Fort Union NM: An Administrative History

Fort Union

Administrative History

Fort Union National 

Monument

An Administrative History

Liping Zhu

Senior Historian

1992

National Park Service 

Division of History 

Southwest Cultural Resources Center 

Santa Fe, New Mexico 

Professional Papers No. 42 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

foun/adhi/adhi.htm 

Last Updated: 22-Jan-2001

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi.htm [9/7/2007 12:45:45 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Table of Contents)

Fort Union

Administrative History

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures

Dedication

Introduction

Chapter 1: A Frontier Post

Chapter 2: From Ruins To A National Monument

Chapter 3: Rehabilitating and Preserving the Fort

Chapter 4: Interpretation and Visitation

Chapter 5: Natural Resources Management

Chapter 6: Human Threats To The Park

Chapter 7: In Retrospect

Bibliography

Appendix A: Legislation

Appendix B: Personnel

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhit.htm (1 of 3) [9/7/2007 12:45:46 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Table of Contents)

Appendix C: Visitation

Index (omitted from on-line edition)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

1. Region: Fort Union National Monument

2. Site Map: Fort Union National Monument

3. Officers' Quarters in 1875

4. Officers' Quarters, Post of Fort Union, in the 1870s

5. The Mechanic's Corral, Fort Union Depot, in 1866

6. By 1912 Officers' Quarters had already become ruins

7. Fort Union Hospital in 1939

8. In April 1959, the permanent visitor center was to be completed

9. In late 1956, the stabilization team first worked on the remaining chimneys

10. Carlos Lovato, Ike Trujillo, Benito Lucero, and Dionicio Ulibarri stabilizing the wall of the 

Commissary Warehouse, October 1958

11. Acting Chief Ranger T.J. Sperry and his wife Nicky Sperry doing daily interpretive activities in the 

summer of 1990

12. Acting Chief Ranger T.J. Sperry and Ranger Frank Torres were two key players during the 1991 

living history program

13. Two employees stand before a fire cache in the 1982 fire drill

14. A Canada goose posed itself in front of the Officers' Quarters and hissed at visitors through most of 

the spring of 1984

15. In several cases, angry visitors who arrived just after the park's business hours bumped their cars 

against the locked gates to break into the park

16. On October 7, 1984, a man from Dalbart, Texas illegally landed a single-engine plane near the 

hospital ruins 

DEDICATION

To My Grandmother, Mother, and Father

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhit.htm (2 of 3) [9/7/2007 12:45:46 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Table of Contents)

foun/adhi/adhit.htm 

Last Updated: 22-Jan-2001

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhit.htm (3 of 3) [9/7/2007 12:45:46 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Introduction)

Fort Union

Administrative History

INTRODUCTION

Few places today inspire imagination about the American frontier experience as does Fort Union 

National Monument. Located in the Mora Valley in northeastern New Mexico, the 720-acre National 

Park Service domain contains an array of cultural and natural resources. Its principal features--the ruts of 

the Santa Fe Trail, the ruins of the Fort Union military post, and the dazzling prairie scenery--daily 

attract American travelers. The place has been serving society as a museum of the past, a classroom in 

the present, and a model for the future. Certainly it deserves the honor of a national treasure.

With the annexation of northern Mexico in 1848, the United States assumed the entire burden of 

protecting the Santa Fe Trail. The frequent Indian raids on travelers and settlers brought 1,300 soldiers 

to New Mexico. In 1851, Lt. Col. Edwin V. Sumner, the commander of the Department of New Mexico, 

decided to establish Fort Union at the junction of the two branches of the Santa Fe Trail in order to 

provide more effective protection for the region. With its troops constantly repelling Indian raiders, the 

fort soon won fame as the guardian of the Santa Fe Trail. When the Civil War broke out, the 

Confederacy attempted to seize the post as part of a plan to take New Mexico, carry the war into 

Colorado Territory, and threaten California. But the Confederates' dream died at the battle of Glorieta 

Pass, where Union soldiers from Fort Union were victorious over the invading Southern columns. In the 

quarter-century after the war, Fort Union contrived to help American settlers and played a key role in 

many of the Indian wars. At one time, it was the largest military post west of the Mississippi River. In 

1891, a year after the traditional closing of the frontier, Fort Union was abandoned.

In the following 65 years, Fort Union suffered at the hands of a private owner, Union Land and Grazing 

Company. Because the company had little interest in using the buildings, the fort was left unattended. 

Consequently, foraging cattle, salvagers, and the merciless course of nature worked together and quickly 

turned the fort into ruins. In 1929, the Free Masons in Las Vegas became the first group to attempt to 

save the ruins of Fort Union, the birthplace of their lodge. The Masons took their cause to Congress and 

convinced Rep. Albert Simms of New Mexico to introduce a bill asking the federal government to 

preserve the historic site. The bill never reached the floor to face a vote. In the next 25 years, New 

Mexicans tried unsuccessfully several times to get congressional protection of the old fort. The land 

owner's stiff opposition easily defeated their efforts. Beginning in the early 1950s, the campaign for the 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi0.htm (1 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:45:47 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Introduction)

preservation of the fort gained momentum. With public support, Rep. John Dempsey of New Mexico 

again submitted a bill to establish Fort Union National Monument to the 82nd Congress. H.R. 1005 

passed both houses, and President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed it into law on June 28, 1954. Public 

Law 430 established Fort Union National Monument.

After Union Land and Grazing Company donated the land, the National Park Service officially took 

control of Fort Union. On June 8, 1956, the monument opened to the public. Meanwhile, the Park 

Service began to implement a comprehensive program that included the excavation, preservation, and 

interpretation of the fort's ruins. Within three years, Fort Union developed into a fully operational 

monument and held its dedication ceremony on June 14, 1959. With the exception of the period from 

1980 to 1987, when its administration was combined with that of Capulin Mountain National 

Monument, Fort Union has been managed independently.

Figure 1. Region: Fort Union National Monument 

(click on map for a larger image)

Through the park's history, the preservation of the ruins has posed the greatest challenge to management. 

Although the aged adobe walls have kept shrinking, the park staff has never yielded in its determination 

to preserve the ruins and has improved preservation methods. Also, the park administration has made 

great efforts to interpret the historic site. After nearly two decades of applying traditional interpretive 

methods such as museum exhibits and written explanations, park officials initiated a living history 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi0.htm (2 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:45:47 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Introduction)

program, which set the tone for future interpretive activities. During the first 36 years, the management 

of the park's cultural and natural resources was remarkable.

Fort Union's rich past attracts many scholars and researchers, but an overwhelming number of them 

show interest only in the fort's first four decades, from 1851 to 1891, when it served as a frontier post. 

Without denying the significant role that the fort played in winning the American West, there are also 

numerous fascinating stories about the place after its glorious frontier days, particularly in the last 36 

years. This period deserves a comprehensive study that is long overdue. As a Western American history 

fellow at the University of New Mexico, I happily accepted the Park Service's assignment to bring the 

history of Fort Union up to the present time. The existence of enough books and articles about the Fort 

Union Military Post advises me not to spend too much ink on the fort's first 100 years. My work deals 

primarily with the period from 1956 to 1991, in other words, the administrative history of Fort Union 

National Monument.

This work has benefited from the assistance of many people. I would like to thank Superintendent Harry 

Myers and his staff, including T. J. Sperry, Frank Torres, Debbie Archuleta, Albert Dominguez, Teddy 

Garcia, Bob Martinez, Manuel de Herrera, and others, for their patience and cooperation throughout the 

course of this project. They not only answered my numerous questions and directed me to proper 

documents but also provided me with a pleasant research environment and constant friendship. In 

particular, Myers and Sperry read every chapter of the first draft; their critical but constructive 

comments helped the project move in the right direction. Indeed, I feel fortunate to have had the 

opportunity to work with them at Fort Union.

Undoubtedly, my endeavor could not have succeeded without the support of the National Park Service 

Southwest Regional Office. Its special funds made this project possible. During my research trips, 

Regional Librarian Amalin Ferguson and librarian Cordelia Friedman showed their willingness to help 

me to find needed documents. Here, I express my deep appreciation. However, the person who has 

influenced me most is Regional Historian Neil Mangum. Overseeing the project from the very 

beginning, he has offered insightful criticism and thoughtful opinions. His frequent visits to the 

University of New Mexico campus gave me more opportunities to improve my study.

Finally, I would like to thank many of my colleagues in the Department of History. Their moral support 

kept me working at a steady pace. Although Professor Paul Hutton was not directly involved in the 

project, his teaching and scholarship plus his communication skills were extremely helpful in the 

completion of the work. Three of these sincere friends and colleagues deserve special mention here. 

They are Jolane Culhane, Aaron P. Mahr, and Christopher Huggard, who have carefully corrected many 

writing mistakes in the manuscript. Jolane Culhane provided a major hand in the final editing of the 

paper. All of them have contributed to the study's success but I am fully responsible for any errors that 

remain.

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi0.htm (3 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:45:47 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Introduction)

Figure 2. Site Map: Fort Union National Monument 

(click on map for a larger image)

This year is the hundredth anniversary of the close of the American frontier and Fort Union as a military 

post. It is a perfect time to commemorate those who won the West. Although my work has little to do 

with honoring the frontiersmen, it shows an appreciation of those who have preserved the historic site. 

They are keeping our frontier heritage alive.

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 >>>

foun/adhi/adhi0.htm 

Last Updated: 22-Jan-2001

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi0.htm (4 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:45:47 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 1)

Fort Union

Administrative History

CHAPTER 1: A FRONTIER POST

Figure 3. Fort Union was once the largest military post west of the Mississippi River. Officers' Quarters 

in 1875. 

Courtesy of the National Archives.

The ruins of Fort Union, New Mexico, stand as a monument to the American frontier experience. The 

Southwest became a meeting place for various migrants throughout our nation's history as people from 

all directions moved into the area and built their homes. Constant military conflict and continuous 

cultural exchange among different ethnic groups has made the region legendary in American folklore. 

As a military post established to protect travel and settlement from 1851 to 1891, Fort Union witnessed 

many fascinating events in the course of western American history. A century later, the site of the old 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi1.htm (1 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:45:48 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 1)

fort remains as a vestige of the great American epic.

Fort Union National Monument is located in the Mora Valley in northeastern New Mexico at the 

westernmost edge of the Great Plains. On its way to join the Mora River, a southward flow of Wolf 

Creek softly touches the western boundary of the park. In the distance, the Turkey Mountains vigilantly 

guard its eastern border. Surrounded by a sea of grama grass, the park presents an authentic plains 

atmosphere even though it is only eight miles from the nearest town, Watrous, twenty-eight miles from 

Las Vegas, and ninety miles from Santa Fe. Despite its relative isolation, Fort Union is easily accessible 

from New Mexico Highway 161, which also links the fort to Interstate Highway 25 at Watrous.

At 6,700 feet, Fort Union has an environment conducive to abundant plant and animal life. The Mora 

Valley climate is mild without great extremes of heat or cold; the average annual temperature at the 

monument is 49.2 Fahrenheit. July has the highest monthly temperature at 69.7 Fahrenheit, and 

December the lowest at 33.1 Fahrenheit. Precipitation measures 18.01 inches per year. More than 80% 

of the annual precipitation comes between May and November. [1] Although it is in a semi-arid zone, 

the Mora Valley receives enough rainfall to support stands of ponderosa, which thrive on the mountain 

slopes. Juniper, piñon pine, and blue grama grass grow at lower elevations in the foothills. [2] In 

addition to the vegetation, more than 50 species of animals such as prairie dogs, rattlesnakes, Canada 

geese, and burrowing owls have also made their homes in the area. Occasionally, a few bald eagles visit 

the valley. [3] Lush pasturage, abundant timber, and numerous ponds make the Mora Valley a desirable 

spot for settlement.

Like most parts of northern New Mexico, the Mora Valley served as a refuge for at least five Indian 

tribes long before the arrival of Europeans. Navajos, Apaches, Utes, Kiowas, and Comanches either 

lived, passed through, or fought in the valley, but few written documents and little archeological 

evidence exists to retell the lives of these nomadic tribes.

By the mid-sixteenth century, life in this region began to change dramatically after European contact. 

With dreams of finding the seven cities of Golden Quivira, the Spanish Crown was first to encourage 

exploration of this vast new area. Francisco Vasquez de Coronado nearly reached the Mora Valley 

during his famous expedition of 1540-1542. After failing to discover gold, the Spaniards began to 

consider settling New Mexico. In 1598 the Spaniards built their first houses at San Juan near present day 

Española. Gradually, a chain of settlements emerged along the Rio Grande. Throughout the next 200 

years, in fact, Santa Fe attracted many new immigrants, but on the east side of the Sangre de Cristo 

Mountains, where the Mora Valley lay, there was little settlement until the late 1810s.

Leaving the northern frontier of New Spain unprotected, the Spanish unknowingly allowed AngloAmericans to encroach into the area from the north. As early as 1802, a Pennsylvanian beaver trapper, 

James Purcell, adventured into New Mexico from Missouri via Colorado. In 1805, after running out of 

supplies and pelts, Purcell searched in New Mexico for other means of profit. He decided to mine gold, 

which he traded to local citizens for goods. Spanish officials in Santa Fe learned of Purcell's activities 

and ordered him to report for questioning as to his real intention. When he refused to comply with the 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi1.htm (2 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:45:48 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 1)

order, they incarcerated him. He was detained until 1824. [4] Purcell became "the first American who 

had ever penetrated the immense wilds of Louisiana." Capt. Zebulon Pike of the 6th U.S. Infantry 

followed in Purcell's footsteps. Under the instruction of the United States a small military team moved 

west to reconnoiter a potential territory for expansion. Initiating his exploration in the Rocky Mountains 

in 1806, Pike and his soldiers reached the headwaters of the Rio Grande in Colorado's San Luis Valley 

by early 1807. Spanish dragoons, however, discovered the Americans and ordered them to Santa Fe, due 

to their violation of international boundaries. The Spanish finally released him in June 1807, and by 

1810 his adventures were published as the Pike Journals. [5]

Early American adventurers like Purcell and Pike threatened the northern frontier of New Spain and 

created a struggle for dominance in the region. Pike, in particular, with his memoir, mobilized support 

among the American public. His writings informed Americans of the possibilities for investment. 

Yankee merchants immediately realized New Mexico's market potential for American goods, after 

reading that local people had to haul most of their commodities 2,000 miles from Veracruz, Mexico. In 

the same year that Pike told of his adventures, a revolution broke out in New Spain, which culminated 

with Mexico's independence in 1821.

Infant Mexico lost no time in welcoming American traders to Santa Fe and abandoning the old Spanish 

system, which had prohibited American traders in New Spain. Meanwhile American merchants did not 

hesitate to accept the "invitation" and to inaugurate the Santa Fe trade. With several other enterprising 

Missourians, William Becknell was one of the first American merchants to send mule pack-trains 

westward. He crossed 800 miles of prairie and arrived in Santa Fe in the fall of 1821. Governor Facundo 

Melgares warmly received Becknell and the other Missourians, expressing "a desire that the Americans 

would keep up an intercourse with that country." [6] The Mexicans were so interested in American trade 

that it led historian David Weber to write that "Americans were as eager to sell as Mexicans were to 

buy." [7]

This Santa Fe trade, as well as the Santa Fe Trail, would significantly shape the history of the Southwest. 

On his second trip to Santa Fe in the spring of 1822, Becknell blazed a short cut by way of the Cimarron 

River, thereby avoiding the mountainous Raton Pass. The Cimarron Cutoff of the Santa Fe Trail 

intersected the Mountain Branch in the Mora Valley. [8] In 1825 a military surveying party under 

George C. Sibley marked out a suitable route from Kansas to New Mexico. By 1830 the Santa Fe Trail, 

an international highway between Mexico and the U.S., had been established, producing an even greater 

volume of trade.

Situated at the junction of the two routes of the Santa Fe Trail, the Mora Valley, with both strategic and 

economic importance, quickly became a focal point of concern for Mexican authorities. The best way to 

defend an area was to populate it. As early as 1816, a few families of New Spain moved into the western 

Mora Valley on the eastern slope of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. Since the dying Spanish regime 

was unable to protect all the settlers against attack by the Plains Indians, nobody dared to go farther east. 

