Greeneville
Heritage Trust.

NPS experts compile data for estimates needed to raise the $66,000 limitation for restoring the Early
Home. They seek $266,000, which is programmed in 1979.

‘The Park Service opens a gate in the historic National Cemetery wall along Vann Road, builds a loop
access road and steps, and begins to develop the lower cemetery.

A new “Cemetery Landscape plan” is adopted to manage further interments and to avoid random site
burial selections. The plan abides by VA guidelines stating that a 20 percent standard must be used in
determining the maximum slope allowed for interments,

National Register of Historic Places Nomination for Andrew Johnson National Historic Site is signed by
the Keeper of the National Register.

Workers moisture-proof the Memorial Building and lift the Tailor Shop several inches off the floor to
address long-standing problems resulting from an underground spring beneath the building's
foundations.

Hugh Lawing and Elaine Clark escort Margarct J. P, Bartlett, President Andrew Johnson’s great-
granddaughter, to Harpers Ferry Center to record her oral memoirs and family remembrances.

NPS management rejects Bartlett’s offer to donate her “Johnson-Patterson Library.” The Service
determines that “expert care and continued attention by specialists in the library science field” in a
climate-controlled venue are required and not available at the park.

122 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


io ‘ me

FIGURE 50, NPS staff Jim Small, Elaine Clark, and
Kendra Hinkle photographed with Susan Swain,
a reporter for the C-Span cable-television
channel, which covered the park in the 1990s.

account was established specifically for the park to
fund the exhibit plan. Altogether, these
contributions amounted to $11,250. Corey was still
short, but having come so far, Harpers Ferry Center
was able to supply another $10,000.483

On the afternoon of Thursday, August 29, 1996,
Corey held a press conference to announce that
park supporters had raised $71,250 in private
donations to plan an expanded and redesigned
exhibition area. “I’ve always known this was a great
community,” Corey stated, “but this wonderful
response to a request for planning funds at a
government facility goes to show that you can’t beat
Greeneville, it is the best town in America.”484

Cindy Darr at Harpers Ferry Center recommended
that the park contract the work to a firm called Main
Street Design, located in Boston, Massachusetts. In
its initial planning report, Main Street Design hinted
at its approach by noting the park’s need to create
more cohesive links between various elements of the
park, to provide visitors with more tools and
information necessary for them to understand the
park’s major interpretive points, and finally to
clarify misconceptions about Johnson’s
impeachment.*® The design process took some

483, Eugenia Estes, "$71,250 Given to Plan Johnson Site
Expansion,” Greeneville Sun, August 30, 1996, A1, A7;
Corey, Oral History Interview by Cameron Binkley, 32-
33. Other contributors included Andrew Johnson
Bank, Greenville Federal Bank, and the Consumer
Credit Union.

484, Eugenia Estes, “$71,250 Given to Plan Johnson Site
Expansion,” Greeneville Sun, August 30, 1996, A1, A7.

485, Eugenia Estes, “$71,250 Given to Plan Johnson Site
Expansion,” Greeneville Sun, August 30, 1996, A1, A7.

time and the park had to consult with authorities,
notably Dr. Paul H. Bergeron of the University of
Tennessee. Bergeron was the editor of Andrew
Johnson’s papers. He and several members of his
staff participated in exhibit planning sessions and in
reviewing draft documents developed by Main
Street Design. Local historian and retired NPS
employee Hugh Lawing also participated.
According to Corey, “Hugh contributed very well in
that process in terms of trying to make it factually
accurate and understandable to the public.” Priscilla
Nalls, representing the Division of Interpretation
from the regional office in Atlanta, also participated.
According to Corey, Nalls helped ensure that the
exhibits accurately depicted the perspective of
African Americans, 486

Main Street Design moved quickly to submit a draft
proposal, which Corey made available for public
comment in early November. The draft did not offer
text but covered more basic elements of layout and
the type of exhibits planned for the Early Home, the
Visitor Center, and the Tailor Shop. It was more of a
conceptual plan or framework whose focus was
how to integrate the site’s various elements “into a
well-rounded story of the life and public service” of
President Johnson. Main Street proposed that
exhibits at the Early Home focus upon Johnson’s
early years and events prior to his presidency. In the
Visitor Center, discussion was to focus upon
Johnson’s presidency, impeachment proceedings,
and later years. The Tailor Shop would be used to
give visitors a sense of Johnson’s life as a tailor and
also a feel for early Greeneville. Main Street Design
estimated that the cost to construct the exhibits
would amount to about $239,500.87

Public reaction to the proposal was quite positive.
Local historians Richard Doughty and Harry
Roberts were among some twenty persons who
attended a meeting to discuss the Main Street
proposals, which had already been reviewed by
Harpers Ferry staff. According to Jim Small, “they
were very supportive.”488

486. Corey, Oral History Interview by Cameron Binkley, 33.

487. “Andrew Johnson Site's Designs for Revised Exhibits
Available to Public," Greeneville Sun, November 1,
1996.

488. Tom Yancey, “Support Given Plan to Expand Park
Service's Johnson Exhibits," Greeneville Sun, no date,
late 1996], A1, A7, press clipping in AJNHS archives.

100 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


by the U.S. House of Representatives. Naturally,
when Clinton sent his annual wreath to Andrew
Johnson’s grave, it generated some media attention,
since Clinton was only the second president to be
impeached and his trial by the U.S. Senate had not
yet occurred. (Clinton was later exonerated, as was
Andrew Johnson before him.) Only about a dozen
individuals participated in the actual ceremony, but
when they arrived at the top of Monument Hill, they
were greeted by a larger group of reporters. The
wreath, decorated in red, white, and blue flowers,
with a simple note saying “The President,” was laid
before the Johnson Monument by members of the
2/278th Armored Cavalry Regiment of the
Tennessee National Guard.?%

Routine burials are the other major ceremonial
events to occur at the National Cemetery. Averaging
some fifty-two burials per year, most are solemn but
low-key affairs for veterans. Probably the largest
ceremony to take place at the cemetery since
Johnson’s own burial in 1875 was for the interment
of Greene County Deputy Sgt. Rick Coyle. Coyle
was felled in the line of duty during a shoot-out with
a hit-and-run suspect, who was also killed. The
deputy sheriff, an Air Force veteran, was buried on
Thursday, September 28, 1995. Hundreds of law
enforcement officers from across the state along
with numerous locals attended the grave-side
service, which began after Coyle’s coffin arrived
upon a horse-drawn carriage.2%3

Monument and
Flagpole Repairs

The two most striking man-made features on
Monument Hill, other than the Cemetery Lodge,
are the Andrew Johnson Monument and the War
Department flagpole. The Monument was erected
atop one of the highest hills in Greeneville three
years after the death of President Johnson. In 1877,
the president’s children, Andrew Johnson, Jr.,
Martha Johnson Patterson, and Mary Johnson
Stover, contracted the firm of Van Grunden, Young
and Drumm in Philadelphia to construct the
twenty-seven-foot-tall monument at a cost of nearly

292. Duncan Mansfield, “Wreath by Clinton Honors Other
Impeached President,” San Antonio Express News,
December 30, 1998.

293. “Fallen Deputy Buried,” Greeneville Sun, September
29, 1995, Al.

nine thousand dollars. It was unveiled before a
crowd of three thousand in Greeneville on June 5,
1878, and maintained by the family until 1906, when
it was given to the War Department as the nucleus
for a National Cemetery.294

The monument and the War Department flag pole
are both key features of the National Cemetery, but
the task of maintaining them has not always been
easy. In its August 1985 Statement for Management,
the park pointed out that the Johnson monument
was in poor condition and in need of major repairs.
Regional office staff in Atlanta were concerned as
well and had already sent NPS architectural
conservator Benjamin Nistal-Moret, Ph.D., to visit
the park to assess the condition of the monument.
Nistal-Moret’s initial report was disturbing in that
he found “an advance state of sugaring of the
monument surfaces,” sugaring of associated
monument surfaces, “uncommon brown” stains
along a crack in one urn, “cream color stains
throughout the surfaces of the monument,” and
“defective caulkings and adhesives of joints and
surface cracks from past ‘repair’ efforts.” According
to park staff, the monument had been “chemically
cleaned in 1974.” William A. Harris, chief of the
regional office’s cultural resources division,
concluded that “the present condition of the
monument would suggest that at some point in the
past, hydrochloric acid was used as the basic
cleaning agent, which would account for the
sugaring and staining problems noted.” Regional
staff planned to develop a long-term plan for repairs
and stabilization, although that would take
additional funding requests. Harris proposed the
use of sophisticated scientific methods to obtain a
“fabric analysis” along with the precise
specifications for repointing and repairing the
monument correctly.295

The matter remained a regional priority and funding
was made available in 1987. That July, Nistal-Moret
led a team of preservation experts to Andrew

294, Bill Wilburn, “Monumental Makeover at Johnson
Gravesite,” Greeneville Sun, July 23, 1987, 1, 6.

295. Chief, Cultural Resources Preservation Center,
Memorandum (entitled “Andrew Johnson
Monument, National Cemetery”) to Superintendent,
Andrew Johnson, May 31, 1985, in AJNHS files,
“General Correspondence 5/2/71-10/20/93” folder (1),
Division of Architecture, SERO. Nistal-Moret made two
trips to investigate the condition of the cemetery
monuments, the first was on April 18 and 19, 1985,
and he later visited in September of the same year.

National Park Service 59


FIGURE 7. Park Historian Hugh A. Lawing
prepared the original National Register

nomination for Andrew Johnson National Historic
Site, which was accepted for listing on March 3,
1977.

In early 1973, well in advance of the deadline, park
historian Hugh Lawing submitted a draft National
Register nomination for Andrew Johnson National
Historic Site. His first attempt was rudimentary:
Lawing simply listed the buildings in the park along
with some technicalities relating to them on a draft
form. He did not supply a narrative statement
documenting the significance of the buildings.
Although this component of the nomination was
and remains a key reason for completing a
nomination, specific standards and guidelines were
still evolving in the early years of the National
Register. Still, a narrative statement of significance
was required and the Southeast Regional Office
returned the nomination for revision.°°

Lawing resubmitted the nomination in July 1973.
He improved upon his first attempt by supplying
narrative text (along with a lot of technical data that
was not ultimately required) for each of the historic
resources. After some initial confusion over
terminology, a consensus was apparently reached
that the park should be nominated as a historic

50. Copy of original National Register of Historic Places
Inventory-Nomination Form for AJNHS, no date,
which supplied only statistical data and no narrative
information, in “ANJO Draft Nominations” folder,
Park National Register nomination files, CRD, SERO.

district encompassing a number of separate but
related historic resources.

However, upon the advice of Charles Herrington of
the National Register staff in Washington, and
Regional Historian Len Brown, Associate Regional
Director L. Boyd Finch recommended that instead
of a single district nomination, three separate
nominations should be submitted for the individual
historic resources, each with a map to clearly
delineate the resources included and with a
statement on each form noting that “this particular
unit is one of three units that make up the Andrew
Johnson National Historic Site.”>! Lawing revised
the nomination once again. In December 1974, he
submitted separate National Register nominations
to the regional office along with detailed maps for
the National Cemetery, which was classified as a
district in itself; the Tailor Shop/Memorial Building
and the1830s House, which were also classified as a
district; and the Homestead, which was classified as
a building.>? Both Regional Historian Len Brown
and Lawing found the whole nomination process a
bit bewildering, In a personal note to Brown,
Lawing remarked that “it might be that if the Lord
puts off his return to earth long enough and we
don’t run out of forms that I might get these things
submitted right eventually (ha),”>>

The nominations were officially submitted to NPS
headquarters in Washington for review and
acceptance of formal National Register
documentation. One of the reviewers was Chief
Historical Architect Henry Judd, who had directed
the restoration of the Homestead in 1957 using a
“Survey Report” drafted in 1956 by Ernest Allen
Connally and updated by Judd himself in 1959. He
was clearly familiar with the site.>4 Judd
recommended, however, that because the park
consisted of three sites within walking distance of

51. Associate Regional Director, Professional Services,
Memorandum to Superintendent, AJNHS, November
1, 1974, in “ANJO NR/DOE Correspondence” folder,
Park National Register Nomination files, CRD, SERO.

52. Copy of draft National Register of Historic Places
Inventory-Nomination form; and Hugh Lawing,
Acting Superintendent, AJNHS, Memorandum to
Associate Regional Director, Professional Services,
Southeast Region, December 8, 1974, in “ANJO NR/
DOE Correspondence” folder, park National Register
nomination files, CRD, SERO.

53. Hugh Lawing, Note to Regional Historian Len Brown,
December 8, 1974, in “ANJO NR/DOE
Correspondence” folder, Park National Register
nomination files, CRD, SERO.