Most of the rich valley remained unsettled. [9] However, the young Mexican government showed its 

anxieties to defend this area. In 1835 Albino Perez, governor of New Mexico, granted 827,621 acres of 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi1.htm (3 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:45:48 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 1)

land including most of the valley to Jose Tapia and 75 others to initiate Mexican policies. [10] More 

settlers moved into the valley. The future site of Fort Union was at the center of the Mora Grant. In the 

next ten years, however, the valley sheltered more travelers than settlers since the Santa Fe trade was 

increasing at a magnificent rate. In dollars, the volume rose from $15,000 in 1822 to $450,000 in 1843. 

[11] By the eve of the Mexican War, Americans had become commonplace in the Mora Valley.

Soon the number of Americans was overwhelming. When war broke out in 1846 between the United 

States and Mexico, the Santa Fe Trail was transformed into a military road. Following the old wagon 

ruts that formed the trail, Brig. Gen. Stephen Watts Kearny led his conquering army swiftly into New 

Mexico and raised the United States flag without any resistance. On this journey, General Kearny and 

his troops camped one night near where Fort Union would later stand. [12] Under the Treaty of 

Guadalupe Hidalgo the United States annexed New Mexico and California in 1848, turning the Santa Fe 

Trail from an "international highway into a national highway," linking the new territory with the rest of 

the country. [13]

Alexander Barclay, an American frontiersman born in Britain, was one of the first persons to realize the 

strategic location of the Mora Valley. An increasing number of Kearny's baggage trains and the 

government's freight wagons passing through the region meant more services were needed along the 

road. Barclay, therefore, selected the junction of the Mora and Sapello rivers, about six miles south of 

where Fort Union was later built, for his trading post. On June 11, 1848, he "laid the first doby of fort 

and fired cannon...." [14] Although he maintained contact with the military leaders and local 

communities, Barclay struggled to make his venture a self-sufficient and financially rewarding 

enterprise. If Indian raiders left his cattle and horses alone and his post profited some what, Barclay 

hoped that in the future he could sell the fort to the United States government. [15] Like Bent's Fort, a 

center for Indian trade in Colorado, where he had served as superintendent, Barclay's trading station 

played an essential role in shaping the Santa Fe Trail.

CONTINUE >>>

foun/adhi/adhi1.htm 

Last Updated: 22-Jan-2001

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi1.htm (4 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:45:48 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 2)

Fort Union

Administrative History

CHAPTER 2: FROM RUINS TO A NATIONAL MONUMENT

Figure 6. After the abandonment of Fort Union in 1891, the place was open to tourists and looters. 

Their activities accelerated the deterioration of the buildings. 

By 1912 Officers' Quarters had already become ruins. 

Courtesy of Katherine Hand.

On February 21, 1891, singing "There's a Land that is Fairer than This," the Tenth Infantry marched out 

from Fort Union for good. One non-commissioned person stayed as a caretaker. [1] Three years later, 

the War Department relinquished claim to the land on which Fort Union stood. Finally both the land and 

title reverted to the original owners of the Mora Land Grant.

By then the extensive ranchlands surrounding Fort Union had passed into the hands of the descendants 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi2.htm (1 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:45:50 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 2)

of Maj. Gen. Benjamin F. Butler of Civil War fame. He purchased the lands from the claimants of the 

Mora Grant in the mid-1870s. When the military abandoned Fort Union, the Butler-Ames Cattle 

Company, (later the Union Land and Grazing Company, formed in 1885), inherited the title to the fort. 

Initially, the Butler-Ames Cattle Company tried to utilize the abandoned fort for economic and social 

purposes. On January 12, 1895, Paul Butler, Blanches Butler Ames, and Adelbert Ames, owners of the 

company, entered into a contract with Dr. William D. Gentry of Illinois to lease the buildings to be used 

as a sanitarium. According to the contract, the owners were responsible for repairing the buildings. For 

reasons unknown, the contract was never fulfilled. In the next 60 years, the company made no attempt to 

use the fort except to open it to cattle grazing. [2]

Although the Butler-Ames Cattle Company had little interest in reinhabiting the buildings, quite a few 

people did make an effort to live in the fort. After Fort Union's abandonment, several soldiers managed 

to stay there and ran cattle in the area. Nobody ever attempted to evict the squatters, who later moved 

away. [3] Since troops left almost everything there, Fort Union contained a large quantity of lumber and 

other construction materials, which interested local residents from the nearby communities of Loma 

Parda and Watrous. Whenever a family wanted to repair or even to build a house, the people went to the 

ruins of Fort Union to find what they needed. In Watrous, almost all the windows, doors, and vigas in 

the houses came from Fort Union. [4] They first took materials from the officers' and company quarters, 

then from the mechanics' corral, followed by the warehouses, and finally the hospital. Also, curiosity 

seekers often took items home. Rising above the open prairie, Fort Union invited scavengers and 

souvenir hunters.

Mother nature was as destructive as vandals. At the beginning unskilled soldiers had built the fort with 

adobe bricks and unseasoned, unhewn, and unbarked pine logs. Consequently, it decayed rapidly. The 

buildings of Fort Union required constant repair even during the period of occupation. A military wife, 

Genevieve LaTourrette, later recalled, "Toward the latter years at Fort Union, the quarters needed 

renovating badly....Roofs were leaking in the quarters to the extent that we went around with 

umbrellas." [5] The adobe walls, in particular, were vulnerable to all kinds of weather. After the fort's 

abandonment, the condition of the buildings deteriorated faster than ever. Along with vandalism, the 

sun, rain, snow, and wind turned the fort to ruins.

The first serious attempt to preserve the ruins of Fort Union as a historic site came in 1929 when the 

Freemasons in Las Vegas, New Mexico, called for the establishment of a national monument. Fort 

Union was the birthplace of two Masonic Lodges--Chapman Lodge No. 95 (later Chapman Lodge No. 

2) and Union Lodge No. 480 (later Union Lodge No. 4). On March 28, 1862, some zealous Masons set 

up a new lodge under the dispensation of the Grand Lodge of Missouri. They named it Chapman Lodge 

in honor of Lt. Col. William Chapman, who was then in command of Fort Union. Many officers and 

enlisted men belonged to the lodge and attended the meetings regularly in the "House of the Good 

Templars." In 1867 the Army requested that the lodge be moved outside the government reservation, 

apparently for military reasons. The lodge was moved to Las Vegas. In 1874 another group of Masons 

asked for permission to establish a Masonic Lodge at Fort Union. This time they called it Union Lodge, 

which met in the fort until 1891. Then it moved to Watrous. [6]

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi2.htm (2 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:45:50 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 2)

With a purpose to enshrine the birthplace of the Chapman Lodge and the Union Lodge, Masons in Las 

Vegas became the first to ask for preservation of the ruins of Fort Union. On January 23, 1929, they 

appointed a four-person committee chaired by W. J. Lucas to "have Fort Union declared a national 

monument." [7] Taking the issue to Santa Fe, the committee successfully persuaded the state legislature 

to pass a joint resolution to petition Congress. In Joint Resolution No. 12 of 1929 the legislature of the 

State of New Mexico respectfully petitioned "the Congress of the United States to set aside this historic 

site and to preserve and maintain Fort Union as a National Monument." [8]

The campaign for the Fort Union National Monument soon gained support among the lawmakers of 

New Mexico. On April 20, 1930, Rep. Albert Gallatin Simms of New Mexico introduced a bill (H.R. 

11146) in the 71st Congress, asking the Federal Government "to provide for the study, investigation, and 

survey, for commemorative purposes, of the Glorieta Pass, Pigeon Ranch, Apache Canyon battlefields, 

and of Old Fort Union in the State of New Mexico." [9] At this time, the nation was suffering the 

economic woes of the Great Depression. It was hard to imagine that Washington would pay much 

attention to the ruins of an old fort in New Mexico. Not surprisingly, the bill died in the House 

Committee on Military Affairs.

Even though the Great Depression temporarily halted work toward the preservation of Fort Union, New 

Mexico did not give up their struggle for a national monument. Articles on Fort Union frequently 

appeared in New Mexico's newspapers and magazines. In the mid-1930s the National Park Service also 

reintroduced hope for the preservation of the fort by showing interest in the ruins of Fort Union. Roger 

W. Toll of Rocky Mountain National Park drove down to the Mora Valley to inspect the "Proposed Fort 

Union National Monument" in December 1935. He took some notes and photographs and collected a 

few published articles. On March 24, 1936, the superintendent of Rocky Mountain National Park 

forwarded Toll's report and gatherings to Washington. [10] Toll's efforts provided the National Park 

Service with a first-hand account of the condition of the ruins. These actions also gave renewed hope 

that the fort would be salvaged for future generations to learn from and enjoy.

After receiving Toll's initial account, the National Park Service decided to make an additional study of 

the fort. In 1937 Edward Steere of the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings was assigned to write a 

frontier history of Fort Union. Within a year he finished a 108-page report entitled "Fort Union, Its 

Economic and Military History." [11] In this well-researched paper, he indicated that Fort Union played 

an important role in the development of the territory of New Mexico. The study not only provided the 

Park Service with the first comprehensive history of Fort Union, but also supplied the administrators 

with information on the urgency for preservation of the site.

CONTINUE >>>

foun/adhi/adhi2.htm 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi2.htm (3 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:45:50 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 2)

Last Updated: 22-Jan-2001

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi2.htm (4 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:45:50 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 3)

Fort Union

Administrative History

CHAPTER 3: REHABILITATING AND PRESERVING THE FORT

Figure 8. In April 1959, the permanent visitor center was to be completed. 

The sign in front of the building again indicated that the MISSION 66 program played a significant role 

in the development of Fort Union National Monument. 

Courtesy of Fort Union National Monument.

The rehabilitation and preservation of the ruins of Fort Union have been extremely difficult tasks. 

Unlike the stirring campaign to secure the legal title to the land, the tedious daily routines to keep the 

ruins in optimum condition for the public have required more effort and resources. After acquiring Fort 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi3.htm (1 of 3) [9/7/2007 12:45:50 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 3)

Union in 1956, the National Park Service promptly developed it into an active national monument to 

greet interested visitors. Since then the Park Service Southwest Regional Office has devoted a 

considerable amount of money and manpower to the preservation of the remaining structures in order to 

keep deterioration to a minimum. As a faithful caretaker for 36 years, the National Park Service has 

done an admirable job in rehabilitating and preserving the historic site of Fort Union.

A few months before Fort Union joined the national park system, the Region Three Office (the present 

day Southwest Regional Office) had already started the development of the proposed national 

monument. On December 6, 1955, Kittridge A. Wing of Bandelier National Monument in New Mexico 

took up residence in Las Vegas as a Park Service representative. From there he personally supervised the 

construction of the entrance road, which was the first project at the monument. Twelve days later, he 

accepted appointment as acting superintendent of Fort Union National Monument and converted his 

rented residence into a temporary office. [1] At the end of 1955, Floyd Haake Construction Company of 

Albuquerque began to build a 7.6-mile road from U.S. Highway 85 to the fort. [2] Because of "perfect 

weather conditions," the construction progressed rapidly. By March 1956, the two-lane road across the 

prairie, with a concrete bridge over Wolf Creek and two cattle underpasses, was ready for surfacing. It 

took several more months to complete the paving. The Park Service accepted the road in early June.

While the new road was traversing on the prairie toward Fort Union, administrators at the regional office 

in Santa Fe labored at their plans for the physical development of the monument. A few of the major 

issues were the placement of buildings and utilities, the layout of trails, and the stabilization of the ruins. 

The Park Service first contrived to erect living quarters. On March 1, 1956, the fort received two house 

trailers from the Public Housing Administration of Piketon, Ohio. Before the Mora Electrical 

Cooperative extended service to the fort, Wing arranged to temporarily connect the trailers to utility 

lines at the nearby Needham Ranch owned by the Union Land and Grazing Company. [3] On May 5, he 

moved from Las Vegas and occupied one of the trailers at the fort. For the first time, the Park Service 

had a representative living close enough to monitor the fort daily. During that same month, Fort Union 

also obtained a 16'x20' wooden cabin from Los Alamos to serve as the temporary office and visitor 

center. [4]

In addition, Wing brought Clifford W. Mills, a seasonal ranger, from Los Alamos to assist him. The two 

immediately began work on a tentative visitor trail, which they finished within a month. Although Fort 

Union now had a visitor center, an interpretive trail, and living quarters, all of them were temporary. The 

physical development of the monument was just beginning.

Despite the few service facilities available at Fort Union, the Park Service was anxious to open the site 

to the public. On June 8, 1956, after two months of careful planning by Wing and Ross Thompson, the 

monument held a ribbon-cutting ceremony. In the morning, a sixty-piece band from New Mexico 

Highlands University in Las Vegas welcomed more than six hundred people. A rostrum and red ribbon 

straddled the new road about a mile southwest of the fort. Cutting the ribbon with a nineteenth-century 

cavalry saber donated by Harry and Sam Wells, Governor John F. Simms officially opened the 

monument. [5] Speakers congratulated those who had brought the plans for the establishment of the 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi3.htm (2 of 3) [9/7/2007 12:45:50 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 3)

monument to a successful conclusion. After that, most of the crowd jumped into their cars and formed a 

motorcade of 150 vehicles behind the governor's sedan, and drove to the monument. At the end of the 

program, Fort Union, Inc., treated everybody to a luncheon. [6] The opening ceremony, as Wing said, 

began "Fort Union's new life."

In reality, Fort Union's "new life" meant a full-scale effort toward rehabilitation and development. As 

soon as the honeymoon was over, the monument entered the first period of intensive construction, which 

focused on service facilities and ruins stabilization. Preventing the entry of cattle onto the site was one 

of the Park Service's main concerns. On June 29, 1956, Steve Franken of Las Vegas received a contract 

for $5,048 to fence both parcels of the monument (the Third Fort and the Arsenal). [7] Franken 

completed the perimeter fencing of the Third Fort area in less than a month. In early August, he enclosed 

the Arsenal. The completion of the fencing marked "the final exclusion of stock and the beginning of 

recovery of the grasses from recent overgrazing." [8]

CONTINUE >>>

foun/adhi/adhi3.htm 

Last Updated: 22-Jan-2001

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi3.htm (3 of 3) [9/7/2007 12:45:50 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 4)

Fort Union

Administrative History

CHAPTER 4: INTERPRETATION AND VISITATION

Figure 11. Since 1974 living history has been a major interpretive method of the fort. 

This photograph shows Acting Chief Ranger T. J. Sperry and his wife Nicki Sperry doing daily 

interpretive activities in the summer of 1990. 

Courtesy of Fort Union National Monument.

As one of the Park Service's main objectives for management, the knowledgeable presentation of this 

historic site to the public often takes a great deal of administrative effort. Working closely with the 

regional office, local community, and various experts, the park staff has been skillfully conducting an 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi4.htm (1 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:45:52 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 4)

unending dialogue between the past and the present by making the monument a showcase of American 

frontier history for the visitor. Because of its excellent interpretive program developed in the past 36 

years, Fort Union National Monument stands as an inspiring classroom, as well as tourist stop.

At the beginning, poverty struck every corner of the proposed Fort Union National Monument. Nonexistence of any support facilities and the lack of interpretive material and reference information about 

the fort's past posed a major obstacle to the establishment of an operational park. In 1955, when the Park 

Service started developing it, the only comprehensive study of Fort Union available was Edward Steere's 

108-page report written in 1938. With a limited amount of literature on the subject, the monument had to 

compile a tour guide for future patrons. Also, a visitor trail containing explanatory signs was necessary. 

The park's first administration, which had only one person, faced a tough challenge to meet these needs.

Acting Superintendent Wing lost no time in creating a temporary interpretive program. As soon as he 

took up residence in Las Vegas, he started to compose an interpretive leaflet. Within three weeks, Wing 

produced the first draft of the text and sent it to Santa Fe for comment. After he finished writing it in late 

December 1955, he began to plan a self-guided tour of the Third Fort in anticipation of opening the 

monument to the public in the following summer. [1] It took another two months to complete the plan 

for a temporary visitor route. At the same time, Anna Wing drew the cover design for the leaflet. [2] It 

showed a covered wagon in the foreground with the ruins of the fort in the distance. By the spring of 

1956, the monument was ready for full-scale operation of its interpretive project.