14 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


Appendix D: National Park Service
Superintendents, 1942-2007

George F. Emery, Supt. (Mil. Furl.)
Margaret J. Patterson, Acting Supt.
Margaret J. Patterson, Custodian
James W. Holland, Acting Custodian
Wallace T. Stephens, Acting Custodian
George F. Emery, Supt.

Wallace T. Stephens, Acting Custodian
Wallace T. Stephens, Supt.

Benjamin H. Davis, Supt.

Lee Sneddon, Supt.

William R. Hollomon, Supt.

Roger R. Miller, Supt.

Lloyd A. Abelson, Supt.?

Grady C. Webb, Supt.

Opal L. Coffman, Acting Supt.

Mark H. Woods, Acting Supt.

Gordon J. Wilson, Supt.

Mark Corey, Supt.

Paul Carson, Acting Supt.

Jim Small, Acting Supt

Lizzie Watts, Supt

1. Established as National Monument 4/27/1942; name chan:
2. Assigned to line supervision by Supt., Great Smoky Mount

Source:

Historic Listing of National Park Service Officials. NPS, 1991; and park staff.

3/06/1942
10/07/1942
3/04/1943
4/25/1943
6/15/1945
5/30/1946
7/01/1946
9/24/1946
3/29/1953
1/12/1958
9/03/1961
10/25/1964
11/03/1968
11/14/1982
12/04/1988
1/01/1989
2/26/1989
4/03/1992
1/04/2007
5/8/2007
6/10/2007

10/06/1942
3/03/1943
4/24/1943
6/03/1945
5/29/1946
6/30/1946
9/23/1946
3/28/1953
1/11/1958
7/15/1961
8/22/1964
10/06/1968
9/13/1982
12/03/1988
12/31/1988
2/25/1989
1/11/1992
1/03/2007
5/7/2007
6/7/2007

963.
rains NP Group from 9/02/1970 to 4/27/1975.

National Park Service 133


Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History



Appendix C: War Department

Superintendents, 1908-1942

Josiah B. Bewley 11/13/1908
Catherine L. Bewley, Acting 4/6/1928
Joseph F. Morrow 11/23/1928
George R. Lane, Acting 11/20/1929
David R. Wilcox 12/15/1929
Unknown 2/7/1933
Wayne Smeltz, 2/201933
Unknown 5/18/1934
Robert A. Spence 5/28/1934
Charles F. Carver 1/5/1937
Farley C. Broyles, Acting 3/9/1940
C. Ray Handley 3/14/1940
Floyd Wilcox 6/11/1941
Source:

4/6/1928
11/23/1928
11/20/1929
12/15/1929
2/7/1933
2/20/1933
5/18/1934
5/27/1934
1/5/1937
3/9/1940
3/14/1940
6/11/1941
5/23/1942

Hugh A. Lawing. Administrative History of Andrew Johnson National Historic Site. Greeneville: National

Park Service, 1971.

National Park Service 131


which itself was not at significant risk for lack of a
modern heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
(HVAC) system, Installation of a conventional
climate-control system, as well as fire suppression
equipment, which was also being recommended,
could significantly jeopardize the material fabric of
the historic structure. Installing wires, pipes, and
insulating materials would mean punching through
or tearing out walls or else leaving such components
exposed, which would diminish the value of the
building as a house museum. Moreover, improperly
designed and installed cooling systems could
actually induce condensation within walls, thus
creating a new source of potential problems. Nearly
all historic house museums face this dilemma. With
reduced staff, Corey transitioned the park’s
interpretive regime to a guided-tour set up in 1992.
This change, which also improved security and staff
management, helped to keep dust and insects out of
the building, which was now closed and locked
unless a tour was actually in progress, but it also
exacerbated the existing problems with the
building’s interior “climate.”

By the end of the 1990s, park staff began pushing to
resolve the curatorial problems at the Homestead.
Funding was more likely since other pressing issues
had been addressed. Concern with park curation
had existed at least since Durham pointed out how
valuable the Homestead’s furnishings actually were,
and these only became more valuable with time.
The next step was to take another look at the
historic structure information developed by
Connally and Judd between 1956 and 1959.

In 1999 and 2000, a multi-disciplinary team from
the Southeast Regional Office in Atlanta conducted
a series of visits. Specialists included Christian
Bookter, an exhibit expert, Steve Sherwood, an
engineer, Bill Russell, a structural engineer, and
John Gopaul, a mechanical and electrical engineer,
as well as Regional Curator Allen Bohnert and
historical architects Dan Scheidt and Jon Buono.
The latter produced an amendment to Connally’s
original Historic Structure Report, or HSR, for the
Johnson Homestead. Michael Henry, a specialist in
interior environmental control with the firm of
Watson & Henry Associates of Bridgeton, New
Jersey, was also hired for the project.

When completed in 2001, the Andrew Johnson
Homestead, Historic Structure Report Amendment

FIGURE It. Workers repairing shutters on the
Homestead. in 2001 Park staff began using these

shutters to hel|

moderate heat gain as Andrew
Johnson woul

have done himself.

much praised the original restoration and
rehabilitation by Connally and Judd for having
“endured remarkably well.” Nevertheless, the
team’s examination of the Homestead structure
found a variety of problems needing special
attention, many stemming from the difficult
environment of Greeneville. Buono specially noted
the team’s concern with the structural stability of
the second floor and roof, water penetration along
the west wall, and hazards to the building’s historic
furnishings from lack of climate control.”3 Indeed,
Henry’s measurements of interior temperature and
humidity indicated “extreme fluctuations in
environmental conditions,” which are a “primary
cause of deterioration of many historic objects.”
According to the preservation team, “erratic
fluctuations in relative humidity are responsible for
problems that range from cracking of furniture

finishes .. . to growth of molds and mildew.”"4

73. Ibid., 1-3.

National Park Service 19


88 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


been provided for the use of herself and her
mother (deceased) during their lifetimes as
part payment for the property acquired from
them for inclusion within the boundaries of
Andrew Johnson National Monument in
Greeneville, Tennessee: Provided, That no
part of the amount appropriated in this Act
shall be paid or delivered to or received by
any agent or attorney on account of services
rendered in connection with this claim, and
the same shall be unlawful, any contract to
the contrary notwithstanding. Any person
violating the provisions of this Act shall be
deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon
conviction thereof shall fined [sic] in any sum
not exceeding $1,000.

Sources:

National Park Service. Laws Relating to the National Park
Service, Supplement III (February 1963 to December
1972). Washington, DC: Department of the Interior,
1972.

Rogers, Edmund B. History of Legislation Relating to the
National Park System through the 82"4 Congress.
Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, 1958.

Sullivan, Thomas Allan. Laws Relating to the National Park
Service, Supplement I (July 1933 to April 1944).
Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, 1944.

. Proclamations and Orders Relating
to the National Park Service up to January 1945.
Washington, DC: Department of the Interior, 1947.

130 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


transferring the two active NPS cemeteries to the
VA, he apparently did not similarly contact the VA.
In August, M’Liz McClendon, Chief of Operations
for the VA’s National Cemetery System contacted
Corey after a Georgia Congressman wrote her about
the possible transfer of Andersonville National
Cemetery. She told Corey that she had not been
aware of the possibility and implied that she was
opposed to transferring either cemetery to the
va405

As Corey had hoped, and probably anticipated,
sentiment in Greeneville was solidly against the
transfer proposal, On August 28, the Greeneville
County Commission voted unanimously in support
of keeping the National Cemetery within NPS
jurisdiction. Commissioner Betty Ruth Alexander,
who along with Glenn Renner, had sponsored the
resolution, argued specifically that VA rules would
prohibit as many burials as currently allowed under
NPS rules." Indeed, the resolution quoted Corey's
press release almost verbatim: “Whereas, most of
the 900 grave sites added to the cemetery five years
ago do not comply with Veterans Administration
policy which states that grave sites must be located
on slopes of less than 15 degrees. .. . If the Veteran’s
Administration were to administer the Andrew
Johnson National Cemetery, it might be assumed
that most of those new sites could not be used.”407
Other commissioners objected to potentially
unnecessary complications if the Park Service had
to relocate its headquarters from the cemetery. #08

That October, Corey learned from Robert Stein,
who replaced Bob Holbrook in August as the
Executive Director of the Commission on
Servicemembers and Veterans Transition

405. Mark Corey, e-mail to Dan [Brown], Paul [Winegar],
and Fred [Boyles] entitled “Contact with V.A.
Concerning Transfer Proposal,” August 27, 1998,
hardcopy in “National Cemetery” folder, AJNHS
archives.

406. Tom Yancey, “Johnson Cemetery Should Stay Under
the NPS, Says Commission,” Greeneville Sun, August
31, 1998.

. Tom Yancey, “There are No Plans to Place A. Johnson
National Cemetery under VA, Former Official Says,”
Greeneville Sun, December 5, 1998, A1, A7. The
resolution also mistakenly used the specific term
“Veteran's Administration” exactly as Corey’s press
release had previously but mistakenly used the term.
Still known as the VA, the agency's name had changed
to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

408. Tom Yancey, “johnson Cemetery Should Stay Under

the NPS, Says Commission,” Greeneville Sun, August
31, 1998.

40

Ss

Assistance, that the Commission’s final report
would probably not include a recommendation to
transfer either Andrew Johnson or Andersonville
National Cemeteries to VA administration. Stein
asked Corey to keep the issue under wraps,
however, as it was still possible that the situation
could change. #09 The final report was not published
until 1999, but the Greeneville Sun broke the story in
December after Holbrook sent a belated response
to Greeneville County’s August 28 resolution to
County Executive Alan D. Broyles. In his letter to
Broyles, Holbrook stated:

| have been greatly impressed with the public
spirit and unity demonstrated by the Greene
County Legislative Body, by the local veterans’
service organizations, and by local citizens in
support of the Andrew Johnson National
Historic Site. Never have | experienced such a
broad-based support for a national landmark
and for the included national cemetery. My
compliments. . . 47°

He then went on to assure Broyles that the
Commission was no longer contemplating
recommending any transfer of administrative
functions from the Park Service to the VA.
Holbrook, whose regular job was Director of the
Technical Support Services for the VA’s National
Cemetery System, essentially admitted defeat.
Holbrook may have been a prime motivator in
raising the issue in the first place. Whatever his
personal motivations, however, Holbrook justified
the proposal by noting that, at the VA, the
“«nfrastructure is in place and well functioning to
expand this organization’s capabilities.” Now that
the proposal appeared unlikely to garner the
Commission’s approval, Holbrook hoped that
Broyles “could inform others of the facts” regarding
the debate.

In truth, the public debate over the transfer proposal
had been rather one-sided, at least in Greene
County. Holbrook especially noted that “the issue of
not continuing burials at Andrew Johnson National
Cemetery due to the slope of the current burial
areas is not correct.” He said that the 15 percent

409. The report did not make a recommendation to
transfer NPS National Cemeteries to the VA. See
Report of the Congressional Commission on
Servicemembers and Veterans Transition. Assistance
(Washington, DC: 1999).

410. Robert B. Holbrook, Letter to Alan D. Broyles, County
Executive, November 24, 1998, copy in “National
Cemetery” folder, AJNHS archives.

National Park Service 81


Introduction

The year 1971 began at Andrew Johnson National
Historic Site with five inches of new snow. That was
the report given by Superintendent Lloyd A.
Abelson in his log on January 1. Abelson was the
seventh superintendent of the park set aside to
commemorate the seventeenth United States
president, Andrew Johnson, who succeeded to that
office on April 15, 1865, after the assassination of
President Abraham Lincoln. Another important
event that January, Abelson remarked, was that
“Mrs. George Rhea’s car knocked down about 15
feet of Homestead fence.” The superintendent was
not overly upset by this minor incident at the
revered site where Johnson once lived—he next
jotted that “she will have Mr. Rex Cox replace the
fence.”!

Andrew Johnson National Historic Site is one of the
National Park Service’s smaller units. It is composed
of four properties that Johnson once owned in
Greeneville, Tennessee. Located near one another,
these include Johnson’s “Early Home,” where he
lived in the 1830s and 1840s; the “Tailor Shop”
where he worked as a tailor in the 1830s; the
“Homestead,” which he purchased in 1851 and
where he lived before and after his presidency; and
the National Cemetery that contains his grave site
and memorial. The site is located within view of the
western slope of the Great Smoky Mountains in the
tural east Tennessee town of Greeneville, the seat of
Greene County. Both are named for the
revolutionary war hero, General Nathanael Greene.
Steeped in the culture and traditions of the “mid-
South,” Greeneville is the quintessential small town.
Andrew Johnson liked it so much that he spent most
of his adult life there when not serving his
constituents politically. The national historic site
established to honor his memory has similarly
attracted a cadre of long-serving National Park
Service (NPS) staffers. Lloyd Abelson served as
superintendent from November 3, 1968, until his

1 Lloyd A. Abelson, Superintendent, Log of Events,
January 1971. For a list of all superintendents of
Andrew Johnson National Historic Site and Andrew
Johnson National Cemetery, see Appendices C and D.

sudden death by natural causes while on duty on
September 13, 1982.2 The longest-serving employee
of the historic site was Elaine R. Clark. She was
hired as a museum aide in January 1962.3 Clark
went on to hold numerous other positions during
her forty-four years as an NPS employee at Andrew
Johnson. She retired in 2006.