In March, with the assistance of his wife, Wing began to lay out a visitor trail through the ruins. Mesa 

Verde National Park in Colorado supplied cut-out letters for use on the interpretive signs along the route. 

This enthusiastic and talented couple did a speedy job. Before the ribbon-cutting ceremony, they put the 

last touch on the visitor trail. [3] Also, the mimeographed tour guide arrived at the fort on time from the 

printer. Opening-day guests were greeted with a tri-fold leaflet containing a road directory and several 

fort pictures. [4] Following the interpretive signs and reading the illustrative leaflet, people for the first 

time enjoyed a guided tour of Fort Union.

In activating a comprehensive interpretation program, the monument could not ignore collecting historic 

items and displaying them. The lack of sheltered space and historic artifacts had limited the park's 

capabilities to offer a rich exhibition. But Superintendent Wing managed to present a few things on 

opening day. While walking into the temporary visitor center, the first visitors spotted several framed 

maps and photographs on the walls. [5] These historic pictures whetted people's appetite to learn more 

about the history of Fort Union. A month later, the park staff built a 10-foot display cabinet in the lobby 

to house artifacts found among the ruins. And another set of five old photographs joined the existing 

ones. [6] Not only did this exhibit provide an attractive orientation for the public, but also a minimuseum was born.

From this humble beginning, the museum grew faster than anything else in the first few years. After the 

monument initiated the ruins rehabilitation project, the archeological team led by George Cattanach, and 

later Rex Wilson, excavated numerous artifacts in the area. Unearthed objects included almost 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi4.htm (2 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:45:52 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 4)

everything from glass bottle to a steam engine. As interested citizens learned of the establishment of Fort 

Union National Monument, they donated artifacts either collected at the site or inherited by their family. 

For example, Francis A. Timoney of Colorado Springs bestowed on several cases of unspecified U.S. 

Cavalry gear. [7] They created a nucleus around which to build displays. Through both excavation and 

donation, the monument owned a collection of 7,500 specimens by 1960. [8]

Storing these historic artifacts posed a problem. The nouveau riche had to find a safe place to deposit its 

unexpected wealth. After the cells of the stone jail at the fort proved insufficient, the recreation hall of 

Valmora, New Mexico, provided brief shelter for the material recovered through ruins stabilization 

activities. [9] In 1959, Fort Union ordered six museum cabinets for storage purposes, and the park staff 

put the catalogued specimens into the cabinets and moved them to the park residences' garages. [10] 

From the 1960s, the museum collections "permanently" rested in temporary metal storage buildings that 

lacked any moisture or temperature control. Plans to build a standard museum collection room have not 

succeeded because of lack of funding. Today more than 10,000 objects are still waiting for proper 

curatorial facilities.

The preparation of permanent museum exhibits proceeded without difficulty. While the park employees 

were busily sorting, cleaning, and cataloguing the newly acquired items, outside assistance aided in the 

planning of a long-standing display. Curator Per Culdbeck of the Museum of International Folk Art in 

Santa Fe volunteered his expertise in the restoration of copper, brass, and steel artifacts. [11] Historian 

Arthur Woodward provided valuable advice concerning the historical background of Fort Union. In 

1959 when the construction of the visitor center was to be completed, the Park Service asked its Western 

Museum Laboratory in San Francisco to design and install Fort Union's permanent museum exhibits 

with an American frontier history theme. A few days before the official dedication of the monument, 

four members of Western Museum Laboratory set up the exhibits in the visitor center. [12]

Along with the development of the museum, the monument staff improved its interpretive tour guide. 

Almost from the very beginning, the administration realized that the three-page mimeographed leaflet 

used at the opening ceremony was too brief and could not satisfy people's interest. In December 1956, an 

eight-page information folder supplemented the original handout. It provided the visitor with basic 

knowledge about the past of Fort Union. [13] The following March the park staff revised and enlarged 

the primitive leaflet, incorporating new signs on the map and better photographs into the text. Soon the 

new edition of the Fort Union trail guide was available for sale at the visitor center. [14]

For the interpretive program to be successful, the job of bringing more visitor to the monument was 

crucial. From day one, the park administration strove to attract as many visitors as possible, thereby 

creating a symbiotic relationship between the park and the visitor. During the first months local citizens 

constituted more than eighty percent of total visitation. The infrequency of outside visitors was due to 

the newness of the monument, the absence of prominent highway signs, and the nonexistence of the 

entrance road on maps. To make Fort Union a "national" monument rather than a local recreation area, 

the park staff extended their work beyond the monument boundary.

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi4.htm (3 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:45:52 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 4)

Cooperating with state and private organizations, Fort Union quickly developed a plan for advertising. 

In October 1956, the New Mexico Highway Department helped install a sign showing the daily business 

hours of the monument at the junction of the entrance road (NM 477) with Highway 85. Also, the 

department proposed to move the Fort Scenic-Historic Marker to the same area. [15] In the park, a 

traffic counter began to record the number of entering vehicles. Three years later, the regional office 

allowed Fort Union, Inc., a non-profit organization that helped promote Fort Union National Monument, 

to set up another sign advertising the fort at the intersection of US 85 and NM 477. [16] As everybody 

expected, these signs increased traffic flow toward the monument.

In addition to the roadside advertising, the Park Service practiced other publicity methods. Much as a 

business corporation approaches market strategy, the monument sought out customers rather than 

waiting for their arrival. Through Fort Union, Inc., the park distributed free information leaflets at 

hotels, restaurants, and gas stations in the state. As a liaison officer between the park and society, Fort 

Union, Inc., often conducted trips to the ruins, published postcards of the fort, and dispersed interpretive 

literature among citizens. [17] The organization also sponsored an essay context for high school students 

on any topic related to the fort. Meanwhile, the park staff frequently delivered talks at various places 

including Rotary Clubs, the State Hospital, and public schools. Because of these aggressive campaigns, 

Fort Union National Monument soon became familiar to many New Mexicans.

With the increase in visitation, Fort Union needed a full-time historian to carry out the interpretive work 

of the monument. For almost two years, Superintendent Wing acted as a part-time interpreter; he 

designed the trail, wrote the guide, and directed visitors. An extra person would make it possible for 

Wing to concentrate on administration. In the spring of 1957, he drove down to Albuquerque and visited 

the Department of History at the University of New Mexico, and sought to recruit a graduate for the 

proposed historian position. [18] His trip was fruitless, but in September tour leader Donald Mawson of 

Carlsbad Caverns National Park agreed to take the position. A month later, he reported for duty at the 

fort. [19] The arrival of Mawson coincided with a new phase of the interpretive program.

CONTINUE >>>

foun/adhi/adhi4.htm 

Last Updated: 22-Jan-2001

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi4.htm (4 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:45:52 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 5)

Fort Union

Administrative History

CHAPTER 5: NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Figure 13. In order to prevent grass fire hazard, the fort regularly trains its employees in fire fighting. 

Two employees stand before a fire cache in the 1982 fire drill. 

Courtesy of Fort Union National Monument.

One of Fort Union National Monument's managerial objectives is to conserve the scenery, the natural 

resources, and the wildlife both at the monument and in the surrounding area. The National Park Service 

Organic Act of 1916 directed the Park Service to preserve these resources and to leave them unimpaired 

for the enjoyment of future generations. As a result of a number of factors, including the size of the park, 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi5.htm (1 of 3) [9/7/2007 12:45:53 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 5)

a shortage of personnel available to study the environment, and the status of the monument as a historic 

site, the management of natural resources remained secondary to the rehabilitation of the ruins and the 

interpretive program. In the last two decades, however, the Park Service has been broadening its 

responsibilities at Fort Union. The conservation of the physical environment is becoming a priority at 

the monument.

For years, natural resource management was nonexistent at Fort Union. Established to preserve the 

remnants of an old military post, the monument, more like a history museum than a scenic park, 

concentrated its efforts on management of the cultural resources. Even if there was an interest in the 

park's environmental aspects, the small permanent staff --usually three to four persons--limited the park's 

ability to conduct any large-scale scientific research. In contrast to many other units in the park system, 

Fort Union occupies a small area encircled by vast private lands. In the beginning there was no 

immediate need to consider a natural resource management program. Accordingly, the Park Service 

simply reacted to most natural resource issues. It responded to them only when nature posed an 

impending threat to the ruins.

A passiveness and unsophistication characterized all of the park's early decisions and activities in 

dealing with natural resources. For a long time, natural resource management and protection had been 

synonymous, encompassing such actions as suppressing fires, controlling floods, stopping trespassers, 

and guarding the flora and fauna from damage. Although Superintendent Kittridge Wing lacked any 

experience whatsoever in natural resource management, his intuition told him to protect the integrity of 

the fort as much as possible. Intended to preserve the ruins, not the environment, some of the measures 

implemented by his administration nonetheless benefited the natural world of Fort Union.

To save the remains of the old fort, the monument lost no time in enclosing its newly acquired property. 

Since the last of the troops marched away from the post in 1891, the Union Land and Grazing Company 

had allowed its cattle to feed freely in the fort area. Gradually the land became overgrazed; certain plant 

species increased at the expense of others, leaving the land in poor condition. [1] After regaining control 

of the area, the National Park Service prohibited grazing. Wing decided to fence the monument's 

boundaries. In April 1956, he secured enough funds to fence the territory. Two months later, the regional 

office granted a $5,048 contract to Steve Franken of Las Vegas. Following the marking stakes set by 

Regional Engineer George Johnston, Franken fenced both sections (the Third Fort and the Ordnance 

Depot) within five weeks. [2] The final exclusion of stock assured the recovery of the vegetation.

It was much harder to exclude fire, particularly unpredictable wildfires, from the park. This destructive 

natural force often posed a threat to the ruins. As early as January 1956, a wildfire engulfed 100 acres of 

short-grass sheep pasture ten miles south of the park, along Highway 85. Greatly concerned, 

Superintendent Wing observed, "if such a burn can happen in January in short grass, the alarming 

possibilities of a warm-weather burn in the long grass at Fort Union are evident." [3] There was an 

urgency to prepare for fighting wildfire, which could occur at anytime and anywhere.

The following month Wing contacted the regional forester in regard to a fire fighting jeep for the 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi5.htm (2 of 3) [9/7/2007 12:45:53 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 5)

monument. Although the regional office had promised to deliver a jeep, it ruled out any hope that the 

Park Service would furnish a tank and pump equipment. [4] Because of a previous agreement in which 

the Union Land and Grazing Company donated all of the needed fire-fighting equipment, the Park 

Service agreed only to maintain the property and personnel at the site. Thus, Wing's continuous appeal 

for help did not change his superior's mind. For quite a while, Fort Union had little fire equipment.

Despite little assistance from Santa Fe, Fort Union tried its best to cope with the problem. In August 

1957, Wing, in cooperation with the Union Land and Grazing Company, made arrangements with the 

New Mexico State Highway Department to rent a grader to create firebreak lanes along the entrance 

road. In addition, the visitor area of the monument received firebreak lanes on three sides with Wolf 

Creek forming a natural defense on the western side. [5] The measure reduced the fire threat from 

outside. In 1958, a wildfire on the adjacent ranch property burned 200 acres. remaining calm, the park 

employees trusted to the utility of the firebreaks.

Nevertheless, the park was vulnerable to any fire hazard within the monument's boundaries. This 

situation did not change until 1959 when Fort Union got its first running water system. In January, the 

Star & Cummins Company of Albuquerque installed a 50,000-gallon water tank in the northwest corner 

and laid all the pipes to the main sections of the monument. The modern water system provided not only 

drinking water for the employees but fire protection for the previously unprotected ruins. Hose houses 

were erected at each fire hydrant. They increased the park's fire-fighting capabilities.

CONTINUE >>>

foun/adhi/adhi5.htm 

Last Updated: 22-Jan-2001

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi5.htm (3 of 3) [9/7/2007 12:45:53 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 6)

Fort Union

Administrative History

CHAPTER 6: HUMAN THREATS TO THE PARK

Figure 15. In several cases, angry visitors who arrived just after the park's business hours 

bumped their cars against the locked gates to break into the park. This photograph shows 

the entrance gate that was broken the night of March 17, 1970. 

Courtesy of Fort Union National Monument.

While quietly enduring the subversive impact of nature, the weather-beaten ruins at Fort Union National 

Monument faced unnatural threats to their existence and integrity. It is true that sometimes human 

wrongdoing, either malicious or negligent, are more evasive and destructive than natural forces. Without 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi6.htm (1 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:45:54 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 6)

exception, both people and the civilization they created often posed "external threats" to disturb the 

peaceful park. In the first 36 years of its history, the monument achieved a good safety record with only 

minimal damage caused by people due to geographical isolation, limited territory, and low visitation. 

But Fort Union never appeared as a safe haven for those to seek an escape from the dangerous world. 

Various undesired human activities, such as theft, vandalism, encroachment, pollution, careless fire, 

commercial development, and low-flying aircraft generated enough concerns for the Park Service. These 

problems and responses become another chapter in the story of resource management.

The concept of outside human threats to the existence of Fort Union surfaced rather slowly; it took no 

less than 25 years to reach its maturity. During the first decade after the establishment of the monument, 

the enthusiastic park administration paid little attention to such issues. The staff concentrated on ruins 

preservation and interpretation. More importantly, the location of the fort induced people to minimize 

their worry about human malice toward the ruins. Surrounded by a 97,000-acre cattle ranch, in single 

ownership, Fort Union was separated from civilization because no large population center existed 

nearby. The isolation was bad news for visitation but an advantage for protection. The dead-end eightmile entrance road appeared less inviting for the visitor to come and more difficult for the criminal to 

escape. According to the park records, serious incidents involving human mistakes rarely occurred 

during the 1950s and 1960s. Therefore, the Park Service believed that Fort Union was immune to the 

outside world.

Beginning in the mid-1960s, this belief began to erode as the conservation movement in the nation took 

a holistic approach to preservation. Changing perceptions of American society contributed to more 

aggressive vigilance on the part of the Park Service. The new concerns stretched beyond the borders of 

park areas. By the 1970s, the National Parks and Conservation Association (NPCA) and other 

environmental groups that supported the park system had expressed concerns for the lands surrounding 

park areas. In 1976, Director Gary E. Everhardt declared that the most severe threats the system faced 

were external. [1] The issue immediately became prominent on the agenda of the agency. A Park 

Service study conducted in 1980 identified over two thousand outside activities affecting various units 

of the national park system. Suddenly, many people felt that the national parks had been "islands under 

siege." [2]

The combination of the new perception of threats and the growing pressure upon resources demanded 

attention from the staff at Fort Union. In accordance with the Park Service's policy to identify and 

counteract the broadening range of potential threats, fort management stepped up responses to once 

neglected outside threats. Within its ability, the park began to keep good records on incident cases. Also, 

the superintendent's annual reports focused more attention on the subject. It was unknown whether a 

growing notion of outside threats and an increasing number of incidents were coincident or not. Perhaps 

increased visitation was the cause. In any case, available documents enable us to examine the issue of 

management concern about outside threats.

As a part of President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society, the War on Waste had reinforced the Park 

Service's determination that the safety of both employees and visitors was crucial. In 1964 when the 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi6.htm (2 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:45:54 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 6)

MISSION 66 program was entering its final stage, the Park Service launched a new campaign, 

MISSION 70, which aimed at accident reduction. According to program, each unit in the Park Service 

system would apply safety measures to prevent human-caused accidents and fires. Starting in the same 

years, the six regions and 221 units of the national park system participated in a five-year contest for the 

lowest record of accident and fire loss. Each year the winners would receive certificates. In 1965, after 

the first season, Fort Union won an award for excellent safety performance in which no disabling injury, 

motor vehicle accident, and structural fire occurred at the site. After the good start, for the next four 

years, the monument achieved a perfect record under the MISSION SAFETY 70 program. [3]

Throughout the history of Fort Union National Monument, the safety record of visitors was nearly 

perfect. No person ever died or was fatally injured in the park. Besides the previous mentioned snakebite 

incident, only one visitor required emergency care. In the morning on June 24, 1977, a female visitor 

appeared at the visitor center, calling for help. A few minutes before her husband had collapsed in front 

of the quartermaster's quarters. Ranger Robert Hoff rushed to the scene to assist the patient and then 

drove him to Las Vegas Hospital. The patient soon recovered from the illness caused by a combination 

of high blood pressure, high altitude, and irregular potassium levels. The quick and proper response to 

the emergency call avoided any serious consequences. [4]

Although no fatal injury or death occurred in the park, the administration prepared for any possible 

emergency situation. In 1973, Chief Ranger Robert Arnberger initiated a program to bring public safety 

operations up to Park Service standards. His actions included purchase of first-aid equipment, 

improvement of the record-keeping system, and training of qualified personnel. [5] In 1974, training 

received top priority. The slow spring season allowed all park employees and their family members plus 

neighboring ranchers, a total of 22 persons, to attend an American Red Cross multimedia standard firsaid course. In addition, Superintendent Hopkins, Chief Ranger Arnberger, and Park Technician Ella 

Rayburn completed a 52-hour emergency medical technician course, sponsored by the American Red 

Cross and the New Mexico State Police, in Las Vegas. Thereafter, the park kept trained personnel at the 

fort to cope with emergencies. [6]

In 1979, students from New Mexico Highlands University broke the monument's perfect fire-control 

record of almost a quarter-century by kindling two grass fires among the ruins. In the afternoon of 

March 13, eight art students accidently threw lit material into the grass while they were painting. The 

fire broke out at 3:30 p.m. A visitor from Las Vegas, William Johnson, reported it to Ann Belen at the 

visitor center. She gave him a CO2 fire extinguisher to take to the site. Three other park employees 

rushed to the fire scene with the 300-gallon pumper and equipment. They found that two grass sections 

were burning; one was east of the northernmost company barracks and the other was east of the prison. 

Fortunately, the wind was calm at the time, and the flames did not spread out of control. With the 

assistance of eight visitors, the park staff extinguished the fires in a few minutes. Since each student told 

a different story about what happened, Ranger Hoff was unable to identify the person who ignited the 

fire, and the students were released from the investigation. But the park staff did not cease their 

vigilance. On the contrary, they realized that human mistakes and outside threats could be devastating to 

the park resources. [7]

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi6.htm (3 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:45:54 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 6)

As with the students who almost caused a fire disaster, other negligent visitors and their careless 

behavior put different pressure on resource management. As a small historic site, Fort Union provided 

visitors with no lodging or campgrounds except a few picnic tables for day use only. The beautiful 

valley in which the fort was located often tempted travelers to stay overnight. Sometimes, they illegally 

pitched tents near the residential area outside the monument. Several unauthorized camping cases 

occurred each year. The campers made the park authorities nervous because their campfires or gas 

stoves could start a grass fire if the wind suddenly gusted. The park enforced the non-camping rule 

without compromise. As soon as the unwelcome travelers were discovered, the park rangers evicted 

them by issuing a verbal warning. This house-cleaning policy went on effectively.

CONTINUE >>>

foun/adhi/adhi6.htm 

Last Updated: 22-Jan-2001

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi6.htm (4 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:45:54 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 7)

Fort Union

Administrative History

CHAPTER 7: IN RETROSPECT

The experience of Fort Union National Monument appears to be as fascinating as the legend of the Fort 

Union military post. Under the management of the National Park Service, the weathered ruins have 

served society as a museum of the past, a classroom in the present, and a model for the future. Like any 

other institution or organization, the park has tasted both success and failure. To understand the park's 

administrative history, the 36-year experience can be divided into four periods, artificially by the author 

and naturally by the decades. The four periods consist of the age of establishment from 1956 to 1959, 

the age of continuity from 1960 to 1969, the age of innovation from 1970 to 1979, and the age of 

improvement from 1980 to 1991. Each period contains its unique themes and characteristics, which 

make the administrative history exciting.

When Fort Union joined the Park Service family in 1956, the abandoned military post, still in a 

wilderness and frontier condition, had no supporting facilities or interpretive materials. Poverty struck at 

every corner of the proposed monument. Hoping to serve the public as soon as possible, the National 

Park Service concentrated its efforts on facilities construction, ruins rehabilitation, archeological 

excavations, and historical interpretation. Within three years, Fort Union had a permanent visitor center 

and two residences complete with electricity and running water. A paved highway and a telephone line 

linked the fort to the outside world. Even the aged adobe walls had received modern cosmetic treatments 

such as silicone coating. In the interpretive field, the visitor center provided people with the first exhibits 

and a trail guide. After cleaning most of the areas, the archeologists helped to accumulate the bulk of the 

museum's collection. Two scholars authored the first comprehensive studies on the history of Fort 

Union. By 1959 the monument had passed the first period of intensive development when the dedication 

ceremony announced a fully functional national monument.

After four years of intensive development, Fort Union entered a relatively quiet period. As the new 

decade of the 1960s arrived, fort management shifted emphasis of management from construction to 

maintenance. Routine operations such as cleaning the water tank, painting the wooden fences, and 

repairing the buildings occupied the park staff's many tedious working hours. The procedures for 

preserving the ruins remained unchanged even though the regional office asked the local unit to test a 

few new methods. Silicone coating, which later proved unreliable, still served as the principal formula 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi7.htm (1 of 3) [9/7/2007 12:45:55 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 7)

for maintaining the weakened adobe walls. Without any fundamental change in philosophy, the 

interpretive program grew steadily with an oral history project and a revision of the guidebook. A few 

slide-show talks and uniform demonstrations by Homer Hastings and the rangers did not become a 

mature program of living history. Free from accidents and crime, the park enjoyed a peaceful period. In 

this "era of good feeling," continuity was the theme.

The decade of the 1970s marked the most innovative and exciting era in the monument's history. Under 

the leadership of Ross Hopkins, fresh ideas and new events sprouted. The ruins entered another intensive 

care period as the fort received about half a million dollars for preservation. The maintenance crew 

developed a five-year preservation system to maintain the adobe walls that proved more effective. The 

once-static interpretive program took a major departure by shifting its emphasis to living history, in 

which vivid presentations recaptured the American frontier experience and attracted more visitors. The 

living history program set the tone for future interpretive activities. The most significant innovation, 

however, belonged to the field of natural resource management. Influenced by the nation's 

environmental movements, the fort's administration reconsidered its priorities and responsibilities by 

devoting more time to environmental issues. Consequently, a new field in management emerged. With 

so many changes, the decade marked the most important era for the fort's administrative history.

Less creative but no less active in the 1980s, the park sought to reach new heights in management. 

Following the trails marked by the previous managers, the park staff continued to improve their work in 

every aspect. In ruins preservation, the maintenance crew returned to the original adobe material because 

the mud coating appeared capable of surviving longer than did the other materials. A systematic study of 

the ruins instead of simple experimentation characterized the preservation program. To enrich the living 

history program, the interpreters arranged several special events each year, some of which became 

annual programs. Meanwhile, natural resource management began to harvest a decade of cultivation. 

Several topical studies and professional planning documents were completed. More areas of the park's 

resources received attention and the management was more specific. Based on the groundwork laid in 

the previous decade, the management of Fort Union improved a great deal.

Despite an overall picture of managerial success during the first 36 years, Fort Union National 

Monument is still struggling with some vexing problems. For example, annual visitation remains 

disproportionately low; it reached the 20,000 mark only twice. During the campaign for the 

establishment of the monument in the mid-1950s, history professor Lynn Perrigo of New Mexico 

Highlands University postulated that Fort Union would become a tourist center in the Southwest. That 

prediction proved too optimistic. People quickly blamed low visitation on isolation. The cases of Chaco 

Canyon National Historic Site in New Mexico and Fort Davis National Historic Site in Texas disproved 

this argument. Chaco Canyon is more isolated geographically and Fort Davis is arguably less significant 

than Fort Union. But both of them host three times as many annual visitors as Fort Union. Thus, a 

further study is needed to explain the mystery of low visitation at Fort Union.

Another questionable issue is ruins preservation. In an agreement with Congress in 1954, the Park 

Service promised not to rebuild the fort, only to preserve the remaining structures. For 36 years, several 

million dollars went into the preservation project. But the adobe walls have lost one-third of their total 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi7.htm (2 of 3) [9/7/2007 12:45:55 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 7)

square footage since 1956. While the adobe walls continue to shrink, the probability of attracting huge 

numbers of visitors is slim.

During the first 36 years, Fort Union National Monument received nearly half a million visitors who 

were curious about American frontier history. Using this abandoned military post, the Park Service has 

established a dialogue between the past and the present. A large measure of the success can be attributed 

to the competent and responsible management at the monument. Still nine years away from the year 

2000, the fort administration has already begun to prepare for new challenges. As the Statement for 

Management (1990) points out, the park staff is going to make extra efforts "to preserve the resources of 

Fort Union as an integral whole which can inspire and educate visitors well into the twenty-first 

century." Fort Union National Monument is a place to link the past with the future.

<<< CHAPTER 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS

foun/adhi/adhi7.htm 

Last Updated: 22-Jan-2001

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi7.htm (3 of 3) [9/7/2007 12:45:55 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Bibliography)

Fort Union

Administrative History

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. Manuscript Collection

Clinton P. Anderson Papers. University of New Mexico. Albuquerque, New Mexico.

II. Archival Materials

National Park Service Southwest Regional Office Fort Union Files:

A Administration, 1973-1987

D18 Resource Management Plan 1959-1987

D18 Development and Maintenance 1977-1985

D22 Development and Maintenance 1982-1986

H30 Historic Sites and Structures Management and Preservation

H4217 Fort Union National Monument 1973-1983

H2215 Fort Union

K Interpretation and Information 1983-1987

L Lands and Recreation Planning 1974-1981

N2215 FOUN 1984

 National Park Service Southwest Regional Office Library FOUN Files. 

 Fort Union National Monument Files:

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhib.htm (1 of 6) [9/7/2007 12:45:56 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Bibliography)

A18 Planning Programs File.

A82 Founder's Day File.

A44 Memorandums of Agreement with Federal, State, and local agencies File.

A2615 Superintendent's Monthly Logs File.

A2621 Superintendent's Annual Reports File.

A2823 Superintendent's Monthly Reprots File.

K1817 Interpretation File.

K3415 News Releases File.

K3417 News Releases File.

L34 Recreation activities File.

L54 Water Mather File.

N54 Soil and Moisture Control File.

N3615 Pollution, Environment, and Air Quality File.

Q5 Administrative File.

Q85 Fort Union, Inc. File.

Q100 Masonic Lodge File.

Q110 Masons at Fort Union File.

W25 Mora Land Grant File.

W2627 Incident Report File.

W7623 Accidents, Injuries, and Deaths File.

III. National Park Service Documents

Levine, Frances and Westbury, William. "A History of Archeological Investigations At Fort Union 

National Monument." Santa Fe, 1990.

National Park Service. "Western Military Forts: Report of Committee to Review Western Forts' 

Interpretive Development Program." Santa Fe, 1965.

Pitcaithley, Dwight T. and Greene, Jerome A. "Historic Structure Report, Historic Data Section: The 

Third Fort Union, 1863-1891." Denver Service Center, Denver, 1982.

Schackel, Sandra. "Historic Vegetation at Fort Union National Monument: 1851-1983." Santa Fe, 1983.

Steere, Edward. "Fort Union, New Mexico: Its Economic and Military History." Duplicate. National 

Park Service, 1938.

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhib.htm (2 of 6) [9/7/2007 12:45:56 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Bibliography)

Wilson, Rex L. "Fort Union National Monument, New Mexico: Rehabilitation of Historic Structures, 

1956-1960." Fort Union, Watrous, 1961.

Woods, Henry. "Fort Union, New Mexico: The History of New Mexico's Most famous Military Post." 

Duplicate. National Park Service, n.d.

Woodward, Arthur. "Fort Union, New Mexico: Guardian of the Santa Fe Trail." National Park Service, 

1959.

IV. Unpublished Papers at Fort Union

Fort Union National Monument. Untitled Report on the Establishment of Fort Union National 

Monument. Watrous, New Mexico, 1964.

Hastings, Homer F. "Masonic Activity Associated with Fort Union." Fort Union, 1961.

Mawson, Donald D. "Fort Union National Monument: Its Origin, Development, and Administration." 

Fort Union, 1961.

Stapp, William H. "History of Chapman Lodge No. 2, A.F. and A.M., Las Vegas, New Mexico." Paper 

presented to the Masonic Lodge, Las Vegas, New Mexico, 1946.

West, B. June. "James West Arrott, the Moving Spirit of Fort Union, Incorporated: Another Chapter in 

the Fort Union, New Mexico," Portales, New Mexico, c,1966.

V. Newspapers

Albuqueruqe Journal. Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

Amarillo Daily News. Amarillo, Texas. 

Denver Post. Denver, Colorado. 

Las Vegas Daily Optic. Las Vegas, New Mexico. 

Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, California. 

Union County Leader. Clayton, New Mexico. 

New Mexican. Santa Fe, New Mexico.

VI. Dissertation and Thesis

Croy, Douglas. "Fort Union National Monument, New Mexico: The First Twenty-five Years." M.A. 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhib.htm (3 of 6) [9/7/2007 12:45:56 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Bibliography)

Thesis, Highlands University, 1984.

Giese, Dale Frederick. "Soldiers at Play: A History of Social Life at Fort Union, New Mexico, 1851-

1891." Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of New Mexico, 1969.

Ruwet, Wayne. "Fort Union: Its History and Its Value to Archeology." M.A. Thesis, University of 

California at Los Angeles, 1970.

VII. Books

Arrott, James W. Arrott's Brief History of Fort Union. Las Vegas: William S. Wallace, 1962.

Emmett, Chris. Fort Union and the Winning of the Southwest. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 

1965.

Everhart, William C. The National Park Service. Boulder: Westview Press, 1983.

Foresta, Ronald A. America's National Parks and Their Keepers. Washington, D.C.: Resources For the 

Future, 1984.

Frazer, Robert W. Forts of the West: Military Forts Presidios and Posts Commonly Called Forts West of 

The Mississippi River to 1898. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1965.

______. Forts and Supplies: the Role of the Army in the Southwest, 1846-1861. Albuquerque, University 

of New Mexico Press, 1983.

Freemuth, John C. Islands Under Siege: National Parks and the Politics of External Threats. Lawrence: 

University of Kansas Press, 1991.

Goetzmann, William H. Army Exploration in the American West: 1803-1863. Lincoln: University of 

Nebraska Press, 1979. 

Hammond, George P. The Advertures of Alexander Barclay, Mountain Man, From London Corsetier to 

Pioneer Farmer in Canada, Bookkeeper in St. Louis, Superintendent of Bent's Fort, Fur Trader and 

Mountain Man in Colorado and New Mexico, Builder of Barclay's Fort on the Santa Fe Trail, New 

Mexico in 1848: A Narrative of His Career, 1818 to 1855, His Memorandum Diary, 1845 to 1850.

Denver: Fred A. Rosenstock Old West Publishing Company, 1976. 

Miller, Darlis A. Soldiers and Settlers: Military Supply in the Southwest, 1861-1885. Albuquerque: 

University of New Mexico Press, 1989.

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhib.htm (4 of 6) [9/7/2007 12:45:56 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Bibliography)

The Mora Grant of New Mexico. Denver: The Clark Quick Printing Co., n.d. 

Runte, Alfred. National Parks: The American Experience. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1979.

Stanley, Vestal. Wagons Southwest, Story of Old Trail to Santa Fe. New York: American Pioneer Trails 

Association, 1946.

Utley, Robert M. Fort Union National Monument. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 1962.

______. Frontiersmen in Blue: the United States Army and the Indian, 1848-1865. New York: 

Macmillan, 1967.

______. Frontier Regulars: the United States Army and the Indian, 1866-1891. New York, Macmillan, 

1973.