Reading the first few pages of Abelson’s log for
1971, the reader today knows much about the
context of the historic site’s management over the
intervening decades, In October of that year,
Abelson logged another event which offers
important insight into park management—park
historian Hugh A. Lawing was “putting final touches
on the Park’s administrative history—most of its 100
pages in final typing stage.” By November, Abelson
wrote, Lawing was including recollections from
Mrs. Margaret Johnson Patterson Bartlett, President
Andrew Johnson’s great-granddaughter, about her
family’s own contributions to establishing the
historic site.4 Hugh Lawing’s account of the
creation and establishment of Andrew Johnson
National Historic Site is summarized in the second
chapter of this study. His account continues to have
utility for park managers, and those desiring a
greater depth of detail should consult the original
version.

The present administrative history of Andrew
Johnson National Historic Site takes up where
Lawing left off. Broadly, an administrative history
presents and analyzes the management of individual
park units, associated institutions, and over-arching
themes of institutional development. It provides
information about past NPS operations as well as
historical perspective that staff members need to

2. Dates of superintendencies are derived from the
Historic Listing of National Park Service Officials, |ast
updated in May 1991, available online at: http://
www.cr.nps.gowhistory/online_books/tolson/
histlist.htm

3. Elaine R. Clark, Oral Interview by Connie Aiken
{Appalachian State University, Boone, Tennessee,
2002), 1.

4, Lloyd A. Abelson, Superintendent, Log of Events,
October and November 1971.

National Park Service 1


The former park historian was not going to
convince anyone on this issue.

As Lucy Lawliss wrote in 1993, the historic integrity
of Andrew Johnson National Cemetery is in decline,
a factor largely due to the decision to allow
continued burials. The use of acid to wash the
Johnson memorial in the 1970s, the ADA ramp at
the Cemetery Lodge, and the use of the historic
stable for maintenance purposes have also
contributed to that decline. However, historic
preservation concerns prevented one
superintendent from replacing the cemetery’s
historic War Department flagpole with a modern
device while the Lodge ramp could be removed and
the stable restored in the future. The breach in the
historic wall along Vann Road was, in fact, later
improved as per the recommendations of the
cemetery CLR. Moreover, the decisions about grave
layout in the new sections, while disagreeable to
some, have not been made rashly, but through a due
process that has necessarily had to balance various
concerns. In the end, Andrew Johnson National
Cemetery is a cemetery and its operational
requirements will likely dominate NPS management
concerns until the last gravesite is filled.

Perhaps the words of Gordon Wilson, who served as
park superintendent from 1989 to 1991, can best
sum up the situation. As he told Connie Aiken in
2002:

Greeneville was much more striking in its
patriotism than any place I'd ever lived. And, |
thought that given the circumstances, and
what the Park was established for, what
Andrew Johnson stood for, and what the
National Cemeteries stand for, that the right
thing to do was to expand the capacity as
much as we could and still meet appropriate
standards for any cemetery.*29

Thus, while Andrew Johnson National Historic Site
was one of Greeneville’s main tourist attractions,
and the life of a manager at the park was an ever
changing array of activities, Wilson found that the
cemetery “was a major operation in and of itself.
Between the management of funerals, and digging
graves, and dealing with funeral homes, and
veterans’ groups, and all sorts of things.”430

429. Wilson, Oral Interview by Connie Aiken, 4-5.
430. Ibid., 2-3.

National Park Service 87


Tennessee Tourism Council dues ($50), piano
tuning for the living history program ($55), Junior
Ranger badges, certificates, and workbooks ($311),
costume cleaning for the living history program
(850), and miscellaneous Constitution-related items
that were added to the bookstore.“ By the early
1990s, Eastern National’s annual book sales had
reached only about $12,000, making it one of the
smallest operations of the non-profit’s 112 or so
park-based operations. Nevertheless, by 1993 the
group was supporting Andrew Johnson’s
interpretive programs with donations of some $700
per year.*4” These donations continued on into the
2000s, and although they have always constituted a
relatively small percentage of park income, such
funding has provided seed money for charismatic
park interpretive activities that would not otherwise
be funded through NPS operating accounts.

One other area of interpretation that the National
Park Service began to promote in the 1970s was
environmental awareness. That topic, however, was
not particularly suitable for small historical parks
like Andrew Johnson that lacked much acreage or an
appropriate theme. “A Presidential Home and a
National Cemetery do not lend themselves to a
formal program,” Superintendent Abelson stated in
1977. In lieu of a park-focused program, Abelson
worked with the Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA)
Nolichuckey Environmental Awareness Center and
the local Development District’s Education
Cooperative scheduling joint tours and participating
on their advisory board.*#8 He also cooperated with
the TVA and the U.S. Forest Service by providing
NPS interpretive films and programs for two camps
that they jointly administered every summer.*4?

In 1981, park staff began preparing for the
upcoming 1982 World’s Fair, which was to take
place in Knoxville, Tennessee. Anticipating record
crowds, Superintendent Abelson alerted local
schools to plan their annual visits to the park before
May 1, 1982.*°° That summer the park saw the
highest level of visitation that it had ever
experienced and proceeds charged for self-guided
tours of the Homestead more than doubled. In 1983,

446. SANR for 1987, February 18, 1988.

447, National Park Service, “Long Range Interpretive Plan:
Andrew Johnson National Historic Site,” approved
February 20, 1996, 16, in AJNHS archives.

448, SANR for 1977, January 5, 1978.

449. SANR for 1979, February 27, 1980.

450. SANR for 1981, February 8, 1982.

visitation patterns returned to more normal levels.
However, park interpretive staff still had a busy
spring as they participated in preparations and
celebrations relating to Greeneville’s bicentennial
anniversary. Andrew Johnson National Historic Site
hosted an open house at the Homestead during the
celebration, which was on April 26, 1983.45!

On May 14, 1988, “for the first time since
Reconstruction,” or so the Greeneville Sun reported,
Union troops were planning to encamp on the
grounds of the Andrew Johnson Homestead. These
troops consisted of fifteen members of the 8
‘Tennessee Volunteer Infantry, a unit of historical re-
enactors attired in period military costume. The re-
enactors, who were volunteers, resided mostly
throughout northeastern Tennessee and western
North Carolina and represented locals who actually
did serve in the Union Army during the Civil War.
They planned to demonstrate what life was like
during the impeachment trial of President Andrew
Johnson and while Tennessee was under Union
occupation. Park Ranger Kent Cave told the Sun
that the one-day event, which commemorated the
one hundred and twenty-first anniversary of
Johnson’s acquittal, “was a fitting time for us all to
remember the dark days of Reconstruction.”45? The
group continued to hold two-day encampments
into the 1990s. In April 1995, during a two-day
Homestead encampment of the 8 Tennessee
Volunteers, Linda Sinko and Ashley Stevens were
featured in the press for their demonstrations of the
fine art of embroidery.*3

Guiding Visitors at
Andrew Johnson
Homestead

In December 1992, word broke that Andrew
Johnson National Historic Site was planning to
make some important changes in how it managed its
interpretive programs. First, the fee for admittance

451. SANR for 1983, February 13, 1984.

452. “'Union’ Troops Will Be Camping at Johnson Historic
Site Saturday,” Greeneville Sun, May 12, 1988; “Troops
to Salute Acquittal Day,” Johnson City Press, May 12,
1988; Mark H. Woods, “Union Troops to Occupy
Andrew Johnson Homestead,” NPS Press Release, May
5, 1988, in AJNHS archives.

453. “Re-enactors Occupy Andrew Johnson Homestead,”
Greeneville Sun, April 25, 1995.

92 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


Historic |
Greeneville
Tennessee

-- Downtown
“Walking ‘Tour
Dickson-Williams

“Mansion

FIGURE $5. In 2003, Andrew Johnson National
Historic Site signed a cooperative agreement with
Main Street: Greeneville to facilitate guided tours
of the historic district. Brochure courtesy of Main
Street: Greeneville.

interpretive programming beyond merely the Visitor
Center and Homestead. The idea of conducting
tours of the local town had risen at various times
because there are many structures in Greeneville
associated with Andrew Johnson besides his
personal property. A management analysis in the
late nineties suggested that Superintendent Corey
look into a partnership to try and expand the reach
of interpretive efforts at Andrew Johnson. He thus
worked with the city’s tourism department to
identify what kind of tours might interest visitors

and that also addressed the story of Andrew
Johnson. Eventually, Main Street: Greeneville
developed a self-guided brochure for use in walking
around the downtown area, which Corey hoped to
use as the basis for a guided tour.>2°

The Student Conservation Association (SCA) has
also augmented the park’s interpretative function.
For example, SCA volunteers contributed over nine
hundred hours to the park’s volunteer program in
2002. Another volunteer that year drafted a park
brochure which focused upon Andrew Johnson, his
slaves, and Emancipation Day.>2!

In 2003, Andrew Johnson received a $200,000
increase in its base funding to support the
maintenance and law enforcement operations.
Instead of hiring new employees, however, Corey
chose “to maintain flexibility in our budget,” in an
attempt to adjudicate long-term financial pressures
on the park’s core operations. Under Corey, the
park had down-graded several positions when these
were staffed by new hires. He also hired terms,
temporary staff, and contractors. For example, not
long before retiring, he hired a GS-4 tour guide ona
four-year term instead of staffing that position with
a permanent full-time employee. Thus, if the park
had to close two days a week, it could concurrently
reduce its staffing. The salaries of new employees
are hard to maintain over time due to the inflation of
annual cost of living increases for existing staff
without concurrent base funding increases, which
are rare. Thus, when Corey finally obtained a base-
funding increase, he used it to mitigate future base-
funds erosion.>22

That same year, the historic site signed a cooperative
agreement with Main Street: Greeneville to facilitate
guided tours of Greeneville’s historic district. The
cooperative agreement was to last five years. Corey
felt it impossible for the Park Service to hire
seasonal or term rangers to conduct such tours,
because their funding would gradually decline as the
park’s base funding eroded over time. Corey was
willing, however, to use part of the park’s 2002 base-
funding increase—$20,000—to finance Main Street:
Greeneville in conducting the guided walking tours.
Greenville itself had not been able to fund a guide or

520. Corey, Oral History Interview by Cameron Binkley, 41-
42.

521. SANR, Fiscal Year 2002.

522. Corey Interview, 41-42.

108 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


Chapter III: Andrew Johnson
National Cemetery

In his annual report for 1972, Superintendent Lloyd
Abelson jotted a summary about the Andrew
Johnson National Cemetery. He stated that
“cemetery operations on steep incline is basic
unresolved safety hazard. Access road and lower
grave sites under 1974 development are the only
resolution to the basic problem.”2”° In November
1973, as if to illustrate the point, a woman who had
fallen while visiting the grave of her son sued the
Park Service for damages. Vada M. Stubblefield
asked for $65,000 in a complaint brought in the U.S.
District Court. She claimed her injuries, subsequent
hospitalization, medical expenses, and impaired
capacity to work were due to the government’s
negligence because it had failed to provide level
walkways, because the cemetery was located on
hilly terrain, and because the government had not
warned her that it was dangerous, such as by posting
signs.271 Whatever the merit of this suit, the
cemetery’s steep slopes have proven to be a
significant factor underlying NPS management
decisions at the cemetery.

Interment
Planning in the
1970s and 1980s

In 1973, Congress, under the National Cemeteries
Act, authorized the transfer of eighty-two national
cemeteries from the Department of the Army to the
Veterans Administration (now the Department of
Veterans Affairs)—the va2”2 This reorganization
combined twenty-one existing VA-administered
cemeteries with the former military cemeteries, to
create the National Cemetery System. The Park
Service retained jurisdiction of those cemeteries it

270. SANR for 1972, January 12, 1973

271. "Woman Who Fell at Grave in U.S. Cemetery Sues,”
Greeneville Daily Sun, November 2, 1973. No follow-
up information was found in the record, indicating
that this suit was probably not successful.

272. Public Law 93-43, 87 Stat. 75.

already held due to their association with major
historic sites such as battlefields and, as with
Andrew Johnson, Presidential memorials. However,
the Service had formerly managed its cemeteries on
the basis of rules and guidelines supplied by the
Army, which had considerably more expertise on
the subject. Now, it would do so using VA
guidelines.2”3 How thoroughly the Park Service had
to adhere to VA guidelines would eventually become
an issue at Andrew Johnson.