Weber, David J. The Mexican Frontier, 1821-1846: The American Southwest Under Mexico. 

Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1982.

VIII. Articles

Chavez, Fray Angelico. "Early Settlement in the Mora Valley." El Palacio 62:11 (November 1955): 318-

323.

LaTourette, Genevieve. "Fort Union Memories." New Mexico Historical Review 26:4 (October 1951): 

277-86.

Machen, George L. "Brief History of Union Lodge No. 4, Wagon Mound, New Mexico." The New 

Mexico Freemason 2:9 (September 1937): 3-8.

Pitcaithley, Dwight T. "The Third Fort Union: Architecture, Adobe, and the Army." New Mexico 

Historical Review 57:2 (April 1982): 123-37.

Utley, Robert M. "Fort Union and The Santa Fe Trail." New Mexico Historical Review 36:1 (January 

1961): 36-48.

Wilson, Rex L. "Archeology and Everyday Life at Fort Union." New Mexico Historical Review 40:1 

(January 1965): 55-64.

IX. Interviews

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhib.htm (5 of 6) [9/7/2007 12:45:56 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Bibliography)

Arnberger, Robert. Big Bend National Park, Texas. Telephone interview, February 3, 1992.

Baca, Roman C. Loma Parda, New Mexico. Interview by Frank Smith, Martin Archuleta, and Dale 

Giese. March 18, 1963.

Cook, John E. National Park Service Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Interview, 

October 25, 1991.

Garcia, Teddy. Fort Union National Monument, Watrous, New Mexico. Interview, May 15, 1991.

Giese, Dale. Silver City, New Mexico. Telephone interview, January 30, 1992.

Hopkins, Ross. Death Valley National Monument, California. Telephone interview, January 30, 1992.

Ivey, James E. National Park Service Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Interview, 

October 23, 1991.

Kruse, Carol. Chiricahua National Monument, Arizona. Telephone interview, February 3, 1992.

Montoya, Isidro. Loma Parda, New Mexico. Interview by Dale Giese and Ramon Garduno, May 6, 1963.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

foun/adhi/adhib.htm 

Last Updated: 22-Jan-2001

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhib.htm (6 of 6) [9/7/2007 12:45:56 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Appendix A)

Fort Union

Administrative History

APPENDIX A: LEGISLATION

JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 12.

JOINT RESOLUTION PETITIONING THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES 

AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO SET ASIDE OLD FORT 

UNION LOCATED IN MORA COUNTY, STATE OF NEW MEXICO AS A NATIONAL 

MONUMENT.

H. J. R. No. 7; Approved Mar. 12, 1929.

To THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES :

WHEREAS, In 1851 the United States Government established in the present county of 

Mora, State of New Mexico, a military post, Fort Union, which was for forty years the 

military headquarters and base of supplies for the Army of the Southwest, and,

WHEREAS, This Fort is located on the Comanche Trail, the Santa Fe Trail, and the 

California Gold Trail, and was a strategic point during the Civil War, and,

WHEREAS, many of our noted military figures were at some time during their career 

assigned to duty at Fort Union, and,

WHEREAS, these buildings are falling into decay, thereby risking the loss of a spot rich in 

historic lore, and

WHEREAS, the New Mexico Chapters of the Daughters of the American Revolution, 

including the Stephen Watts Kearney Chapter of Santa Fe, have unanimously endorsed the 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhiaa.htm (1 of 8) [9/7/2007 12:45:57 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Appendix A)

movement started by the Las Vègas service clubs to preserve and maintain Fort Union as a 

National Monument, and have requested the Legislature of the State of New Mexico to 

memorialize the President and Congress of the United States on this subject,

Now, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the legislature of the State of New Mexico 

respectfully memorializes and petitions the Congress of the United States to set aside this 

historic site and to preserve and maintain Fort Union as a National Monument; and,

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That copies of this memorial be sent to the President of the 

United States and to the presiding officers of the Senate and House of Representatives and 

to the Senators and Representative of the State of New Mexico.

CHAPTER 181

AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO THROUGH 

THE STATE PARK COMMISSION OR ITS SUCCESSOR TO ACQUIRE 

BY PURCHASE, GIFT OR CONDEMNATION FOR STATE PARK 

PURPOSES THE OLD FORT UNION MILITARY RESERVATION 

INCLUDING THE CEMETERY AND RIGHTS OF WAY USED AND TO 

BE USED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, LOCATED WITHIN THE 

MORA GRANT, COUNTY OF MORA, NEW MEXICO; AUTHORIZING 

THE RECONSTRUCTION AND BEAUTIFICATION OF SUCH AREA; 

PROVIDING FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE SAME; AND 

AUTHORIZING AGREEMENTS OR CONVEYANCES WITH OR TO 

THE UNITED STATES OF SUCH AREA.

HOUSE PUBLIC LANDS AND LIVESTOCK COMMITTEE 

SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 297;

Approved: March 20, 1953

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of New Mexico:

Section 1. The State of New Mexico is hereby authorized to acquire by purchase, gift or 

condemnation the Old Fort Union Military Reservation, including the cemetery used in 

connection therewith, containing approximately eight hundred (800) acres, located within 

the Mora Grant, County of Mora, State of New Mexico as and for a state park to be 

administered, reconstructed, preserved, developed and beautified by the state park 

commission or its successor. The State of New Mexico is likewise authorized to acquire by 

purchase, gift or condemnation the necessary rights of way for public ingress to and from 

said military reservation, and is authorized to accept donations of money, equipment or 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhiaa.htm (2 of 8) [9/7/2007 12:45:57 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Appendix A)

material for such purposes, and likewise to receive and accept endowments for the 

maintenance of the Old Fort Union Military Reservation or of any part thereof.

Section 2. Title to the Old Fort Union Military Reservation shall be taken in the name of the 

"State of New Mexico" or in the name of "The Governor of the State of New Mexico and 

the people thereof." Title to such property shall not be acquired or taken by the State of 

New Mexico for park purposes until the acceptance or taking of the same shall have been 

authorized by resolution of the state park commission or its successor. The state park 

commission is hereby authorized to enter into agreements respecting the acquisition of the 

Old Fort Union Military Reservation.

Section 3. The State of New Mexico through the state park commission or its successor 

shall have the right and is authorized to convey the Old Fort Union Military Reservation, 

which shall have been acquired for state park purposes by the state of New Mexico, to the 

United States or any appropriate agency thereof for the purpose of administering, 

reconstructing, preserving, developing and beautifying the same.

The procedure for transfer of title to the United States or any appropriate agency thereof 

shall be as follows :

The state park commission or its successor shall adopt a resolution setting forth the facts 

justifying a conveyance to the United States or appropriate agency thereof, which resolution 

adopted by the majority of the commission, or by the majority of the members of its 

successor, shall be transmitted to the Governor of the State of New Mexico, and if approved 

by him, he shall thereupon execute and sign a conveyance to the United States or 

appropriate agency thereof. Said conveyance, when executed by the Governor of the State 

of New Mexico, shall transfer and convey all the title of the State of New Mexico in and to 

the lands so to be conveyed to the United States or such appropriate agency thereof.

Section 4. Said Old Fort Union Military Reservation shall be administered in the same 

manner as other state parks are administered under the state park commission or its 

successor and subject to its rules and regulations; Provided, that the state park commission 

or its successor shall be responsible for the construction of reasonable fire guards and shall 

be responsible for maintaining reasonable fire fighting equipment to protect against the fire 

hazard created by the establishment of the Old Fort Union Military Reservation as a public 

park; and provided further, that the state park commission shall erect and maintain a legal 

fence along all rights of way acquired under the provisions of this act and shall establish 

and maintain adequate underpasses for cattle.

Section 5. The State of New Mexico through the state park commission or its successor is 

authorized and empowered to acquire the Old Fort Union Military Reservation by Eminent 

Domain proceedings and in addition thereto to acquire by such proceedings rights of way 

for ingress and egress of the public generally to and from such area. The procedure for 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhiaa.htm (3 of 8) [9/7/2007 12:45:57 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Appendix A)

obtaining such area and rights of way by condemnation shall be the same as provided by 

law for the condemnation of land for railroad purposes.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of the Secretary

NEW MEXICO

ORDER ESTABLISHING FORT UNION NATIONAL MONUMENT

Whereas the act of June 28, 1954 (16 U. S. C., 1952 ed., Supp. II, sec. 450kk 450kk 1, 

provides for the establishment of Fort Union National Monument upon a determination of 

the Secretary of the Interior that sufficient land and other property have been acquired by 

the United States for national-monument purposes; and

Whereas title to 720.6 acres of land for national-monument purposes was accepted as of 

October 18, 1955, on behalf of the United States;

Now, therefore, I, Douglas McKay, Secretary of the Interior, having determined that 

sufficient property has been acquired for establishment of Fort Union National Monument, 

do hereby designate the following described lands as the Fort Union National Monument 

under and by virtue of the authority vested in me by the said act of June 28, 1954, supra:

PARCEL NO. 1

Beginning at corner No. 1 (a stake in stone mound), from which the corner common to the 

northwest corner of Section 6, Township 19 North, Range 19 East, NMPM, and the southwest 

corner of Section 31, Township 20 North, Range 19 East, NMPM, bears N. 670° 30' E., a distance 

of 8,707.30 feet:

Thence S. 60° 24' 30" W., a distance of 5,281.04 feet to corner No. 2 (a stake in stone mound); 

thence N. 29° 35' 30" W., a distance of 1,674.66 feet to corner No 3 (a stake in stone mound): 

thence N. 17° 11' 30" W., a distance of 844.6 feet to corner No. 4; thence N. 47° 12' 30" W., a 

distance of 598.70 feet to corner No. 5; thence N. 29° 35' 30" W., a distance of 2,209.0 feet to 

corner No. 6 (a stake in stone mound ), thence N. 60° 24' 30" E., a distance of 5,279.53 feet to 

corner No. 7; thence S. 29° 35' 30" E. a distance of 5,278.9 feet to corner No. 1. the point of 

beginning, containing 637 acres more or less; and

PARCEL NO. 2

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhiaa.htm (4 of 8) [9/7/2007 12:45:57 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Appendix A)

Beginning at corner No. 1 (a stake in stone mound), from which corner No. 6, Parcel No. 1, 

described above, bears N. 69° 56' E., a distance of 2,475.6 feet; thence S. 24° 51' E., 1,926.4 feet to 

corner No. 2 (a stake in the stone mound); thence S. 65° 09' W., a distance of 1,890.3 feet to corner 

No. 2 (a stake in stone mound); thence N. 24° 51' W., a distance of 1,926.4 feet to corner No. 4 (a 

stake in stone mound ); thence N. 65° 09' E., a distance of 1,890.3 feet to corner No. 1. the point of 

beginning: comprising 83.6 acres more or less.

The areas described aggregate 720.6 acres, more or less.

Warning is hereby expressly given to all unauthorized persons not to appropriate, injure, 

destroy, or remove any feature of this national monument, and not to locate or settle upon 

any of the lands thereof.

The administration, protection, and development of this national monument shall be 

exercised under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior by the National Park Service in 

accordance with the laws and regulations applicable to national monuments.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the official seal of the 

Department of the Interior to be affixed, in the City of Washington this 29th day of March 

1956.

DOUGLAS McKay, 

 Secretary of the Interior.

[F. R. Doc. 56-2529; Filed, Apr. 4, 1956; 8:49 a. m.]

106 68 STAT.] PUBLIC LAW 430 JUNE 28, 1954

Public Law 429 CHAPTER 401

June 28, 1954 

[H. R. 1005]

AN ACT 

To authorize the establishment of the Fort Union National 

Monument, in the State of New Mexico, and for other purposes. 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhiaa.htm (5 of 8) [9/7/2007 12:45:57 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Appendix A)

Fort Union 

National Monument, 

N. Mex. 

Establishment. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 

United States of America in Congress assembled, That, in order to 

preserve and protect, in the public interest, the historic Old Fort 

Union, situated in the county of Mora, State of New Mexico, and to 

provide adequate public access thereto, the Secretary of the Interior is 

authorized to acquire on behalf of the United States by donation, or 

he may procure with donated funds, the site and remaining structures 

of Old Fort Union, together with such additional land, interests in 

land, and improvements thereon as the Secretary in his discretion 

may deem necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act. Donated 

lands may be accepted subject to such reservations, terms, and 

conditions as may be satisfactory to the Secretary, including right of 

reversion to donor, or its successors and assigns, upon abandonment 

as a national monument, and reservation of mineral rights subject to 

condition that surface of donated lands may not be used or disturbed 

in connection therewith, without the consent of the Secretary.

SEC. 2. Upon a determination of the Secretary of the Interior that 

sufficient land and other property have been acquired by the United 

States for national-monument purposes, as provided in section 1 of 

this Act, such property shall be established as the "Fort Union 

National Monument" and thereafter shall be administered by the 

Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the laws and regulations 

applicable to national monuments. An order of the Secretary, 

constituting notice of such establishment, shall be published in the 

Federal Register: Publication 

in FR.

Following establishment of the national monument, additional 

properties may be acquired as provided in section 1 hereof, which 

properties, upon acquisition of title thereto by the United States, shall 

become a part of the national monument: Provided, That the total 

area of the national monument established pursuant to this Act shall 

not exceed one thousand acres, exclusive of such adjoining lands as 

may be covered by scenic easements.

Approved June 28, 1954.

Additional 

properties.

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhiaa.htm (6 of 8) [9/7/2007 12:45:57 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Appendix A)

101 STAT. 302 PUBLIC LAW PUBLIC LAW 100-35 May 8, 1987

Public Law 100 35 

100th Congress

May 8, 1987

[H. R. 240] 

An Act

To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Santa Fe Trail as a 

National Historic Trail.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of 

America in Congress assembled,

Missouri. 

Kansas. 

Oklahoma. 

Colorado. 

New Mexico. 

Public 

information. 

Gifts and 

property. 

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

(a) DESIGNATION. Section 5(a) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244

(a)) is amended by adding the following new paragraph at the end thereof:

"(15) The Santa Fe National Historic Trail, a trail of approximately 950 miles from a 

point near Old Franklin, Missouri, through Kansas, Oklahoma, and Colorado to Santa 

Fe, New Mexico, as generally depicted on a map entitled 'The Santa Fe Trail' 

contained in the Final Report of the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to subsection 

(b) of this section, dated July 1976. The map shall be on file and available for public 

inspection in the office of the Director of the National Park Service, Washington, 

District of Columbia. The trail shall be administered by the Secretary of the Interior. 

No lands or interests therein outside the exterior boundaries of any federally 

administered area may be acquired by the Federal Government for the Santa Fe Trail 

except with the consent of the owner thereof. Before acquiring any easement or 

entering into any cooperative agreement with a private landowner with respect to the 

trail, the Secretary shall notify the landowner of the potential liability, if any, for 

injury to the public resulting from physical conditions which may be on the 

landowner's land. The United States shall not be held liable by reason of such notice 

or failure to provide such notice to the landowner. So that significant route segments 

and sites recognized as associated with the Santa Fe Trail may be distinguished by 

suitable markers, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to accept the donation of 

suitable markers for placement at appropriate locations.".

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. Section 10(c)(2) of such Act (16 U.

S.C. 1249(c)(2) is amended by inserting "and (15)" after "(13)".

Approved May 8, 1987.

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhiaa.htm (7 of 8) [9/7/2007 12:45:57 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Appendix A)

LEGISLATIVE H1STORY H.R. 240: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 100-16 (Comm. on Interior and Insular Affairs). 

SENATE REPORTS: No. 100-39 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 133 (1987): 

 Mar. 10, considered and passed House. 