Superintendent Abelson noted this transition in his
1973 log book. He attributed burial declines at
Andrew Johnson National Cemetery to the transfer
of “Mountain Home” to VA administration that
year. Mountain Home was the last branch
established for the “National Homes,” an
organization funded by Congress to care for Union
veterans of the Civil War. Located only a few miles
away in Johnson City, Tennessee, the new VA
cemetery had a less expensive and more liberal
burial policy than that at Andrew Johnson.2”4 The
existence of this facility was and is important for the
long-term management of Andrew Johnson because
it offers a viable alternative for families seeking
veteran interments in a nearby National Cemetery.

Both safety considerations and changing VA
guidelines inspired the Park Service to review the
overall management policy at Andrew Johnson
National Cemetery in the 1970s and later in the
1980s as well. The Park Service made a major
decision when it decided to develop the lower
portion of the cemetery, along Vann Road. Planning
was underway in 1972 and development began in
March 1974. The most important aspect of this
work was that funds were allocated to construct a
new cemetery access road, as well as new steps, to
provide access to 125 new burial sites in the lower
cemetery. The contractor was Bob Smith

273. According to Alan Woodrow, the Army Technical
Manual TM 10-287 was still used in developing the
1976 interment plan.

274. SANR for 1973, January 17, 1974.

National Park Service 55


Almost immediately, Wilson hired a local company,
AAA Sign Service of Johnson City, to appraise the
condition of the flagpole. The company strongly
recommended replacement with a new aluminum
pole that would not have to be painted. The
company proposed to do the replacement itself for a
fee of $8,207.59? The same day the contractor
supplied its written appraisal, Chief Ranger Mark
Woods prepared a new Assessment of Effect as part
of the Section 106 process. The following day,
February 16, 1990, Wilson signed it and sent it to
Atlanta for approval. The park’s new assessment
provided much additional information not supplied
in the first assessment, but the goal was the same. As
Gordon wrote, “a structural analysis of the pole by
AAA Sign Service, Inc. revealed that the third
section of the pole has deteriorated to a point that
replacement is recommended.” Wilson again said he
wanted to replace the pole to avoid “a management
and maintenance problem for years to come.”303

Regional office staff again objected to the park’s
request. Regional Historian Lenard Brown said
“that the flag pole was part of the National
Cemetery design and . .. probably was erected
within a few years after the National Cemetery was
established.” Brown recounted that both Bill Sowers
and later Rene Cote had recently found the flag pole
stable. According to Brown, “the Superintendent’s
desire to replace it was based on the cost of annual
painting.” Brown noted that he had explained to
Wilson that longer lived paints were available and
supported Sower’s contention that rust did not
compromise the pole’s integrity or aesthetics, as
Wilson had argued. He also noted that Associate
Director Bob Deskins supported maintenance of
the pole rather than replacement as the more cost
effective option. Brown acerbically called flag pole
replacement “the proposal that never dies.”

302. James Warren, AAA Sign Service, Inc. Johnson City,
Tennessee), Proposal to replace flagpole, February 15,
1990, in “Andrew Johnson NHS, Jan. 1990-May 1991”
folder, Section 106 files, CRD, SERO.

303. Gordon Wilson, XXX Form: Assessment of Actions
Having an Effect on Cultural Resources (flagpole),
AJNHS, February 16, 1990, in “Andrew Johnson NHS,
Jan. 1990-May 1991” folder, Section 106 files, CRD,
SERO. According to Wilson’s form, park staff received
approval from the Tennessee State Historic
Preservation Officer.

304. Lenard Brown, Regional Historian, Memorandum
entitled “Proposal to Replace Flagpole at Andrew
Johnson Nat. Cemetery: A few pertinent comments,”
February 28, 1990, in “Andrew Johnson NHS, Jan.
1990-May 1991” folder, Section 106 files, CRD, SERO.

Sowers and Regional Archeologist Richard Faust
also concurred with Brown that “there is no
justification to approve this project.” Both Deskins
and Cordell called the superintendent to place the
action on hold.305

With the park now in a stand-off with regional staff
(the SHPO’s position is not known), a professional
industrial laboratory, with no commercial interest in
erecting new flag poles, was contracted to inspect
and evaluate the material integrity of the old flag
pole at the National Cemetery. Professional Service
Industries of Pittsburg inspected the structure on
May 10, 1990. Its appraisal was received at the park
by June 11.5 The “long-awaited inspection report”
by the independent laboratory was not sent to the
regional office until June 25. Wilson acknowledged
that “they do not recommend replacement, as the
deterioration is only serious at the base of the
pole.”307

On November 11, 1990, Wilson submitted a final
proposal to the regional office for review. This time
the park was “simply going to remove rust and
repaint the pole.” After “carefully” reviewing this
proposal, regional office staff concurred on the
proposed park action. “We are pleased to inform
you that Section 106 compliance procedures have
been completed,” wrote Deputy Associate Regional
Director Paul B. Hartwig on January 8, 1991.20

305. Lenard Brown, et al, “Replace flagpole, Andrew
Johnson National Cemetery,” Section 106 “staff
review and certification” forms, February 28, March 5,
and March 6, 1990, all in “Andrew Johnson NHS, Jan.
1990-May 1991” folder, Section 106 files, CRD, SERO.
A “post-it” note dated January 9, 1990, states that
“Deskins and Kirk called Supt.”

306. Professional Service Industries, Inc., Inspection Report

for Flag Pole/Monument Hill at AJNHS, May 10, 1990,

in “Andrew Johnson NHS, Jan. 1990-May 1991" folder,

Section 106 files, CRD, SERO.

Superintendent, Andrew Johnson NHS, Memorandum

{entitled "Andrew Johnson Flagpole") to Chief,

Engineering and Facilities Rm, SER, June 25, 1990, in

AJNHS files, “General Correspondence 5/2/71-10/20/

93” folder (1), Division of Architecture, SERO.

308. Gordon Wilson, XXX Form: Assessment of Actions
Having an Effect on Cultural Resources (flagpole),
AJNHS, November 11, 1990, in “Andrew Johnson NHS,
Jan. 1990-May 1991” folder, Section 106 files, CRD,
SERO.

309. Deputy Associate Regional Director, Paul B. Hartwig,
Memorandum (entitled “Section 106 Clearance to
sandblast and repaint National Cemetery flagpole”)
to Superintendent, AJNHS, January 8, 1991, in
“Andrew Johnson NHS, Jan. 1990-May 1991” folder,
Section 106 files, CRD, SERO.

30%

=

National Park Service 61


rue

a eT

FIGURE 2. Andrew Johnson's Tailor Shop as it
appeared in the early twentieth century. Jody
Cook Postcard Collection)

FIGURE 3. Andrew Johnson's Homestead as it
appeared circa 1890-1900 after extensive
remodeling by Martha J. Patterson, the
president's daughter. (Courtesy of Eastern
National Parks and Conservation Association)

his wife Mattie B. Patterson, who had inherited a
stake in the property, promoted state preservation of
the Tailor Shop.'3 Martha J. Patterson also sought to
preserve some of her father’s personal effects for a
“public library,” should one commemorating her
father become reality.!4

In 1921, the State of Tennessee appropriated fifteen
thousand dollars to purchase and improve the
property and to care for it. In fact, the state actually
constructed a “Memorial Building” to enclose and
better preserve the log structure. The Memorial
Building was dedicated in 1923 at which time the
Tailor Shop was also formally presented to the state
by Miss Margaret Johnson Patterson, the president’s
great-granddaughter, the daughter of Andrew J. and
Mattie B. Patterson.'> The Tailor Shop was actually

13. Ibid., 60.
14. Ibid. 58,

6 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History

tendered to the custody of a local civic group—the
Mothers’ Club (later called the Andrew Johnson
Woman’s Club).16

The Andrew Johnson Homestead was deeded to
Martha J. Patterson on December 6, 1884, She
immediately initiated a major remodeling of the
house, with the addition of porches, gables, and
many other features not present when Johnson was
alive. Later alterations ensued in the 1920s and
1930s. Additional property was added in 1905-6
while several rental structures were also built on the
property.!”

President Johnson’s “Early Home,” where he lived
prior to purchasing the Homestead, passed from his
family during Johnson’s own life and had to be
acquired separately by the Park Service at a much
later date. Johnson lived in the house from
sometime in the 1830s until 1851 when he sold the
house to James Brannon. Afterwards the property
was owned by several parties until 1964, although
none of these significantly altered the structure.'®

After state officials accepted responsibility for
preserving the Tailor Shop, focus shifted to creating
a national monument. Tennessee Congressman B.
Carroll Reece and Senator Kenneth D. McKeller
sponsored the necessary legislation in early 1935.
On August 29, 1935, Congress approved a measure
(49 Stat. 958) providing for the establishment by

15. Lawing, Administrative History, 45-47. Lawing notes
that the state archivist had no records regarding the
operation of the Johnson Tailor Shop between 1921
and 1941, but whether a thorough review on this
matter was conducted is uncertain. Any surviving
records of the Andrew Johnson Woman's Club might
be consulted.

Lawing, Administrative History, 45. Lawing does not
discuss the issue, but Mattie 8. Patterson may have
been a member of the Mothers’ Club. Women’s civic
groups were common in the early 20°" century and
often involved themselves in community-oriented
conservation, historic preservation, or
commemorative work, which explains why the group
was bestowed with stewardship of the Memorial
Building. For a theoretical perspective on this topic,
see Cameron Binkley, “No Better Heritage than
Trees’: Women’s Clubs and Conservation in Humboldt
County,” Western Historical Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 2
(Summer 2002): 174-203.

Lawing, Administrative History, 50-52. As Lawing
notes, the definitive account of these alterations is
contained in Ernest Allen Connally, Survey Report:
Restoration of the Andrew Johnson Homestead,
August 20, 1956, and its supplements.

18. Lawing, Administrative History, 56.


Chapter IV: Interpreting Andrew

Johnson

The story of Andrew Johnson and the national
veterans’ cemetery associated with his memorial
celebrates his principled defense of the U.S.
Constitution and the service of Americans who have
worn the uniform of their country. Scholars
continue to debate the Johnson presidency, and
Southerners themselves have been deeply divided in
their views of Andrew Johnson, who was the only
Southern Senator to remain with the Union when
his home state seceded. Union support remained
high in east Tennessee throughout the Civil War, but
Johnson later ruled Union-occupied Tennessee as
its military governor, a fact which did not endear
him to many other Tennesseans. He was equally
disliked by many Northerners, especially those
“radical” Republicans in Congress who felt he was
too lenient in the handling of ex-Confederate states
and who thus maneuvered to impeach him over his
alleged violation of the Tenure of Office Act.

Time has moderated some of the more extreme
attitudes toward Johnson and modern Greene
Countians view him as their most famous son—the
seventeenth president of the United States.
Statewide recognition of Johnson also came more
recently when Johnson’s visage was added to a set of
statues erected before the state capitol in Nashville
to honor those Tennesseans who have held the
office of U.S. president. At Andrew Johnson
National Historic Site, NPS interpretation of
Johnson and his presidency is achieved primarily by
using Johnson’s former homes and workplace,
which have been preserved or restored by the state
of Tennessee and the National Park Service. Visitors
are also welcome to view the Andrew Johnson
Memorial and grave site within the nearby Andrew
Johnson National Cemetery. Interpretive exhibits
in the park’s Visitor Center complex explain the
larger context of Johnson’s presidency, and park
visitors can take guided tours of the Andrew
Johnson Homestead. While NPS interpretive
programs, exhibits, and activities have changed over

time, and increasingly emphasize cooperative
efforts, the Homestead has remained the focus of
attention in telling the Johnson story.

Tour Fees

Visitors who wanted to tour the Andrew Johnson
Homestead in Greeneville, Tennessee, paid fifty
cents between 1972 and 1987 and also paid to use
the Visitor Center until 1975. In 1974, the historic
site collected $2,083.50 in park entrance fees, but
these declined to $1,475.50 the following year after
an operations evaluation recommended that fees
only be collected at the Homestead and not the
Visitor Center. The park also received $1,400 to
collect fees, but Supt. Lloyd Abelson recommended
that these funds be “transferred to a Park with
greater need as collections do not impose a
hardship of extra personnel or supplies.”43! Fees
collected in 1976 were $1,590 and in 1977 they were
$2,172.50.45? Fees declined in some years, however,
dropping to $1,642 in 1980, but rebounding to the
highest ever, $3,245, in 1982, the year the Worlds
Fair was held in nearby Knoxville.47 In 1983, park
fees declined again to $1,546.50.434

In 1986, the National Park Service imposed higher
entrance fees at some seventy-three parks,
monuments, and other installations nationwide,
including at Andrew Johnson National Historic Site.
However, the fee only applied to the Homestead
self-guided tour; no fee was charged for entrance to
the Visitor Center, the Tailor Shop in the Memorial
Building, or the National Cemetery. The Park
Service had not raised entrance fees since 1972 and
was authorized to do so by a vote of Congress. The

43

. SANR for 1974, February 19, 1975; SANR for 1975,
February 16, 1976
432. SANR for 1977, January 5, 1978.
433. SANR for 1980, February 5, 1981; SANR for 1982,
February 23, 1983.
434, SANR for 1983, February 13, 1984.

National Park Service 89


A decade later, the Park Service conducted a visitor
survey of Andrew Johnson National Historic Site.
The 1991 survey found that some 97 percent of park
visitors found the site “very good,” “excellent,” or
“perfect.” The survey, which was based upon
random sampling techniques and interviews with
park visitors, also found that only 4.3 percent of
visitors had trouble finding the site, indicating that
past management struggles to post adequate signs
along nearby roads and interstates were definitely
worthwhile,4!

The Park's Historic
Structures

The List of Classified Structures (LCS) was created
in 1960 based upon the recommendations made at a
meeting of the Regional Directors and the Chiefs of
the Eastern and Western Offices of Design and
Construction. The need for an "Inventory of
Historic Buildings and Structures” led to a draft
inventory that was distributed to the field for review
in November 1960, and finally, to a "Historic
Structures Inventory" that was disseminated to the
field in May 1963. In the late 1960's and early
1970's, this inventory evolved into the List of
Classified Structures, which was updated,
computerized, and augmented with new
management data elements in 1975-1977. The LCS
remains an electronic database that compiles
information on all park buildings and structures
that are listed or eligible for listing in the National
Register. 42

41. Douglas Watson, “Johnson Sites Win Praise from
Visitors," Greeneville Sun, December 11, 1992, 1, 7.
The largest number of park visits occurred on
Wednesdays and Thursdays due to school groups
accounting for about 45 percent of site visits.
Whether or not students, or local bus drivers, as
factors, were computed by the survey is unknown.
Incidentally, when the author first visited the historic
site in December 2006, he noted exceptionally well
placed signage along obscure country roads and was
easily able to find the Visitor Center, which has not
always been his experience in trying to locate small
parks in rural settings.

42, Superintendent, AJNHS, Memorandum to Director,
Southeast Region, June 6, 1973, in “ANJO NR/DOE
Correspondence” folder, Park National Register
Nomination files, Cultural Resources Division Office
(hereafter CRD), Southeast Regional Office (hereafter
SERO).

FIGURE 6, This 1973 photograph of Andrew
Johnson's "Early Home” accompanies the park’s
National Register Nomination.

Initially, the park’s inventory of historic structures
was limited to the Homestead, the Early Home, the
Memorial Building, Tailor Shop, and a few other site
features. A baseline of data was established in
conjunction with updating the National Register
Nomination in the early 1970s. In 1983,
Superintendent Grady Webb reviewed the initial
LCS structure records and told regional officials
that he did not have “any revisions or additions at
this time.”

The next LCS survey, conducted in May of 1994,
documented all structures in the park constructed
prior to 1950. This expansion of historic scope for
the park’s LCS was driven by the potential for the
existence of other historic contexts and areas of
significance beyond those that were stated in the
park’s enabling legislation. Before the new survey,
only eight structures were listed on the LCS as
contributing to the park’s historic significance. The
1994 survey found up to twenty structures that the
team determined eligible for listing in the National
Register, most of them in the national cemetery.

As noted, one of the main reasons for the update
was to identify historic structures associated with
the War Department and NPS development
between 1906 and 1941. The new survey thus
captured such items as the rostrum and the stable,

43. Superintendent, Memorandum to the Regional
Director, Southeast Region, March 3, 1983, in “ANJO
NR/DOE Correspondence” folder, Park National
Register Nomination files, CRD, SERO.

National Park Service 11


Unfortunately, by December 1976, it was known
that the Jones HSR required significant revision. !85
The project appeared to languish.

Meanwhile, Archeologist George Fischer of the
NPS Southeast Archeological Center (SEAC) visited
to conduct a survey of the Early Home. He was soon
looking for project funds to pinpoint the kitchen
steps, porch, and yard features of the building, '8
NPS architects wanted to know the construction
date of a wing of the house and if the existing back
porch ran the length of the wing, rather than only
Partially, as it then existed. Archeology might
provide answers to such questions and locate
historic landscape features that were no longer
present, such as the well and privy. Fischer was
successful in obtaining DSC-funding. In 1978, he
hired James Stoutamire, an archeologist from
Florida State University (FSU) working under a
cooperative agreement with SEAC, to perform a
five-week archeological excavation at the Early
Home. A second team also worked at the site the
following year. The crew chief for both digs was
Patricia O’Grady, an FSU research assistant.

Despite initial concern that the NPS partial
reconstruction in 1968 had obliterated any
archeological evidence, FSU archeologists soon
located a buried brick stairway leading from the
basement to the yard. The NPS architects had
missed this clue in 1968. Thereafter, the
archeological team determined that the three
existing porches were not within the historic period
while the basement of the Early Home’s “ell” was
not used as a kitchen, as Margaret Bartlett had
claimed. To make that determination, the
archeologist had to excavate the basement, which
was completely filled with mud and sand. The FSU
teams recovered few artifacts but did locate and
document an extensive exterior drainage system for
the basement. They also found little evidence of
out-buildings—a parking lot covered much of the
area where such structures might have stood.187

185. SANR for 1976, December 1, 1976.

186. SANR for 1976, December 1, 1976.

187. SANR for 1978, January 3, 1979; David Arbogast, First
Andrew Johnson House: Architectural Data Section!
Historic Structure Report (Denver Service Center,
1978), 2; Frank Stephenson, Florida State University
Office of Information Services, October 25, 1978, press
release located in AJNHS archives; Rich Boss, “FSU
Archeologists Unearth Secrets Beneath Former
President's House,” Florida Flambeau, November 1,
1978, 10, in AJNHS archives.

Stoutamire filed a final report for the work in 1980,
but field results were fed immediately to DSC,
whose architects were struggling to redefine the
Early Home HSR.

In May 1978, David Arbogast, a historical architect
at the Denver Service Center (DSC), was assigned to
conduct a “fabric investigation” of the Early Home.
This procedure, which involves extensive paint and
material analysis, led to the development of
significantly different conclusions from those
offered in the earlier draft HSR by Jones, who had
relied solely upon historical records and “visual
analysis.” According to Arbogast, while his methods
were new, his research was originally intended to
support the tentative findings of Jones. However,
Arbogast’s methods developed so much additional
information about the Early Home that it was
decided to abandon completely the Jones study,
which was replaced by his own. Arbogast offered
several distinct conclusions, most importantly that
the building’s main roof was historic and in good
condition and should be retained while the ell roof
and its porch were neither historic nor in good
condition, 18

Possibly due to park archeological work in 1978, a
new spring suddenly erupted in a hedge near the
Early Home. Because temporary ditching had not
resolved the issue by the end of the year, Abelson
feared that the parking lot would have to be dug
up.!89 The park tried to solve the problem in 1979
by placing some twenty-five feet of “perforated tile”
in the Visitor Center parking lot area to help draw
off the spring water, which was drowning the Early
Home’s hedge, but the two-feet depth “mandated
by storm sewer did not tap the spring,” noted
Abelson. The problem had to be resolved prior to
restoration work.!9°

Funding to restore the Early Home was
programmed for 1979.19! After several on-site visits

188. Arbogast, First Andrew Johnson House, 1, 18. In fact,
the “architectural data section” of an HSR is often a
compilation of results from different researchers
using different methods. The HSR also incorporated
older historical document research by John W. Bond
in 1968 and additional historical photographs
recovered by park historian Hugh Lawing at that
time. The reports have a tendency to be updated over
time as new methods of analysis become available.
SANR for 1978, January 3, 1979; SANR for 1979,
February 27, 1980.

190. SANR for 1979, February 27, 1980.

18

83

40 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


directive to continue to provide burial space. NPS
policy is to close national cemeteries within national
parks as quickly as feasible. In the case of Andrew
Johnson National Cemetery, pressure by local
veterans’ groups and their political representatives
has kept the cemetery in operation far longer than
the Park Service had intended. Each new section
necessarily detracts from the cemetery’s recognized
historic character. As long as the cemetery is open,
therefore, this factor predominates no matter what
the design of new sections.

Second, the cemetery is built on a steep slope.
Difficult topography and modern safety concerns
have thus also affected how park officials have
mapped out the cemetery. Their decisions have
altered even older sections. It is difficult to second-
guess park managers faced with this operational
concern. A third factor is that the War Department
established the National Cemetery in a rural setting
in an era with almost no automobiles, but now the
cemetery is surrounded by urban development
where modern visitors and funeral parties arrive by
car, which as Lawliss stated, was not anticipated by
early War Department planners. Park managers
must balance cemetery operations with historic
preservation. It is simply a fact that it is often
impossible to make a decision in one area without
affecting another. In great part to recognize this
reality, the Lawliss CLR assigned a development
zone where the new cemetery sections were to be
laid out. Ideally, these sections should still be
established in conformity with those in the historic
section as best as nature and NPS guidelines
allowed. Unfortunately, the CLR also did not
provide specific recommendations as to how to
accomplish that feat, as Lawliss later lamented. One
must reasonably ask how far must park managers go
to fulfill their obligations?

Regional Director Jerry Belson responded to
Lawing on November 14, 2001. Belson reminded
him that “citizens of the surrounding community
convinced the NPS, through their representatives,
that interments should continue within the
cemetery.” Thus, sections were expanded and new
ones were added, but Belson admitted that “it
appears that the NPS was adding them without any
long-term plan in mind.” Of course, that was why
the Park Service initiated Lawliss’ CLR. Belson
noted that her “draft report was well received by the
community and no negative comments were

Es | a
Bl one

aera

eee Sun DANN MAT nhac arto
ieditto Seenow Valo ze) aeot *

ca

FIGURE 4S. Map of the “Y” section of the National
Cemetery. The design of this section, in particular,
was criticized by retired NPS historian Hugh A.
Lawing.

received concerning added gravesites within the
Development Zone.” He noted Corey’s assurances
that the “Y” section would appear more linear as
more headstones were planted and that the design
had to consider safety and topography. The
Regional Director’s main point, however, was that
“maintaining a rectangular shape for the new
sections does not appear to be as critical as
optimizing the opportunities for our nation’s
veterans and their eligible dependents to be interred
within the development zone of this national
cemetery.”423

Lawing was not satisfied by Belson’s response,
especially because his November 14, 2001, letter
had also contained a statement that “the historic
design of the cemetery, within what are now
referred to as the development and buffer zones,
appears to have been lost over the last 30-40 years.”
He rejected this assertion by saying that most of the
sections were still rectangular. Lawing also claimed
that section “Y” was the most dangerous part of the
cemetery to place gravesites, equivalent, he said, “to
placing of a cocked gun in the hands of a child.” He
argued that NPS “optimizing” of opportunity to be
buried in the national cemetery was a flawed notion
and cited examples of elderly people who could not
navigate the steep slopes to visit the graves of loved
ones in the cemetery already. He preferred the

423. Paul Winegar for Jerry Belson, Regional Director,
Letter to Hugh Lawing, November 14, 2001, in folder
marked “Hugh Lawing File,” located in the
superintendent's office, AJNHS.

National Park Service 85


footsteps by supporting the park through donations
of the family’s Johnson-related artifacts and her
interpretive assistance over many decades.

One of the most important events relating to the
relationship between Bartlett and the Park Service
was Hugh Lawing’s effort to interview and record
for posterity her memories and the family traditions
of the life of her famous ancestor. Bartlett had
refused many attempts by Lawing to be interviewed
over the years while she worked at the park, but
such reluctance was not particular to the Park
Service. Bartlett had equally frustrated the editor of
the Greeneville Sun, whose entreaties “to sit down
with one or more reporters and help us tell Sun
readers her story” were similarly rebuffed.*4 “After
eight years of effort,” stated Superintendent
Abelson in his annual report for 1980,
“arrangements were made for Great-
Granddaughter Mrs. Margaret Johnson Patterson
Bartlett to tape her recollections.” Historian Lawing
and Park Technician Elaine Clark made a trip to
Harpers Ferry Center where six hours of tapes were
eventually produced.

During her interviews, Bartlett made some
interesting observations about the Homestead, its
restoration, grounds, and furnishings. She felt that a
smokehouse and other outbuildings needed to be
re-established for interpretation. Such structures
were typical of a Civil War-era residence. Bartlett
also recalled that there had been a vegetable and
flower garden to the rear of the Homestead as well
as a grape arbor that went the length of that garden.
Based upon these recollections, the Park Service
later added a vegetable and flower garden. In 1980,
asmall herb garden was established. Bartlett also
expressed hope that the Park Service would restore
the “old gum” spring that had been the reason the
Johnson family first camped on the property upon
their arrival in Greeneville. Bartlett also discussed
the Early Home, and noted that its basement had
once been used as a kitchen. She also thought that a

93. “Patterson Plaque Unveiled in Ceremonies at AJ
Home,” Greeneville Sun, May 13, 1978, 1, 6;
“Patterson Plaque to be Dedicated at AJ Home,”
Greeneville Sun, May 11, 1978. The plaque was made
by the Michaels Art Bronze Company of Covington,
Kentucky.