 Apr. 12, considered and passed Senate. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

foun/adhi/adhiaa.htm 

Last Updated: 22-Jan-2001

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhiaa.htm (8 of 8) [9/7/2007 12:45:57 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Appendix B)

Fort Union

Administrative History

APPENDIX B: PERSONNEL

Partial Listing of Permanent and Seasonal Personnel

Superintendent

Kittridge Wing 1955-1958 

Homer F. Hastings 1958-1971 

Claude Fernandez 1971-1973 

Ross Hopkins 1973-1980 

Clark Crane 1980-1987 

Douglas McChristian 1987-1988 

Jimmy W. Carson 1988 

Harry Myers 1988-

Unit Manager

Willis E. Reynolds 1980-1981 

Carol Kruse 1981-1987

Archeologist

George Cattanach Jr. 1956-1958 

Rex L. Wilson 1958-1960

Administrative Assistant

George H. Adams 1959 

Gerald P. Newfield 1959-1960 

John A. Montgomery 1960-1963 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhiab.htm (1 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:45:58 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Appendix B)

Nicholas J. Bleser 1963-1966

Historian

Donald Mawson 1957-1959; 1961 

Max E. Montoya 1960 

Dale F. Giese 1961-1965 

Jon B. Montgomery 1963-1964 

Robert E. Davidson 1966 

Nicholas J. Bleser, 1966-1969 

Roy F. Beasley 1969-1974

Park Technician

Pierre Gonzales 1973-1974 

Ella S. Rayburn 1974-1976 

Paul S. Shampine 1974-1977 

C. Susan Love (Shampine) 1974-1977 

Diana Gutierrez 1976 

Roy C. Richey 1977-1978 

Sari Stein 1977-78 

Jennifer Freed 1979-1982 

Martha Mayben (Siebe) 1979-1980 

Carl B. Friery 1982-1985

Park Ranger

Clifford W. Mills 1956 

Palemon Arguello 1957-1958 

Patricio Quintana 1959-1964 

John Mondragon 1960 

Max E. Montoya 1960-1962; 1965-1966 

Keith C. Billiard 1966-1967; 1971 

Lois R. Emrick 1968-1969 

Ernest Ortega 1970-1971 

Robert Arnberger 1971-1974 

Robert Hoff 1974-1979 

Paul Shampine 1976-1977 

Donald Harris 1976-1977 

Stephen Walker 1976-1977 

Erwin Hand 1977-1979 

Thomas Danton 1977-1978 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhiab.htm (2 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:45:58 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Appendix B)

Abelardo D. Navarrette 1979-1981 

James Boll 1981-1983 

Charles Spearman 1984-1985 

David Roberts 1986-1988 

Eve Smith ?-1987 

T. J. Sperry 1987- 

John Batzer 1988-1990 

Phyllis Kay Townsend 1988-1989 

Steven Townsend 1988-1989 

Frank Torres 1990- 

Terry Moore 1990- 

Heather Hartman 1990-

Administrative Technician

Fredericka Steel 1987-1990 

Debbie Archuleta 1990-

Park Aids

Marilyn Sandoval 1971 

Eva Valencia 1971 

James Abreu 1971-1972 

Pierre Gonzales 1972-1973 

Walter L. Hood 1974 

Scott E. Walker 1975-1976; 1978 

Martha Mayben 1976 

Sari Stein 1976 

Donald Harris 1976-1977 

Arturo Marquez 1979-? 

Dennis Segura 1979-1982

Clerk-Typist

Anita Jones 1959 

Mary A. Oosting 1960 

Carmen Segura 1966-1969 

Theresa C. Gatti 1969-? 

Theresa Fulgenzi ?-1973 

Senaida Bustos 1973-1974 

Donna Lowin 1974-1976 

Ann Belen 1977-1979 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhiab.htm (3 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:45:58 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Appendix B)

Gina Espinoza 1979-1981 

Fannie Little 1981-1983 

Laurence P. Jone 1983-1985 

Debbie Archuleta 1986-1990

Budget and Finance Assistant

Fannie Little 1979-1983

Maintenance Worker

Martin Archuleta 1956-1979 

Benito Lucero 1957-1979 

Brigido Archibeque 1958-1978 

Ramon Garduno 1958-1980 

Richard Godfrey 1958 

C. Susan Love (Shampine) 1975 

Paul S. Shampine 1975; 1977 

Glen Moritz ?-1975 

Teddy Garcia 1975- 

Bobby Martinez 1975- 

Napoleon Duran 1975- 

Jose Padilla 1975- 

Wilfred Valencia 1975- 

Rudy Mondragon 1975- 

Charles Garcia 1975- 

Albert Dominguez 1975- 

Manuel DeHerrera 1976- 

Eddie Mares 1977-1979 

Issac Archuleta 1977-1978 

Richardo Ruiz 1978-1981 

Thomas Quintana 1978-1981 

Teresa A. Burns 1978 

Willis E. Reynolds 1979-1981

TABLE OF CONTENTS

foun/adhi/adhiab.htm 

Last Updated: 22-Jan-2001

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhiab.htm (4 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:45:58 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Appendix C)

Fort Union

Administrative History

APPENDIX C: VISITATION

Visitation Statistics for 

Fort Union National Monument, 1956-1991

Year Total Year Total

1956 10,007 1976 14,903

1957 (no record) 1977 13,922

1958 c.10,000 1978 13,795

1959 c.15,000 1979 10,453

1960 10,147 1980 10,787

1961 10,503 1981 11,720

1962 11,824 1982 12,176

1963 12,510 1983 12,413

1964 13,100 1984 13,105

1965 13,800 1985 13,362

1966 15,001 1986 13,441

1967 13,724 1987 14,435

1968 12,512 1988 18,141

1969 10,936 1989 20,798

1970 14,221 1990 17,031

1971 14,906 1991 22,300

1972 17,483

1973 12,812

1974 13,898

1975 15,288

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhiac.htm (1 of 2) [9/7/2007 12:45:58 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Appendix C)

foun/adhi/adhiac.htm 

Last Updated: 22-Jan-2001

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhiac.htm (2 of 2) [9/7/2007 12:45:58 PM]
file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/fig1.jpg

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/fig1.jpg [9/7/2007 12:45:59 PM]
file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/fig2.jpg

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/fig2.jpg (1 of 2) [9/7/2007 12:46:00 PM]
file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/fig2.jpg

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/fig2.jpg (2 of 2) [9/7/2007 12:46:00 PM]
file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/fig3.jpg

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/fig3.jpg [9/7/2007 12:46:01 PM]
file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/fig4.jpg

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/fig4.jpg [9/7/2007 12:46:01 PM]
file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/fig5.jpg

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/fig5.jpg [9/7/2007 12:46:01 PM]
file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/fig6.jpg

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/fig6.jpg [9/7/2007 12:46:02 PM]
file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/fig7.jpg

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/fig7.jpg [9/7/2007 12:46:02 PM]
file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/fig8.jpg

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/fig8.jpg [9/7/2007 12:46:02 PM]
file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/fig9.jpg

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/fig9.jpg [9/7/2007 12:46:03 PM]
file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/fig10.jpg

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/fig10.jpg [9/7/2007 12:46:03 PM]
file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/fig11.jpg

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/fig11.jpg [9/7/2007 12:46:03 PM]
file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/fig12.jpg

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/fig12.jpg [9/7/2007 12:46:04 PM]
file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/fig13.jpg

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/fig13.jpg [9/7/2007 12:46:04 PM]
file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/fig14.jpg

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/fig14.jpg [9/7/2007 12:46:04 PM]
file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/fig15.jpg

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/fig15.jpg [9/7/2007 12:46:04 PM]
file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/fig16.jpg

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/fig16.jpg [9/7/2007 12:46:05 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

Fort Union

Administrative History

ENDNOTES

CHAPTER 1

1. Fort Union National Monument Resource Management Plan, Fort Union National Monument, 1987.

2. Sandra Schackel, Historic Vegetation At Fort Union National Monument: 1851-1983 (Report, 

National Park Service Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, 1983), pp.13-14.

3. Statement for Management, Fort Union National Monument, 1990.

4. Arthur Woodward, Fort Union, New Mexico--Guardian of the Santa Fe Trail, (Report, National Park 

Service, Region Three Office, 1958-1959), p. 19.

5. William H. Goetzmann, Army Exploration in the American West: 1803-1863 (University of Nebraska 

Press, 1979), pp. 36-39.

6. David J. Weber, The Mexican Frontier, 1821-1846: The American Southwest Under Mexico 

(Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1982), p. 125.

7. Ibid., P. 128.

8. Ibid.

9. Fray Angelico Chavez, "Early Settlements in the Mora Valley," El Placio 62 No. 11 (November 

1955): 318-23.

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhie.htm (1 of 22) [9/7/2007 12:46:08 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

10. The Mora Grant of New Mexico (Denver: The Clark Quick Printing Co., nd.), p. 17.

11. Stanley Vestal, Wagons Southwest, Story of Old Trail to Santa Fe (New York: American Pioneer 

Trail Association, 1946), p. 36.

12. Robert M. Utley, Fort Union National Monument (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 1962), 

P. 8.

13. Ibid.

14. George P. Hammond, The Adventures of Alexander Barclay, Mountain Man, From London 

Corsetier to Pioneer Farmer in Canada, Bookkeeper in St. Louis, Superintendent of Bent's Fort, Fur 

Trader and Mountain man in Colorado and New Mexico, Builder of Barclay's Fort on the Santa Fe 

Trail, New Mexico in 1848: A Narrative of His Career, 1818 to 1855, His Memorandum Diary, 1845 to 

1850 (Denver: Fred A. Rosenstock Old West Publishing Company, 1976), p. 91.

15. Ibid., P. 92.

16. Utley, Fort Union National Monument, P. 9.

17. Ibid.

18. Woodward, Fort Union, New Mexico--Guardian of the Santa Fe Trail, p. 94.

19. Edward Steere, "Fort Union, New Mexico: Its Economic and Military History," National Park 

Service, 1938. (Typewritten.)

20. Henry Woods, "Fort Union, New Mexico: The History of New Mexico's Most Famous Military 

Post," National Park Service, nd. (Typewritten.)

21. U.S., Congress, Senate, Committee on Military Affairs, Title to Certain Military and Timber 

Reservations. S. Rept. 621, 45th Cong., 3d sess., 1879, p. 3.

22. Robert M. Utley, Frontiersmen in Blue: The United States Army and the Indian, 1848-1865

(Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1981), pp. 143-46.

23. Ibid., pp. 147-52.

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhie.htm (2 of 22) [9/7/2007 12:46:08 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

24. Chris Emmett, Fort Union and the Winning of the Southwest (Norman: University of Oklahoma 

Press, 1965), P. 247.

25. Darlis A. Miller, Soldiers and Settlers: Military Supply in the Southwest, 1861-1885 (Albuquerque: 

University of New Mexico Press, 1989), pp. 221-23.

26. Woods, "Fort Union, New Mexico: The History of New Mexico's Most Famous Military Post," 

National Park Service, n.d. (Typewritten.)

27. Utley, Fort Union National Monument, 39-44.

28. Ibid., pp. 44-46.

29. Ibid., pp. 46-49.

30. U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Military Affairs, Title to certain Military and Timber 

Reservations. S. Rept. 621, 45th Cong., 3d sess., 1879, p. 3.

31. Ibid., p. 4.

32. Emmett, Fort Union and the Winning of the Southwest, pp. 393-409.

33. Utley, Fort Union National Monument, p. 1.

CHAPTER 2

1. Lynn B. Mitchell, "Old Fort Union," The New Mexico Freemason 17, No. 7 (July 1952): 7.

2. Donald D. Mawson, "Fort Union National Monument: Its Origin, Development, and Administration" 

Fort Union, 1961. (Typewritten.)

3. Interview with Isidro Montoya by Dale Giese and Ramon Gurduno, 311 South Pacific, Las Vegas, 

New Mexico, March 25, 1963.

4. James W. Arrott, Arrott's Brief History of Fort Union (Las Vegas, New Mexico, 1962), p. 18.

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhie.htm (3 of 22) [9/7/2007 12:46:08 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

5. Genevieve LaTourrette, "Fort Union Memories," New Mexico Historical Review 26, No. 4 (October 

1951): 283.

6. George L. Machen, "Brief History of Union Lodge No. 4, Wagon Mound, New Mexico," The New 

Mexico Freemason 2, No. 9, (September 1937): 3-8.

7. William Stapp, "Chapman Lodge No. 2, A. F. and A. M., Las Vegas, New Mexico," Paper presented 

at the Masonic Lodge meeting, Las Vegas, New Mexico, 1946.

8. New Mexico, Joint Resolution Petitioning the Congress of the United States and the President of the 

United States to Set Aside Old Fort Union Located in Mora County, State of New Mexico as a National 

Monument. Law of 1929 (Santa Fe, New Mexico), p. 430.

9. U.S., Congress, House, Albert Simms's bill to provide for the study, investigation, and survey, for 

commemorative purposes, of the Glorieta Pass, Pigeon Ranch, Apache Canyon battle fields, and of Old 

Fort Union in the State of New Mexico, H.R. 11146, 71st Cong., 2nd sess., Congressional Record

72:6139.

10. The Superintendent of the Rocky Mountain National Park to the Director of the National Park 

Service, March 24, 1936, Fort Union National Monument Library, Fort Union National Monument, 

Watrous, New Mexico.

11. Edward Steere, "Fort Union, Its Economic and Military History," Report for the National Park 

Service, 1938, National Park Service Southwest Regional Office Library, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 

(Duplicate.)

12. Charles A. Richey, "Field Report of May 9-10, 1939," in an untitled paper, 1964, Fort Union 

National Monument Library. (Typewritten.)

13. Charles A. Richey, "Field Report of May 9-10, 1939," in Mawson's "Fort Union National 

Monument," p. 11.

14. Hillory A. Tolson to Edward B. Wheeler, May 20, 1939, Fort Union Files, National Park Service 

Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

15. Superintendent of the Rocky Mountain National Park to Director of the National Park Service, 

March 24, 1936.

16. Hillory Tolson to Edward Wheeler, May 20, 1939.

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhie.htm (4 of 22) [9/7/2007 12:46:08 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

17. Ibid.

18. Hillory A. Tolson to John E. Miles, June 6, 1939, Fort Union Files, Southwest Regional Office.

19. Arthur E. Demaray, Memorandum for Regional Director, Region Three, June 8, 1939, Fort Union 

Files, Southwest Regional Office.

20. Mawson, "Fort Union National Monument."

21. Charles A. Richey, Field Report, June 8, 27, 1939, Fort Union Files, Southwest Regional Office.

22. Hillory A. Tolson and Aubrey Neasham, "Special Report the Proposed Fort Union National 

Monument," June 1939, Southwest Regional Office File L-58.

23. Mawson, "Fort Union National Monument."

24. Ibid.

25. Ibid.

26. E. K. Burlew to John M. Carmody, January 15, 1940, File L-58, Fort Union National Monument.

27. Hillory Tolson, Memorandum for the Acting Regional Director, Region Three, January 22, 1940, 

Fort Union Files, Southwest Regional Office.

28. Franklin D. Roosevelt to Harold L. Ickes, July 6, 1940, in an untitled paper, 1964, Fort Union 

National Monument Library.

29. Mawson, "Fort Union National Monument."

30. Hillory A. Tolson, Memorandum for Chief Counsel Moskey, November 9, 1940, Fort Union File L58, Southwest Regional Office.

31. Ibid.

32. Mawson, "Fort Union National Monument."

33. William Stapp, "Chapman Lodge No. 2, A.F. & A.M.," Paper presented at the Masonic Lodge 

Meeting in Las Vegas, New Mexico, 1946.

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhie.htm (5 of 22) [9/7/2007 12:46:08 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

34. Boaz Long, Memorandum for the records, June 20, 1949, File Q-85, Fort Union National Monument.

35. Interview with Louis Timm by Patricio Quintana, Fort Union National Monument, June 8, 1959, in 

an untitled paper, 1964, Fort Union National Monument Library.

36. Las Vegas Daily Optic, June 21, 1949.

37. Lewis F. Schiele to Clinton P. Anderson, June 21, 1949, in an untitled paper, 1964, Fort Union 

National Monument Library.

38. E. N. Thwaites to Andrew Marshall, June 22, 1949, File Q-85, Fort Union National Monument.

39. Mawson, "Fort Union National Monument."

40. Ibid.

41. Ibid.

42. Ibid.

43. P. P. Patraw to A. E. Demaray, Memorandum, September 13, 1951, File L-58, Fort Union National 

Monument.

44. Boaz Long to Joseph A. Bursey, Director of the New Mexico State Tourist Bureau, September 23, 

1949, File Q-85, Fort Union National Monument.

45. U.S. Congress, House, John J. Dempsey's bill to authorize the establishment of the Fort Union 

National Monument, in the state of New Mexico, and for other purpose; to the Committee on Interior 

and Insular Affairs, H.R. 5139, 82nd Cong. 1st sess., Congressional Record 97:9913.

46. John J. Dempsey, "Statement in Support of H.R. 1005 Before the Public Lands Sub-Committee in 

the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee," February 19, 1954, Fort Union, Inc., Files, Fort 

Union National Monument Library.

47. Fort Union National Monument File Q-85.

48. P. P. Patraw, Memorandum to A. E. Demaray, October 12, 1953, in an untitled paper, 1964, Fort 

Union National Monument Library.

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhie.htm (6 of 22) [9/7/2007 12:46:08 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

49. Ibid.

50. New Mexico, An Act Authorizing the State of New Mexico through the State Park Commission or Its 

Successor to Acquire by Purchase, Gift or Condemnation for State Park Purposes the Old Fort Union 

Military Reservation Including the Cemetery and Rights of Way Used and to be Used in Connection 

therewith, Located within the Mora Grant, County of Mora, New Mexico; Authorizing the 

Reconstruction and Beautification of Such Area; Providing for the Administration of the Same; and 

Authorizing Agreement or Conveyances with or to the United States of Such Area. Law of 1953 (Santa 

Fe, New Mexico), p. 607-9.

51. Hugh M. Miller, Memorandum to M. R. Tillotson, May 8, 1953, in Mawson's "Fort Union National 

Monument.

52. Andrew Marshall to Hugh M. Miller, August 16, 1953, Fort Union File L-58, Southwest Regional 

Office.

53. Mawson, "Fort Union National Monument."

54. U.S., Congress, House, A Bill to Authorize the Establishment of the Fort Union National Monument 

in the State of New Mexico, H.R. 1005, 83rd Cong., 2nd sess., 1953, pt. 1266.

55. Edmund B. Rogers, History of Legislation Relating to the National Park Service System through the 

82nd Congress (Washington D.C.: National Park Service, 1958).

56. Clinton P. Anderson to Henry C. Dworhsak, April 2, 1954, Clinton P. Anderson Papers, the 

University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

57. Clinton P. Anderson to Walter T. Vivian, Editor and Publisher of the Las Vegas Daily Optic, June 

11, 1954, Clinton P. Anderson Papers.

58. Act to Authorize the Establishment of the Fort Union National Monument, in the State of New 

Mexico, and for Other Purposes, Statutes at Large vol. 68, pt. 1, 298 (1954).

59. Fort Union, Inc. Files, Fort Union National Monument Library.

60. Ibid.

61. Albuquerque Journal, June 30, 1954.

62. Fort Union, Inc. Files, Fort Union National Monument File Q-85.

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhie.htm (7 of 22) [9/7/2007 12:46:08 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

63. Fort Union, Inc. Files, Fort Union National Monument Library.

64. U.S., Department of the Interior, "Order Establishing Fort Union National Monument," April 4, 

1956, Federal Register, vol. 21 (1956), No. 66, p. 2208.

CHAPTER 3

1. Kittridge A. Wing, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report for December 1955," January 7, 

1956, Fort Union National Monument File A2823.

2. Rufus McDonald, state highway engineer, supervised the construction. Donald D. Mawson, "Fort 

Union National Monument: Its Origin, Development, and Administration," Fort Union, 1961. 

(typewritten)

3. Wing, "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report for March 1956," April 5, 1956, Fort Union File 

A2823.

4. Wing, "Monthly Report for May 1956," June 11, 1956, Fort Union File A2823.

5. Albuquerque Journal, June 9, 1956.

6. Mawson, "Its Origin, Development, and Administration."

7. Wing, "Monthly Report for June 1956," July 8, 1956, Fort Union File A2823.

8. Wing, "Monthly Report for July 1956," August 7, 1956, Fort Union File A2823.

9. National Park Service, Facts About Mission 66, (Washington, D.C.: Department of the Interior, nd.), 

pp. 1-7.

10. Douglas Croy, "Fort Union National Monument, New Mexico: the First Twenty-five Years" (M.A. 

Thesis, New Mexico Highlands University, 1984), pp.31-33.

11. Ibid., p.31.

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhie.htm (8 of 22) [9/7/2007 12:46:08 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

12. Ibid., p.33.

13. Mawson, "Its Origin, Development, and Administration."

14. Fort Union, "News Release," July 31, 1967, Fort Union File A8215.

15. Croy, "The First Twenty-Five Years," p.34.

16. Ibid., p.33.

17. Homer Hastings to Regional Director, June 1, 1958, Fort Union File A2823.

18. Croy, "The First Twenty-Five Years," pp.31-32.

19. Wing, "Monthly Report for December 1955."

20. Wing, "Monthly Report for October 1956," November 7, 1956, Fort Union File A2823.

221. Wing, "Monthly Report for October 1956," November 7, 1956, Fort Union File A2823.

22. Kittridge Wing to Regional Director, April 14, 1957, Fort Union File A2823.

23. Mawson, "Its Origin, Development, and Administration," pp.47-52.

24. Rex L. Wilson, "Fort Union National Monument, New Mexico: Rehabilitation of Historic 

Structures," 3 vols. (Fort Union, Watrous, New Mexico, 1961), 1:6.

25. Albert H. Schroeder to Regional Chief of Division of Interpretation, June 2, 1960, Fort Union File 

Q5.

26. Frances Levine and William Westbury, A History of Archeological Investigations at Fort Union 

National Monument (National Park Service Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, 1990), pp.3-4.

27. Mawson, "Its Origin," pp.54-55.

28. Hastings, "Monthly Report for May 1958," June 1, 1958; Nicholas J. Bleser, "Interpretive 

Prospectus," (Fort Union, 1967), p.42.

29. Homer Hastings to Regional Director, July 2, 1959, Southwest Regional Office File A2815.

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhie.htm (9 of 22) [9/7/2007 12:46:08 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

30. Las Vegas Daily Optic, June 16, 1959.

31. Croy, "The First Twenty-Five Years," p.33.

32. Ibid., p.44; Hastings, "Monthly Report for September 1965," October 4, 1965, Fort Union File 

A2823.

33. National Park Service, Western Military Forts: Report of Committee to Review Western Forts' 

Interpretive Development Programs, by Roy E. Appleman, Chairman (1965), p.7.

34. Ibid., p.1; The seven western forts were Fort Laramie (Wyoming), Fort Larned (Kansas), Bent's Fort 

(Colorado), Fort Union (New Mexico), Fort Bowie (Arizona), Fort Davis (Texas), and Fort Smith 

(Arkansas).

35. Ibid., p.7.

36. Bleser, Interpretive Prospectus, p.42.

37. Fort Union, "News Release," May 3, 1968, Fort Union File.

38. Croy, "The First Twenty-Five Years," pp.46-47; Ross Hopkins, "Annual Report for 1975," February 

26, 1976, Fort Union File A2621.

39. Hopkins, "Annual Report for 1974," January 9, 1975, Fort Union File A2615.

40. Ross Hopkins, telephone interview with the author, January 30, 1992.

41. Gary Matlock, "The 1972 Management Appraisal of Fort Union National Monument," (1972), 

Southwest Regional Office Library.

42. Hopkins, "Annual Report for 1973," January 23, 1974, Fort Union File A2621.

43. Croy, "The First Twenty-Five Years," pp.47-48.

44. Ibid., pp.49-50.

45. Clark Crane, "Annual Report for 1980," March 13, 1981, Fort Union File A2621.

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhie.htm (10 of 22) [9/7/2007 12:46:08 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

46. Ibid.

47. Crane, "Annual Report for 1981," April 8, 1982, Fort Union File A2621.

48. Ibid.

49. Ibid.

50. Crane, "Annual Report for 1982"; "Annual Report for 1983"; "Annual Report for 1984"; "Annual 

Report for 1985."

51. Dwight Pitcaithley and Jerome A. Greene, "Historic Structure Report, Historic Data Section: the 

Third Fort Union, 1863-1891," (National Park Service Denver Service Center, Denver, 1982).

52. Crane, "Annual Report for 1982."

53. Crane, "Annual Report for 1984."

54. Crane, "Annual Report for 1982," and "Annual Report for 1983."

55. "Annual Report for 1983."

56. Ibid.

57. "Annual Report for 1984."

58. Crane, "Annual Report for 1986," March 12, 1987, Fort Union File A2621.

59. Interview with John E. Cook, National Park Service Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New 

Mexico, October 25, 1991.

60. Ibid.

61. Interview with James E. Ivey, National Park Service Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New 

Mexico, October 23, 1991.

62. Douglas McChristian, "Annual Report for 1987," March 7, 1988, Fort Union File A2621.

63. Anthony Crosby and Laura Harrison, "Task Directive Historic Structures Report of Fort Union 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhie.htm (11 of 22) [9/7/2007 12:46:08 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

National Monument," August 11, 1988, Southwest Regional Office File H30.

64. Anthony Crosby to Chief of the Division of Conservation, June 16, 1987, Southwest Regional Office 

File.

65. McChristian, "Annual Report for 1987."

66. Interview with Teddy Garcia, Fort Union, New Mexico, May 15, 1991.

67. Harry Myers, "Annual Report for 1988," February 10, 1989; "Annual Report for 1989," March 23, 

1990.

CHAPTER 4

1. Kittridge A. Wing, "Monthly Report for December 1955," Fort Union File A2823.

2. Wing, "Monthly Report for February 1956," March 2, 1956; "Monthly Report for March 1956," April 

5, 1956, Fort Union File A2823.

3. Wing, "Monthly Report for May 1956," June 11, 1956, Fort Union File A2823.

4. Wing, "Monthly Report for June 1956," July 8, 1956, Fort Union File A2823.

5. Ibid.

6. Wing, "Monthly Report for July 1956," August 7, 1956, Fort Union File A2823.

7. Wing, "Monthly Report for September 1956," October 7, 1956; "Monthly Report for October 1956," 

November 7, 1956, Fort Union File A2823.

8. Museum Accession Book in Donald Mawson's "Fort Union National Monument."

9. Douglas Croy, "Fort Union National Monument, New Mexico: The First Twenty-five Years" (M.A. 

Thesis, New Mexico Highlands University, 1984), pp. 52-53.

10. Ibid.; Homer Hastings, "Monthly Report for October 1959," November 3, 1959, Fort Union File 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhie.htm (12 of 22) [9/7/2007 12:46:08 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

A2823.

11. Wing, "Monthly Report for March 1957," April 1, 1957, Fort Union File A2823.

12. Mawson, "Fort Union National Monument," p. 56.

13. Ibid., p. 40.

14. "Monthly Report for March 1957."

15. Wing, "Monthly Report for October 1956."

16. Hastings, "Monthly Report for October 1959."

17. "Monthly Report for October 1956."

18. Wing, "Monthly Report for March 1957."

19. Wing, "Monthly Report for October 1957."

20. Croy, "The First Twenty-five Years," pp. 53-54; Fort Union File G7, Southwest Regional Office 

Library.

21. Roy E. Appleman to Chief, Division of Interpretation, August 31, 1961, Southwest Regional Office 

File A5423-IBH.

22. Hastings, "Monthly Report for June 1962," July 4, 1962, Fort Union File A2823.

23. Hastings, "Monthly Report for May 1967," June 2, 1967, Fort Union File A2823.

24. Ira B. Lykes, Chief of Park Practice, to Chief, Branch of History, November 9, 1961, Fort Union File 

Q5.

25. Croy, "The First Twenty-five Years," p. 56.

26. Ibid., P. 59.

27. Ibid., pp. 58-59.

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhie.htm (13 of 22) [9/7/2007 12:46:08 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

28. Nicholas Bleser, "Interpretive Prospectus" (Santa Fe: National Park Service Southwest Region, 

1967), p. 2.

29. Fort Union, "News Release," July 7, 1967, Fort Union File K3417.

30. Hastings, "Monthly Log for April 1968," May 2, 1968, Fort Union File A2615.

31. Fort Union, "News Release," March 3, 1971, Fort Union File K3417.

32. Claude Fernandez to Bill Brown, Regional Historian, May 3, 1973, Southwest Regional Office File 

H34.

33. Ibid.

34. Fort Union, "Requisition WAD-165," March 25, 1974, Fort Union File K1815

35. Ross Hopkins, "Annual Report for 1974," January 9, 1975, Fort Union File A2621.

36. Hastings, "Monthly Log for April 1968," May 2, 1968, Fort Union File A2615.

37. Fernandez, "Monthly Log for April 1972," May 1, 1972, Fort Union File A2615.

38. Fernandez, "Annual Report for 1972," January 11, 1973, Fort Union File A2621.

39. Fort Union, "News Release," August 4, 1972, Fort Union File K3417.

40. Fernandex, "Annual Report for 1972."

41. Ibid.

42. Fort Union, "News Release," November 2, 1972, Fort Union File K3417.

43. Las Vegas Daily Optic, July 11, 1969.

44. Croy, "The First Twenty-five Years," P. 59.

45. Hopkins, "Annual Report for 1973," January 23, 1974, Fort Union File A2621.

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhie.htm (14 of 22) [9/7/2007 12:46:08 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

46. Dale Giese, telephone interview with the author, January 30, 1992.

47. Fort Union, "News Release," June 28, 1968, Fort Union File K3417.

48. Dale Giese, Telephone interview with the author, January 30, 1992.

49. Ross Hopkins, Telephone interview with the author, January 30, 1992.

50. Croy, "The First Twenty-five Years," pp. 56-57; Hopkins, "Annual Report for 1973."

51. Fort Union, "News Release," June 11, 1974, Fort Union File K3417.

52. Fort Union, "News Release," nd., Fort Union File K3417.

53. Denver Post, July 7, 1974.

54. Union County Leader, Clayton, New Mexico, April 23, 1975.

55. Amarillo Daily News, Texas, September 22, 1975; Denver Post, August 10, 1975.

56. Las Vegas Daily Optic, April 30, 1975.

57. John Jarrell, "Fort Union Lives Again," New Mexico Magazine, May 1975, p. 9.

58. Ibid.

59. Santa Fe New Mexican, June 12, 1975.

60. Robert Arnberger, Telephone interview with the author, February 3, 1992.

61. Albuquerque Journal, November 13, 1975.

62. Hopkins, "Annual Report for 1976," March 11, 1977; "Annual Report for 1977," March 24, 1978, 

Fort Union File A2621.

63. Hopkins, "Annual Report for 1976."

64. John Cook, Interview with the author, National Park Service Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhie.htm (15 of 22) [9/7/2007 12:46:08 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

New Mexcio, October 25, 1991.

65. Las Vegas Daily Optic, June 1, 1978.

66. Croy, "The First Twenty-five Years," P. 58.

67. Carol Kruse, Telephone interview with the author, February 3, 1992.

68. Clark Crane, "Annual Report for 1980," March 13, 1981, Fort Union File A2621; "News Release," 

December 17, 1980, Fort Union File K3417.

69. Crane, "Annual Report for 1981," April 8, 1982; "Annual Report for 1982," February 14, 1983; 

"Annual Report for 1983," July 31, 1984, Fort Union File A2621.

70. Crane, "Annual Report for 1984," March 7, 1985, Fort Union File A2621.

71. New Mexico Economic Development and Tourist Department, "News Release," August 1985, Fort 

Union File A8215.

72. Fort Union, "News Release," August 8, 1986, Fort Union File A8215.

73. Crane, "Annual Report for 1986," March 12, 1987, Fort Union File A2621.

74. National Scenic and National Historic Trail Act, U.S. Code, vol. 6, secs. 1244. (1988).

75. Crane, "Annual Report for 1986."

76. Harry Myers, "Annual Report for 1988," Fort Union File A2621.

77. Harry Myers, Conversation with the author, Fort Union, New Mexico, May 15, 1991.

78. Myers, "Annual Report for 1990," Fort Union File A2621.

79. The author attended the event.

CHAPTER 5

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhie.htm (16 of 22) [9/7/2007 12:46:08 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

1. Sandra Schackel, Historic Vegetation At Fort Union National Monument: 1851-1983 (National Park 

Service Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, 1983), pp. 20-22.