94. Editorial, “Margaret Patterson Bartlett: A. Johnson
Would be Proud,” Greeneville Sun, October 12, 1976.

95. SANR (for 1980), February 5, 1981. The tapes were
transcribed by park interpreter Kendra Hinkle
between 2001 and 2002

FIGURE 14, Interior Secretary Rogers C. B. Morton
presented Margaret Bartlett with two service
awards at the Interior Building on September 9,
1974,

spring had been located outside the kitchen door
there. Bartlett acknowledged that no authentic
Johnson furnishings existed from the Early Home,
but she hoped the Park Service would restore the
building, supply it with a library of Johnson-related
books and papers, and open at least part of the
building as a public reading room. After spending
several days recording, the trio also visited the
Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC, where
Bartlett advised staff there on a display of former
first ladies that included her great-grandmother.9®

it was probably no coincidence that Bartlett
mentioned during the oral history interview her
desire for the Park Service to open a reading room
in the Early Home. She was, in fact, hoping to
donate a collection of family books and documents,
known as the “Johnson-Patterson law library,” to
the Park Service. She wanted this collection to be
placed in the Homestead, or as suggested in her
interview, the Early Home. Superintendent Abelson
wanted to accept her offer but sought guidance
from Southeast Regional Director Joe Brown.

National Park Service 23


1981

Summer 1982

September 13, 1982

1984

May 1987

July 1987

May 1988

August 2, 1988

April 1989

1989-1991

1990

July-September 1990

November 5, 1990

August 31, 1991

January 24, 1992

August 1-5, 1992

October 1992

November 1992

1993

To prepare for the Early Home’s restoration, NPS historic architect David Arbogast completes a Historic
Structure Report (HSR) that extensively analyzes the home’s paint and materials.

Andrew Johnson saw record crowds resulting from the World’s Fair in Knoxville, Tennessee. Employees
staffan NPS booth at the Fair.

Superintendent Lloyd A. Abelson suffers a fatal heart attack on duty. A World War II veteran, Abelson is
buried in Andrew Johnson National Cemetery.

Anew interment plan is approved to reduce the scope of interments because VA guidelines change to
prohibit gravesites on slopes above 15 percent grade. This plan is intended to be the last until cemetery
closure.

Rep. Jimmy Quillen introduces the first of three unsuccessful bills in Congress that seek to expand
Andrew Johnson National Cemetery.

Regional CRM staff conduct expensive repairs and stabilization to monuments in the National
Cemetery damaged by a commercial cleaning company in the 1970s that had used hydrochloric acid.

Re-enactors representing the 8" Tennessee Volunteer Infantry arrive at the historic site and set up camp
in what becomes an annual ritual. The re-enactors dramatize and educate visitors on life during the
1860s.

Deputy Director Denis Galvin testifies before Congress that “it is. . .not appropriate to expand the
[Andrew Johnson National Cemetery] to accommodate additional contemporary gravesites unrelated to
President Johnson or the purposes for which the land was left to the United States by his daughter.”

Park staff submit proposal to install a “Bally Building” in the Early Home to help resolve curatorial space
and storage problems. Regional staff object and the proposal is cancelled,

Superintendent Gordon Wilson agrees with regional staff to utilize the Early Home for light office space
with anticipation that future funds would permit its interior to be restored to allow interpretation.

Park staff make several attempts to replace the flagpole of the National Cemetery, which had become
rusted, while regional staff insist the structure is historic and should be preserved. After an independent
industrial laboratory recommends repair and maintenance, the flagpole is tcpaired and repainted.

Veterans’ groups ask NPS officials to disregard VA rules forbidding burials on stopes greater than 15
percent, which would allow more burials in the National Cemetery. Superintendent Gordon Wilson
agrees.

‘The Early Home is thoroughly renovated. The building is primarily used for park administration, but a
ground floor room is set up for visitors to see how the home’s interior had been restored to Johnson’s
time.

‘The Park Service responds to a “determination of adverse effect” ruling by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation regarding renovation of the Early Home by stating that “we do not agree with your
determination that extensive preservation maintenance constitutes rehabilitation.”

The Early Home opens to the pubic 28 years after NPS acquisition.

The Southeast Regional Solicitor determines that “National Cemeteries administered by the National
Park Service are not part of the National Cemetery System.” Thus, the Park Service must pay for
graveliners, but is not bound by VA slope grade restrictions.

After Margaret]. P. Bartlett dies on August 1, all park affairs come to a standstill as staff arrange for her
services in the Homestead and make burial preparations in the Johnson section of the National
Cemetery, the last plot there to be filled. The park closes at noon on Monday, August 3 and reopens on
Wednesday, August 5.

‘An NPS Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) by Lucy Lawliss divides the National Cemetery into a
“Historic Zone,” a “Buffer Zone,” and a “Developmental Zone.” As a result, Superintendent Mark
Corey announces that space for between 500-600 (and later 900) additional gravesites can be found in
the cemetery.

An NPS “Operations Evaluation” makes several recommendations, including that the park implement
scheduled guided tours of the Homestead to better manage staff time and security at the Homestead.

‘The President Andrew Johnson Museum and Library opens at Tusculum College.

National Park Service 123


Presidential Proclamation of the Andrew Johnson
National Monument once title to the Andrew
Johnson Homestead and Tailor Shop was vested in
the United States.'? The property had to be
purchased from the Johnson heirs and the National
Park Service was asked to appraise its value.
Negotiations began to reach an agreement for the
two properties as well as certain items of
furnishings. The family had originally asked
$100,000, then $75,000. In 1938, however, Secretary
of the Interior Harold Ickes ruled that the National
Park Service would not pay more than $44,000.20

In early 1939, Rep. Reece sought to alleviate the
stalemate over the price differential “by suggesting a
custodial position for Miss Patterson,” which would
allow the government to maintain its acquisition
cost at $44,000. Mrs. Andrew J. Patterson agreed on
July 3, 1940, to sell the property for this price
provided that she and her daughter, Margaret J.
Patterson, receive appointments as custodians of the
site. Director Newton B. Drury accepted this
condition in July 1941 and notified Tennessee Gov.
Prentice Cooper that negotiations between the
Service and the Pattersons had been successful. He
sought to finalize arrangements with the state to
acquire the Tailor Shop. On February 15, 1941, the
governor authorized the trustees of the Tailor Shop
to transfer its deed to the United States for inclusion
in a proposed Andrew Johnson National
Monument. This act was accomplished on
November 26, 1941. With both the Homestead and
the Tailor Shop under Federal ownership, Andrew
Johnson National Cemetery was transferred to the
Park Service from the War Department. This final
act allowed President Franklin D. Roosevelt to issue
a Presidential Proclamation on April 27, 1942,
establishing Andrew Johnson National
Monument.?!

George F. Emery was the first superintendent of the
historic site, entering on duty on March 6, 1942, a
few weeks before the proclamation. He was joined
in April by Assistant Historical aides Margaret J.
Patterson and her mother Mattie B. Patterson.
Emery immediately faced two problems. A street-
widening plan on South Main Street “meant the loss
of the shade trees planted by A. J. Patterson, and the
Service’s policy of no burials in the Cemetery was

19. Ibid., 61
20. Ibid., 62.
21. Ibid, 47, 63-65.

CRLetPigyy

—_—

FIGURE 4. Interpreter Elaine R. Clark (|) shows visiting
children a bedroom in the Andrew Johnson
Homestead in 1965. (ANJO Coll.)

not being accepted by local civic and patriotic
groups.” ? That action on the trees was delayed
several years, but landscape management and burial
policy would become long-term management
concerns.

Emery was called to service during World War II.
Margaret J. Patterson served briefly as custodian
until Superintendent Ross Holland arrived on April
26, 1943. With limited funding, the years between
1942 and 1954 were absorbed by fairly routine
activities.?3

In the late 1950s, Andrew Johnson National Historic
Site received important new funds to restore the
Homestead and to create other appropriate visitor
facilities. The funding was a result of “Mission 66,” a
special program to upgrade NPS services
nationwide in response to growing pressures on
park resources by the post-war generation. The
Homestead was the center of this project at Andrew
Johnson, although a “Visitor Center” was also
constructed adjacent to the Memorial Building,
primarily to create space for a small museum and
public restrooms. At the time, it was considered
impossible to interpret the Johnson Homestead due
to the many subsequent remodelings by Johnson’s
descendants. Minimal development was necessary
at the National Cemetery, however, except to
construct an equipment storage shed.24

22. Ibid., 67-68.

23. Lawing illustrates this point by setting forth several
pages of superintendent's log entries for those years.
See, Lawing, Administrative History, 68-77.

24. Lawing, Administrative History, 78-79.

National Park Service 7


lacked and which was an impediment to the
establishment of Greeneville as a tourist
destination. He even suggested it be renamed for
Andrew Johnson. Finally, Phinney thought his
fellow townsfolk should make wider use of the
Johnson name. He suggested renaming the city
property at West Main and McKee Streets using
Johnson’s name or renaming Greeneville High
School the Andrew Johnson High School. These
suggestions, thought Phinney, could greatly bolster
the tourism potential of the historic area of the
town.?46 Some of these suggestions were eventually
implemented.

By August 1991, encouraged by Phinney, the town
of Greeneville issued a proposal to begin a major re-
development of its downtown area, including the
construction of a multi-level parking deck, the
removal of blighted buildings, and renovation of
nearby historic structures.”*” NPS staff in the
regional office evaluated the proposal and thought it
overly optimistic, but they did not think it would
significantly impact Andrew Johnson National
Historic Site if enacted. However, they were
worried about the impact of a parking deck."48

As far as the statue was concerned, Phinney had
funds available as the executor of Margaret
Bartlett’s estate, which encouraged continuation of
her efforts to promote the legacy of Andrew
Johnson even after her death. The Bartlett estate,
therefore, commissioned Tennessee artist Jim Gray
to create the statue. What Phinney needed was
permission from the town to erect the bigger-than-
life creation. He requested the Mayor and aldermen
appoint a committee to select a suitable location for
the statue and this was done. The committee
included local political and civic leaders, NPS
representative Jim Small, who had arrived at
Andrew Johnson to serve as Chief Ranger in
September 1990, and Mayor G. Thomas Love, who
served as chair. By March 1994, this committee had
selected three potential sites. One idea was to place
the statue before the town hall itself, but the site

246. Ralph M, Phinney, “Statue of Andrew Johnson,"
Greeneville Sun, February 23, 1991.

247. See, The Town of Greeneville, Tennessee, The Historic
Downtown Greenville Redevelopment Project:
Proposed Development Plan, August S, 1991, copy in
“ANJO General” folder, park files, CRD, SERO.

248. “Kay” Note to Robert Blythe and Kirk Cordell, no
date [late August 1991], in “ANJO General” folder,
park files, CRD, SERO.

FIGURE 29. Margaret Bartlett's cousin Ralph M.
Phinney shown cutting the ribbon for the dedication
of new exhibits at Andrew Johnson National Historic
Site in 1998.

most favored was the corner of Depot and College
Streets, right across the street from Johnson’s Tailor
Shop24?

As the idea of a statue was being discussed in 1994,
Greeneville and Andrew Johnson National Historic
Site received free publicity when the cable-TV
channel C-SPAN visited the historic site. Traveling
in a large school bus outfitted with all the
technology needed to air live television broadcasts,
the C-SPAN crew interviewed Superintendent
Mark Corey and park Curator Elaine Clark, and
filmed a tour of the Andrew Johnson Homestead.
The crew was met at the Homestead by then 99-
year-old Ralph Phinney. “Mark just asked me to
come down so someone will be in the house,”
Phinney told the reporters. The crew then filmed
Phinney as he discussed his relationship to Andrew
Johnson’s great-granddaughter, Margaret
Bartlett.259 C-SPAN returned again in 1999 to do
work for a special broadcast from Andrew Johnson.
Two separate broadcasts were made on July 9 as

249. Eugenia Estes, “Committee Views Three Sites for
Erecting Johnson Statue,” Greeneville Sun, March 17,
1994.

250. "C-Span’s Coming,” Greeneville Sun, March 1, 1995;
and “C-SPAN,” Greeneville Sun, March 4, 1995.

National Park Service si


120 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


FIGURE $4. Superintendent Mark Corey speaking
at the dedication ceremony on May 23, 1998.

the Mission 66 development. No one had
anticipated that another president might be
impeached, but aside from a few, most displays
remained accurate. Similarly, staff at the President
Andrew Johnson Museum at Tusculum College did
not anticipate the need to make any major changes
as a result of the Clinton impeachment, although a
new display comparing and contrasting the two
events was being considered at the time.99

After the impeachment, President Clinton
proclaimed his innocence and the case was
scheduled to be tried in the U.S. Senate in January
1999, Media interest in the Andrew Johnson
National Historic Site dramatically increased. By
pure coincidence, Andrew Johnson’s birthday fell
on December 29. The event traditionally included a
ceremony during which a wreath sent by the current
occupant of the White House was laid.
Superintendent Mark Corey anticipated much
media interest in the event—the second impeached
president sending a wreath to honor the first—and
alerted the Southeast Regional Office. “Thought I
should give you a heads up that media interest is

499. Cameron Judd, “A Clinton Impeachment Would
Affect Presentations at Johnson Historical Sites—But
Not Very Much,” Greeneville Sun, December 19, 1998,
Al, AG

rising everyday concerning Andrew Johnson’s/Bill
Clinton’s impeachment.” The day before, four local
television news crews had filed stories about why
the park had to change its new exhibits. National
Public Radio had scheduled an interview with Jim
Small and inquiries were coming in from CNN,
ABC’s Good Morning America, and from other
media organizations. Park staff were quite busy
during the holiday season that year.500

President Clinton was tried in the Senate that
January and acquitted on both counts by a
substantial majority. Like Andrew Johnson, who was
acquitted by the thinnest of margins, he survived the
experience and completed the remainder of his
term in office. On Friday, May 21, 1999, a small
ceremony was held at the park so that Senator Bill
Frist could donate a ticket to the historic site that
would have granted the bearer admission to the U.S.
Senate Gallery during the Clinton trial.>!

“Andrew Johnson:
Defender of the
Constitution”

In May 2009, visitors to Andrew Johnson National
Historic Site were greeted by a new fourteen-
minute-long film presentation discussing the life of
Andrew Johnson and the events leading up to his
impeachment. It was the first interpretive film ever
developed and used at the park. Showing of a park
film was made possible because park administrative
offices and museum storage had been moved to the
Cemetery Lodge. As a result, enough space was
freed up in the Visitor Center to allow for a small
auditorium. The park had never before
contemplated producing and showing an
interpretive film simply because the small Visitor
Center lacked sufficient space to show one. With the
move to the Cemetery Lodge, staff applied for funds
to renovate the old administrative office space,
which was constructed across Richland Creek. The
project was approved and funded by annual budget
appropriations of some $22,336 for 1999 and 2000.

500. Mark Corey, e-mail (entitled “Impeachment Media
Interest) to Paul Winegar, Dan Brown, and Jerry
Belson, December 1998, in possession of the author.

501. NPS News Release, "Senator Bill Frist to Donate
Clinton Impeachment Trial Ticket to Andrew Johnson
National Historic Site,” no date [May 1999], in AJNHS
archives,

104 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


Heritage Tourism

Like many small towns across the country, officials
and town boosters in Greeneville and Greene
County, Tennessee, only began to realize the
importance of tourism in promoting economic
development in Greeneville in the 1980s. As late as
1987, according to Helen Horner, Director of
Tourism for the Greene County Chamber of
Commerce, tourists visiting the area could not even
find a post card with pictures of Greeneville. The
influx of outsiders to Greene County who came to
attend the Knoxville World’s Fair in 1982 probably
helped inspire the first serious interest in promoting
local tourism. As a result, in 1986, the County
passed a motel tax to generate funding to promote
tourism.5°

By 1988, the Chamber of Commerce could report
that some 244 jobs were based on tourism in Greene
County. It also reported that Greene County’s share
of travel-related income was $11,506,000 for 1987
and that visitation had risen significantly from the
year before. The Chamber's Horner also noted
growing enthusiasm for requests for brochures that
promoted the area to tourists. These brochures
prominently featured Andrew Johnson National
Historic Site.>!° Apparently, these efforts had some
success. In 1989, the Greeneville Sun reported that
“tourism has become a major economic force in
Greeneville and Greene County, accounting for
more than $27.3 million in revenue from January-
November 1988.75!

Greeneville was similar to other small towns that
have survived into the modern era with quaint
eighteenth- and nineteenth-century historic
districts still largely intact. Greeneville is the second
oldest town in Tennessee, established in 1783.
Officials soon were of a mind that history focused
upon the town’s most famous son, Andrew Johnson,
and the era of the Civil War, would be key in
promoting tourism successfully. Indeed, Horner was
planning new advertisements for 1990 that would be
featured in such magazines as Civil War Times and
American History Mlustrated. According to Horner,

509. Jim Co, “Local Tourism Becomes Multi-Million-
$industry,” Greeneville Sun, February 23, 1989, A10.

510. Chamber of Commerce, “Tourists Bringing Dollars to
Region, County, City,” Greeneville Sun, August 18,
1988.

511. Jim Co, “Local Tourism Becomes Multi-Million-
$industry,” Greeneville Sun, February 23, 1989, A10.

these were the first national publications used to
promote the area. Horner and others were also
interested in developing history-themed travel
routes for the area, which would feature stops at
Davy Crockett’s birth place, a state park, Tusculum
College (which is the oldest college in Tennessee),
and Greeneville, where Andrew Johnson National
Historic Site was the main feature. “Hopefully,”
Horner concluded, “when they get to Greeneville,
they’ll spend the night here.”5!2

By 1993, spending the night in downtown
Greeneville, both in style and comfort, was indeed
possible. That year, the General Morgan Inn opened
near the County Courthouse. Named after a famous
Confederate raider killed in Greeneville in 1864, the
General Morgan Inn was a nineteenth-century
structure in danger of demolition in the late 1980s.
Instead, community partners stepped in and
refurbished the building. For example, local
philanthropist Scott M. Niswonger, the founder of
Landair Transport, Inc. and Forward Air Transport,
Inc., made important contributions to preserve the
inn and other historic buildings in the downtown
area while also backing the performing arts
center.>'3 Support by successful Greeneville
businesses and financial institutions for historic
preservation has been key in helping Greeneville
weather cyclical economic downturns. Hope
remains that community effort will ultimately
succeed in establishing Greeneville as a well-known
destination for historically minded tourists.

Cooperative Efforts
Further Interpretive
Goals

In June 1992, Andrew Johnson received a fourteen-
thousand-dollar grant to promote “Teaching in
Partnership” from the National Park Foundation.
The grant helped park staff work more closely with
the regional schools of East Tennessee by involving
them in the development of a curriculum for use by
local students, some three thousand of whom were
then visiting the historic site on an annual basis. The
grant was presented by Ed E. Williams, a member of
the Foundation’s Board of Trustees. One result the
grant hoped to achieve was a twenty percent

512, Ibid.
513. Corey Interview, 42

106 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


Heritage Tourism...
Modern Cooperative Efforts Further Interpretive Goals .
Objective Interpretation at Andrew Johnson National Historic Si

Chapter V: Management Summaty .............sssssssscesssssssesssssssssseessesssssesseesessnseesssesssssseressenee

Appendix A: Chronology of Andrew Johnson National Historic Site

Appendix B: Principal Legislation

Appendix C: War Department Superintendents, 1908-1942 .....ccsssssssssssissssneineten
Appendix D: National Park Service Superintendents, 1942-2007 wesc

Appendix E: Visitation Statistics ......

Appendix F: Eastern National Park and Monument Association Sales ....

Bibliography

vi Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History

ve 23,

127

129

we 131

133

135


made, it necessarily meant that the landscape of the
development zone would change as new graves were
dug. With a development zone designated,
Superintendent Corey also took the opportunity to
add more parking space within the lower cemetery
behind the entrance gate on Vann Road that was
itself built in the early 1970s. On the topic of
parking, the Lawliss CLR stated that:

visitor parking was not a major consideration
in the original design of the cemetery and
therefore no accommodation was made for
any number of cars. Current administration
allows parallel parking along the entrance
drive. The site does not lend itself to the
development of a parking lot that would not
seriously compromise the historic integrity
and aesthetics of the scene. Therefore, until
accommodations can be made outside the
cemetery grounds, the present policy should
be continued.41>

Corey felt the cemetery required more parking and
despite the recommendation above, he added it.
However, the parking was added within the newly
designated development zone. At the same time,
Corey met an important recommendation of the
CLR—to improve the appearance of the breach in
the historic cemetery wall along Vann Road by
realigning the wall sections previously moved and
by erecting two new concrete pilasters similar in
design to those at the historic front entrance. The
iron entrance gate was also lengthened and designed
to use a hinge system similar to that used at the front
gate.416 Thus, the superintendent balanced the
needs of the cemetery’s operational requirements
with the historical recommendations of the CLR.
The authenticity of the gate was improved and while
anew four-car parking area was added, it was within
the development zone.

The next important change to the cemetery
landscape was the rehabilitation of the Cemetery
Lodge. During the renovation, staff devised a plan to
relocate the park’s administrative offices to the
structure. Once the decision to adapt the building
for a new use was made, the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) required that the building be

415. Lawliss, Andrew Johnson National Cemetery, 22.

416. Mark Corey, Section 106 Completion Report for ANJO-
93-11 “Reconstruct Vann Road entrance and
construction of access road,” October 31, 1994, in
Section 106 files, CRD, SERO. The project was
completed on October 27, 1994.

FIGURE 44. A view of the Vann Road entrance to the
National Cemetery in 1994 when it was being
reconfigured to better match the historic front
gate.

made accessible to disabled employees and visitors,
and Corey chose the most expedient means to meet
a portion of its requirements in order to move park
offices. The Lodge is a National Register property
and a key contributing feature of the National
Cemetery’s cultural landscape identified in the
CLR. Resting within the designated historic zone,
the construction of the ADA ramp made a definite
impact on the historic integrity of the cemetery’s
cultural landscape. It also greatly offended former
park historian Hugh Lawing, who raised serious
concerns about the ramp and other issues relating to
management of the development zone within the
cemetery.417

Another issue within the historic zone is the CLR’s
recommendation to restore the historic stable and
move the maintenance area off-site. Park priorities
and funding have not allowed action on this issue,
but it remains a consideration for future managers.
The Cemetery Lodge ADA ramp did impact the
cultural landscape and did raise criticism by Lawing
and others. In the aftermath, restoration of the
historic stable might seem a higher priority as a way
to balance the negative impact of the ramp.

After examining the Cemetery Lodge ADA ramp,
Hugh Lawing became concerned with other aspects

417. Hugh A. Lawing, Letters to Mark Corey,
Superintendent, October 16 and November 13, 2001;
both in folder marked “Hugh Lawing File,” tocated in
the superintendent's office, AJNHS; See also Lawing,
Oral Interview by Connie Aiken, 22-23.

National Park Service 83


FIGURE 18. Supt. Lloyd Abelson, 1980. (ANJO
Coll)

that included a small diesel tractor, electric and “gas
haulsters,” an energy computer, and a solar
panel.'!5 The following year saw even more
exhibitors—forty-one, the highest ever—but
unfortunately cold weather meant that “only
dedicated customers” turned out.!!6

Another feature at the Hobby Fair in 1981 was
interpretation of the new herb garden, planted the
year before. Volunteers and exhibitors explained
the garden’s use and sold herbs and soap. It was
known that Andrew Johnson had a garden, but
herbs are not mentioned. The NPS garden included
both cooking herbs, such as chives, oregano,
tarragon, and marjoram, and medicinal herbs, such
as marigold and comfrey.!!7

Sadly, Lloyd Abelson did not have much time to
enjoy the garden as his life was cut short in
September 1982. His obituary in the Greenville Sun
ran the next day:

Death On-Duty of Superintendent Lloyd A.
Abelson

Late in the afternoon of September 13, 1982,
Superintendent Lloyd A. Abelson suffered a
heart attack while working in his office.
Administrative Officer Opal Coffman was the

115. SANR for 1980, February 5, 1981.
116. SANR for 1981, February 8, 1982.
117, “Herb Harvest,” Greeneville Sun, June 28, 1980, 11.

28 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History

only employee on hand. She called police
immediately after Abelson suddenly coughed
and developed difficulty breathing. Coffman
did not have first aid training, although she
sought help from an unnamed pickup truck
driver whom she stopped on the street. A few
minutes later, an ambulance arrived and
rescuers started CPR and IV treatment and
rushed Abelson to Takoma Adventist
Hospital, where he later died. He was sixty
years old.1'8

Abelson joined the Park Service in 1956 after
completing Mankata State Teachers College and
teaching history in Pipestone, Minnesota. Before
becoming superintendent of Andrew Johnson,
Abelson served as chief historian at Cumberland
Gap National Historical Park, where he began in
1960." Of him, the Greeneville Sun said that
“Abelson’s involvement in community activities and
personal character have brought him the respect of
National Park Service personnel as well as members
of the community.”!2¢

Abelson had overseen the National Cemetery for
twelve years. He had also flown for the Navy in
World War Il and space was found for his interment
on the southern slope of Monument Hill.!2!
Abelson’s casket was born by NPS pallbearers,
mostly maintenance staff and Hugh Lawing, who
assumed acting responsibility until a new
superintendent could be found.”

In October 1982, Regional Director Bob Baker
announced that Grady C. Webb would be
transferred to Andrew Johnson National Historic
Site to take over the management position left
vacant by Lloyd Abelson’s untimely death. Webb
assumed authority on November 17, 1982. Before
coming to Andrew Johnson, Webb was
superintendent of Fort Pulaski National Monument
near Savannah, Georgia.!73

118. “Lloyd Abelson Dies at 60,” Greeneville Sun,
September 14, 1982, 6.

119. Ibid.

120. Ibid.

121. Everett W. Chandler, “Ranger Remembers Veterans at
National Cemetery,” Greeneville Sun, November 2,
1990. Incidentally, Chandler, who was a counselor at
South Greene High School, retired in 1998 as a part-
time ranger after thirty-six years of service at AJNHS.

122. Hugh Lawing, Oral Interview by Connie Aiken
(Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina,
2002), 3.


available at the park.>4 Instead, the material went to
Greeneville’s Tusculum College where it helped
inspire creation of the President Andrew Johnson
Museum and Library, which opened in 1994.
Bartlett died in early August 1992, and at her
request, her funeral was held at the Homestead and
she was buried near her parents in the Johnson
section of the National Cemetery.

Cultural Landscape. A generic plan for the grounds
of the Homestead was developed in the late 1950s,
but it provided little guidance for the ongoing
maintenance of the site. Superintendents Lloyd
Abelson, Grady Webb, and Mark Corey all sought to
prepare a landscape plan for Andrew Johnson
Homestead to provide guidance on managing the
landscape, but all were hampered by the lack of
documentation. With limited documentation
available, Webb proposed to “research typical
period East Tennessee landscaping and adapt to
existing layout, considering the practical, no frills
character of President Johnson.”

Archeological investigation of the Homestead
grounds was conducted in the 1990s and provided
information for a cultural landscape plan that was
drafted in 1998. However, critics misunderstood its
methodology and objected to its proposed
alterations to a twentieth-century landscape that
gave the Homestead an estate-like feel to which the
local community had long been accustomed. As a
result, that plan was never finalized.

The Early Home. Congress authorized funding for
the Park Service to purchase and renovate the Early
Home in 1963, but development of a plan to restore
the house was hampered by incomplete research
and lack of a definitive plan for the building’s use. In
April 1989, the regional chief for historic
architecture met with Superintendent Gordon
Wilson to discuss a new preservation strategy for the
house and devised a tentative plan to utilize the
Early Home for office space with anticipation that
future funds would permit its interior to be restored
to allow interpretation, In spite of the adverse effect
that resulted from the renovations necessary to
adapt the house to that new use, the park went

543. “National Park Service Here Declines Library
Donation,” (Greeneville Sun], June 27, 1980, in AJNHS
archives. The article was based upon a letter released
by Superintendent Lloyd Abelson from Regional
Director Joe Brown to Margaret Bartlett. The original
letter has not been located.

ahead with a major renovation in the summer of
1990, and the Early Home was finally opened to the
pubic on August 31, 1991, twenty-eight years after
NPS acquisition. The building was primarily used
for park administration, but a ground floor room
was set up for visitors to see how the home’s interior
had been restored to Johnson’s time.

Heritage Tourism. Park staff have long cooperated
and encouraged local civic leaders to back and
promote historical tourism in Greeneville and
Greene County. In turn, town leaders have become
increasingly interested in park affairs. The historic
site is key to local plans to attract visitors. As a result,
the relatively small park has had an influential role
in the affairs of Greene County. The generosity and
public spiritedness of Johnson family members,
especially Margaret Bartlett and Ralph Phinney,
should also be noted in promoting historical
tourism and the historical appreciation of Andrew
Johnson.

Security. Minor theft and acts of vandalism have
been the park’s worst security problems over the
past forty years, although Visitor Center parking
violations were an ongoing headache for three
superintendents until the state welfare office was
relocated. Another problem was the lack of
“concurrent jurisdiction,” which Superintendent
Mark Corey finally resolved to eliminate a ranger
residence requirement at the Cemetery Lodge.

Andrew Johnson National Cemetery. Between
1974 and 1975, the Park Service opened a gate in the
historic National Cemetery wall along Vann Road,
built a loop access road and steps, and began to
develop the lower cemetery. The same project also
expanded the parking area around the cemetery
stable and utility building. These changes hada
negative impact on the historic character of the
National Cemetery, as a later NPS study
determined.“ In 1976, the Service implemented a
new “Cemetery Landscape plan” to manage further
interments and to avoid random site burial
selections. It was needed for, as Abelson noted, the
new road “exceeded expectation in opening up
access to new burial sites.”>45

In May 1987, Rep. Jimmy Quillen introduced the
first of three bills in Congress that sought to expand

544. Lawliss, Andrew Johnson National Cemetery, 21-22.
545. SANR for 1975, February 16, 1976.

National Park Service 115


FIGURE 47._ Jennie Harrison, circa 1973,
performed in the parlor of the Andrew
Johnson Homestead during the park's Piano
Living History Program. Harrison's period dress
was sewn by Ranger Elaine R. Clark.

amount was intended to cover a $54 million per year
increase in funding for research, resource
conservation, and interpretation in the NPS
system.435 In 1987, which was “the Year of the
Constitution,” the park raised the entrance fee
charged at the Homestead from fifty cent to one
dollar.76

In 1992 guided tours were introduced at the
Homestead, which meant that visitor fees once again
had to be collected at the Visitor Center although
there continued to be no charge for visitors to tour
the Visitor Center exhibits and Tailor Shop or the
Early Home across the street. On January 1, 1993,
Congress again raised entrance fees for all parks that
charged one. The admittance fee for the Homestead
then increased from one to two dollars. The fee was
set at the minimum level allowed by Congress, and
did not apply to those under the age of 17 or over
62,437 Throughout the period of this study, in fact,
the park has always charged the lowest fee set by
law.

435. “Fees to be Imposed, Raised at National Parks,”
Greeneville Daily Sun, December 18, 1986.

436. SANR for 1987, February 18, 1988.

437. John M. Jones, Jr, “AJ Home Fee, Tour Method to
Change," Greeneville Sun, December 11, 1992, 1, 7.

Beginning in 1994 the park was authorized to place
all fees collected from Homestead tours into a
“Special Interpretive Program” account allowing the
park to pay for the tour program directly from its
own proceeds, which ran approximately $6,000
annually.*38 The cost for the guided tour of the
Homestead remained at two dollars until 2003,
when it was eliminated altogether.

Park Interpretation
in the 1970s and
1980s

During the summer of 1973, the Piano Living
History Program began. The program involved local
girls who dressed in period attire and alternated the
playing of period tunes in the parlor at the
Homestead on Sunday afternoons. Park Ranger
Elaine R. Clark, who orchestrated the event, wore
an 1870-era dress made by the Harpers Ferry
Historical Association. Clark was assisted by two
young women, Ann Lawing and Jenni Harrison,
who each wore period dresses sewn by Clark.43?
According to Park Historian Hugh Lawing, the
event grew out of the NPS efforts “to create
meaningful ‘living history’ scenes whenever possible
in order that the visitor may experience some of the
sensory conditions that would have been an
intricate part of the restored scene.” The program
was apparently so well received, that it was decided
to make the living history performances a
permanent feature of the park’s summer
activities. That December, Superintendent
Abelson presented Clark an award for “exceptional
service” for her efforts over the past year, especially
for her hand-sewing the two girls’ 1870s-era dresses
on her own time, Regional Director David D.
Thompson, Jr., stated that “the Service is proud to
have employees who are willing to go beyond the
normal requirements of their job in order to
accomplish the program of the park.‘#4

438. SANR for 1993, February 17, 1994.

439. SANR for 1973, January 17, 1974. These dresses were
later used on special occasion, namely the annual
Christmas tours of the Homestead, but originally they
were produced for the summer interpretive program.

440. “Living History Program Ends Successful Program,”

Greeneville Daily Sun, September 24, 1973, 5.
. “Special Recognition for Mrs. Clark,” Greeneville Sun,
December 10, 1973.

g

9 Andrew Johnson National Historic Site Administrative History


proposal. However, the Regional Comptroller
returned the application with a cryptic statement
that the project was a park and regional
responsibility and thus “this package would not be
entered into the multi-year [funding plan].”130
Webb never got funding for the study, and the
problem remained unresolved under the park’s
next superintendent, Gordon Wilson. When later
asked to describe how he had managed the
landscape of the Homestead between 1988 and
1991, Wilson merely noted the loss of “a willow tree
that was probably four or five feet in
circumference.” Unable to recall if the tree was
actually replanted or not, he stated: “I don’t think at
that time that we had a Landscape Plan done for the
Homestead grounds themselves,”'3

Wilson was not operating by any plan, but in 1990,
he executed a positive change in how the
Homestead landscape appeared. He developed a
proposal to remove a non-historic chain-link fence
at the Homestead and to extend an existing wooden
rail fence. His concern was simply to improve the
property’s appearance.

Wilson filed his proposal on December 17, 1990,
and asked to obtain the necessary Section-106
clearance. The non-historic chain-link fence along
the property’s northern boundary was certainly an
eyesore, and Wilson wanted to replace it with a
wooden gate and an extension of an existing hedge.
The other action was to extend an existing split-rail
fence that was constructed along the eastern
boundary of the property during the restoration of
the Homestead in 1958. The extension would trace
the path of an earlier, modern fence that was
removed during construction, leaving a forty-five-
foot gap that was unsightly.'5? Regional cultural
resource specialists supported the proposed action
as did the Tennessee State Historic Preservation

129. Project Statement: Historic Landscape Plan, Andrew
Johnson, 6, in Andrew Johnson National Historic Site
files, “General Correspondence 5/2/71-10/20/93”
folder (1), Division of Architecture, SERO.

130. Chief, Program and Budget Division, SER,
Memorandum (entitled “Historic Landscape Plan,
Package 107...") to Chief, Cultural Resource
Management Division, SER, June 29, 1983, in Andrew
Johnson National Historic Site files, “General
Correspondence 5/2/71-10/20/93" folder (1), Division
of Architecture, SERO.

. Gordon Wilson, Oral Interview by Connie Aiken
(Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina,
2002), 12

13

Office. The Southeast Regional Office wrote the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for its
concurrence on February 5, 1991, explaining “that
the landscaping of the Homestead is more of a
background for the house than the actual period
setting,” as stated in the Homestead’s National
Register nomination.'53 The Advisory Council
concurred on March 28, 1991, that the project
would have “no adverse effect,” and Deputy
Associate Regional Director Paul Hartwig
authorized Wilson to proceed when funds were
available.34 Although the park and regional office
cultural resources staff sometimes clashed as they
tried to identify and develop the appropriate
standards and treatments for historic properties,
Wilson noted that “everybody was glad to see the
chain link go.”!35

In 1992, under Superintendent Mark Corey, the
park again sought to develop an authentic
landscape plan for the Homestead. Corey pushed
the issue farther than any of his predecessors.
Because the park lacked a current plan for the
historic landscape, Corey was left in a murky
situation and decided to replace the Homestead’s
trees “in kind” as they died. His request was
approved on October 28, 1992.16

The next year, Corey, who was more familiar with
the site by then, amended his proposal for replacing
trees in kind to instead base Homestead planting
decisions on the 1958 planting plan, still the only

132. Gordon Wilson, “Assessment of Actions Having an
Effect on Cultural Resources” form for the fence
removal, Andrew Johnson National Historic Site,
December 19, 1990, in Section 106 files,
“Replacement of Fence at the Johnson Homestead”
folder, Division of Cultural Resources, SERO.

133. John E. Ehrehard for Paul B. Hartwig, Deputy
Associate Regional Director, Letter to Robert D. Bush,
Executive Director, Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, February 5, 1991, in Section 106 files,
“Replacement of Fence at the Johnson Homestead”
folder, Division of Cultural Resources, SERO.

134, Paul B. Hartwig, Deputy Associate Regional Director,
Memorandum (entitled “Section 106 Clearance,
replacement of fence at the Johnson Homestead”) to
Superintendent, Andrew Johnson National Historic
Site, April 8, 1991; and Don L. Kima, Director, Eastern
Office of Project Review, Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, Letter to Paul B. Hartwig, Deputy
Associate Regional Director, March 28, 1991, both in
Section 106 files, "Replacement of Fence at the
Johnson Homestead” folder, Division of Cultural
Resources, SERO.

135. Gordon Wilson, Oral Interview by Connie Aiken
(Appalachian State University, Tennessee, 2002), 12.

National Park Service 31