2. Kittridge Wing, "Monthly Report for June 1956"; "Monthly Report for July 1956," Fort Union File 

A2823.

3. Wing, "Monthly Report for December 1955," January 7, 1956, Fort Union File A2823. 

4. Wing, "Monthly Report for February 1956," March 2, 1956, Fort Union File A2823.

5. Wing, "Monthly Report for August 1957," Fort Union File A2823.

6. Homer Hastings, "Monthly Report for October 1959," November 3, 1959, Fort Union File A2823.

7. I. J. Winograd, "Occurrence and Quality of Ground Water in the Fort Union Area, Mora County, New 

Mexico," 1956, Fort Union File L54.

8. Douglass Croy, "Fort Union National Monument, New Mexico: The First Twenty-five Years" (M.A. 

Thesis, New Mexico Highlands University, 1984), P. 42.

9. Wing, "Monthly Report for November 1957," Fort Union File A2823.

10. Croy, "Fort Union National Monument," pp. 36-37; Hastings, "Monthly Report for April 1960," May 

3, 1960, Fort Union File A2823.

11. George Cattanach, "Monthly Report for March 1958," Fort Union File A2823.

12. Croy, "Fort Union National Monument," p. 93.

13. Ibid., pp. 44-45.

14. Ibid.

15. Ronald Foresta, America's National Parks and Their Keeper (Washington, D.C.: Resources for the 

Future, 1984), pp. 93-99.

16. William Brown memo to Acting Regional Director, Southwest Region, March 20, 1969, Southwest 

Regional Office File A98.

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhie.htm (17 of 22) [9/7/2007 12:46:08 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

17. Homer Hastings memo to William Brown, March 1, 1969, Southwest Regional Office File A98.

18. Robert Arnberger memo to John Tyers, Environmental Specialist, November 27, 1972, Southwest 

Regional Office File G15.

19. Ibid.

20. Edward Hummel memo to Regional Directors, November 20, 1970, Fort Union File N54.

21. Croy, "Fort Union National Monument," p. 93.

22. Ross Hopkins, "Annual Report for 1974," January 9, 1975, Fort Union File A2621.

23. "Cooperative Agreement Between the Mora-Wagon Mound Soil and Water Conservation District 

and Fort Union National Monument," October 28, 1975, Fort Union File N54.

24. Ibid.

25. Ross Hopkins, "Annual Report for 1975," February 26, 1976; "Annual Report for 1976," March 11, 

1977, Fort Union File A2621.

26. Homer Hastings memo to Regional Director, October 30, 1970, Fort Union File L54.

27. Garland Moore memo to Ross Hopkins, April 20, 1974, Fort Union File L54.

28. Carol Kruse, "Water Resource Management Profile for Fort Union National Monument," Fort Union 

File L54.

29. Ibid.

30. William Werrell to Superintendent of Fort Union and Capulin Mountain National Monument, July 

28, 1984, Fort Union File L54.

31. Claude S. Fernandez, "Annual Report for 1972," January 11, 1973, Fort Union File A2621.

32. Hopkins, "Annual Report for 1977," March 24, 1978, Fort Union File A2623.

33. Hopkins, "Annual Report for 1973," January 23, 1974; "Annual Report for 1974," January 9, 1975; 

"Annual Report for 1975," February 26, 1976, Fort Union File A2621.

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhie.htm (18 of 22) [9/7/2007 12:46:08 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

34. Hopkins, "Annual Report for 1977," March 24, 1978, Fort Union File A2621.

35. "Cooperative Fire Protection and Emergency Operations Agreement Between the Union Land and 

Grazing Company Fort Union Ranch and Fort Union National Monument," October 26, 1975; 

"Cooperative Fire Protection and Emergency Operations Agreement Between the Fort Union Ranch and 

Fort Union National Monument," May 22, 1978; "Cooperative Fire Protection and Fire Service 

Emergency Operations Agreement Between Fort Union National Monument and the Watrous Volunteer 

Fire Department," August 16, 1978; "Joint Powers Agreement Between the State of New Mexico and 

the Federal Agencies of the Departments of Agriculture and Interior with Fire responsibilities," May 26, 

1978, Fort Union File A44.

36. Clark Crane, "Annual Report for 1983," July 31, 1984, Fort Union File A2621.

37. Crane, "Annual Report for 1985

38. "Resource Management Plan and Environmental Assessment for Fort Union National Monument," 

1981; "General Management Plan for Fort Union National Monument," 1985, Fort Union File.

39. Crane, "Annual Report for 1985"; "Resource Management Plan for Fort Union National Monument," 

1987, Fort Union File.

40. Harry Myers, "Monthly Report for May and June, 1989," July 11, 1989; "Monthly Report for 

February and March, 1990," April 16, 1990, Fort Union File A2615.

41. Schackel, Historic Vegetation At Fort Union.

42. Crane, "Annual Report for 1983."

43. Fort Union, "General Management Plan," 1985.

44. Carl Friery, "Report of Accident," August 18, 1983, Fort Union File A7623.

45. Fort Union, "Rattlesnake Policy," May 30, 1984.

46. Ibid.

47. Fort Union, "Statement for Management," 1976; "Resource Management Plan and Environmental 

Assessment for Fort Union National Monument," 1981, Fort Union File.

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhie.htm (19 of 22) [9/7/2007 12:46:08 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

48. Fort Union, "General Management Plan," 1985; "Resource Management Plan," 1987; "Statement for 

Management," 1990, Fort Union File.

CHAPTER 6

1. Ronald Foresta, America's National Parks and Their Keepers (Washington: Resources For the Future, 

1984), pp. 232-35.

2. John C. Freemouth, Islands Under Siege: National Parks and The Politics of External Threats

(Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1991), p. 2.

3. Fort Union, "News Release," August 10, 1966; "News Release," July 12, 1967; "News Release," nd., 

Fort Union File K3417.

4. Fort Union, "Case Incident Record," June 25, 1977, Fort Union File W2623.

5. Ross Hopkins, "Annual Report for 1973," January 23, 1974, Fort Union File A2621.

6. Hopkins, "Annual Report for 1974," January 9, 1975, Fort Union File A2621.

7. Fort Union, "Case Incident Record," March 14, 1979, Fort Union File W2623.

8. Fort Union, "Case Incident Record," July 2, 1987, Fort Union File W2623.

9. Fort Union, "Case Incident Record," July 16, 1977, Fort Union File W2623.

10. Fort Union, "Case Incident Record," April 13, 1984, Fort Union File W2623.

11. Fort Union, "Case Incident Record," July 25, 1986, Fort Union File W2623.

12. Fort Union, "Case Incident Record," November 5, 1975, Fort Union File W2623.

13. Hopkins, "Annual Report for 1973."

14. Hopkins, "Annual Report for 1974."

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhie.htm (20 of 22) [9/7/2007 12:46:08 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

15. Ibid.

16. Hopkins, "Annual Report for 1975," February 26, 1976, Fort Union File A2621.

17. Clark Crane, "Annual Report for 1984," March 7, 1985, Fort Union File A2621.

18. Fort Union, "Criminal Incident Record," July 29, 1987, Fort Union File W2623.

19. Ross Hopkins memo to Regional Director, November 20, 1979, Fort Union File L24.

20. Ibid.

21. Hopkins, "Annual Report for 1977," March 24, 1978, Fort Union File A2623.

22. Ross Hopkins to Regional Director, November 20, 1979, Fort Union File L24; Chief of Air Quality 

Division to Regional Air Quality Coordinators, December 19, 1988, Fort Union File N3615.

23. Homer Hastings, "Monthly Narrative Report for November 1963," December 2, 1963, Fort Union 

File A2823.

24. Claude Fernandez, "Monthly Log for September 1971," Fort Union File A2615.

25. Homer Hastings, "Monthly Narrative Report for April 1967," April 30, 1967, Fort Union File A2823.

26. Fort Union, "Case Incident Record," November 3, 1975; "Case Incident Record," December 15, 

1975, Fort Union File W2623.

27. Los Angeles Times, February 23, 1977.

28. Acting Associate Regional Director, Park Operations, to Superintendents of Southwest Region, 

October 5, 1987; Douglas McChristian to Regional Director, October 19, 1987, Fort Union File L34.

29. Fort Union, "Case Incident Record," May 6, 1976, Fort Union File W2623.

30. Fort Union, "Case Incident Record," October 7, 1984, Fort Union File W3415.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhie.htm (21 of 22) [9/7/2007 12:46:08 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Endnotes)

foun/adhi/adhie.htm 

Last Updated: 22-Jan-2001

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhie.htm (22 of 22) [9/7/2007 12:46:08 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 1)

Fort Union

Administrative History

CHAPTER 1: A FRONTIER POST (continued)

Figure 4. Officers' Quarters, Post of Fort Union, in the 1870s. 

Courtesy of New Mexico Magazine

With the acquisition of New Mexico in 1848, the United States began to carry the entire burden of 

protecting traders and travelers on the Santa Fe Trail and in the Southwest. For two and a half centuries 

Apaches and Navajos had raided the Rio Grande settlements, at the same time that Kiowas and 

Comanches were disrupting travelers on the Plains. The Indians were defending their homelands from 

the encroachment of Europeans. The federal government countered these raids by sending better than 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi1a.htm (1 of 3) [9/7/2007 12:46:09 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 1)

10% of the army to the area. By 1851 almost 1,300 soldiers were stationed at eleven outposts in the 

Territory of New Mexico. [16] The post of Santa Fe served as the headquarters of the Ninth Military 

Department.

Although the number of soldiers in New Mexico was relatively high, their performance did not please 

military commanders. Military expenditures were greatly increased, yet there appeared to be little 

progress toward stopping the Indian raids. Secretary of War Charles M. Conrad asked Lt. Col. Edwin V. 

Sumner to consolidate military posts in the territory and to move the troops "more toward the frontier, 

near the Indians." [17] As soon as he arrived in Santa Fe and assumed command of the Department of 

New Mexico, Sumner issued Orders No. 21 to remove "the troops and public property" to a new location 

named Fort Union. [18] In his zeal to carry out the order, Colonel Sumner managed to transfer most of 

the properties in the department headquarters at Santa Fe to the site of the new post within twenty days. 

[19] He also consolidated troops from Las Vegas, Albuquerque, Socorro, El Paso, and other posts and 

stationed them at the new fort. [20]

As a frontier post, Fort Union was strategically situated near the junction of the Mountain and Cimarron 

branches of the Santa Fe Trail. Noticing the activities of Sumner's entourage, Alexander Barclay offered 

to sell his fort to the army. But the military refused his offer and chose to build its own post six miles 

north of Barclay's fort. At that time none of the commanders or the soldiers knew this "free" site was 

private property within the borders of the Mora Grant. These unchallenged squatters immediately started 

building the fort. By the end of the first year, more than thirty buildings had been erected at the base of 

West Mesa. In 1852, under Sumner's Special Orders No. 30, Fort Union's territory expanded to eight 

square miles. [21]

As a key military post, Fort Union quickly became the guardian for American traders and travelers on 

the Santa Fe Trail. But by the mid-1850s, the Jicarilla Apaches stepped up their raiding of outlying 

settlements as well as caravans on the Santa Fe Trail, northeast of Fort Union. To combat their raids, Lt. 

Col. Philip St. George Cooke sent out a force of 200 dragoons and infantry to fight Indian war parties in 

1854. Guided by New Mexico's legendary frontiersman, Christopher [Kit] Carson, the army pursued the 

Apaches into the rugged mountains in an attempt to subdue them. [22] Many of the Apaches who eluded 

Cooke's soldiers took refuge with the Utes in southern Colorado. A few months later they united and 

attacked white settlers, killing 15 men. In 1855 the U.S. Army launched another extensive campaign that 

led to the Ute War of 1855. More than 500 soldiers, reinforced by the First Dragoons from Fort Union, 

fought the united Indian tribes, which sued for peace after several devastating battles. [23] With this 

temporary peace, the army shifted its attention to the Plains, where the elusive Kiowas and Comanches 

had been plundering settlers and travelers. During 1860-1861, the soldiers from Fort Union pushed these 

Indian tribes out of the territory. Hence, in its first ten years, Fort Union played a significant role in 

protecting the new American highway, the Santa Fe Trail.

In 1861 when the Civil War broke out, the majority of officers at Fort Union were from the South. They 

resigned from the U.S. Army and joined the Confederacy. As soon as they assumed their new allegiance, 

the rebels marched back to New Mexico and tried to seize all Union posts and the Colorado mines. The 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi1a.htm (2 of 3) [9/7/2007 12:46:09 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 1)

Confederates' invasion threatened Union control of the fort. The Union soldiers began to busy 

themselves constructing a massive earthen "fieldwork," later called the Star Fort, which was a mile east 

of the first fort and was designed to block the Santa Fe Trail against Confederate advance from the 

south. [24] In early 1862 the Confederates forced Union troops to evacuate Santa Fe and to take a 

defensive position at the Star Fort. At this crucial moment, the first Colorado Volunteer regiment, led by 

Col. John P. Slough, arrived in New Mexico. Between the Unionists and the Confederates lay Glorieta 

Pass, a rugged opening through the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, where on March 28, 1862, the two 

armies fought the decisive battle of the Civil War in the far western theater. In three days Union troops 

had achieved a victory, and the Confederates retreated to Texas.

After the battle at Glorieta Pass, Fort Union received no further threat from the Confederates. The new 

commander of the Department of New Mexico, Brig. Gen. James H. Carleton, gave orders to build a 

new fort adjacent to the earthwork. The sprawling installation contained three parts: the Post, the 

Quartermaster Depot, and the Ordinance Depot. It took several hundred civilians five years, from 1863 

to 1868, to complete construction. The new buildings at Fort Union were constructed of adobe brick, the 

walls standing on stone foundations and coated with plaster. The main structures had tin roofs, except 

the hospital, which was shingled. The military installation was the largest in New Mexico, and according 

to Inspector Andrew W. Evans, the most luxurious. [25]

In addition to normal military functions, the new fort, today called the Third Fort, became the army's 

supply center in New Mexico. In order to consolidate a number of the older forts in the region after the 

reunion, the army proposed to expand Fort Union into one of the largest posts in the West. The Fort 

Union Quartermaster Depot soon assumed the responsibilities of supplying other posts with nearly 

everything needed for their existence. As a British traveler observed in 1867, "Fort Union is a bustling 

place; it is the largest military establishment to be found on the Plains, and is the supply center" for "the 

forty or fifty lesser posts scattered all over the country within a radius of 500 miles...." [26]

CONTINUE >>>

foun/adhi/adhi1a.htm 

Last Updated: 22-Jan-2001

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi1a.htm (3 of 3) [9/7/2007 12:46:09 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 2)

Fort Union

Administrative History

CHAPTER 2: FROM RUINS TO A NATIONAL MONUMENT

(continued)

With support from Washington, the National Park Service's Region Three Office in Santa Fe soon 

organized an investigative trip to Fort Union. On May 9, 1939, Hillory A. Tolson, director of Region 

Three, led a "reconnaissance party" to the old fort. This well-balanced team included George Hammond, 

dean of the Graduate School at the University of New Mexico, Herbert O. Brayer, assistant director of 

the Coronado Quarto Centennial Commission, Aubrey Neasham, regional historian of Region Three, 

Kenneth F. Woodman, statistician of the Park Service, and Charles A. Richey, assistant landscape 

architect of Region Three. The purpose of this trip was to investigate possible routes to the fort. [12] 

Since the area had not been accurately surveyed, it was necessary for Richey and his assistant to return 

on the following day in order to determine the boundary and acreage of the fort. [13] This investigative 

trip also helped to determine the willingness of the Park Service to establish a national monument at Fort 

Union.

Five days later, Tolson sent a contingent (Hammond, Brayer, and Neasham) to meet with Edward B. 

Wheeler, agent for the Union Land and Grazing Company, at his office in Las Vegas, New Mexico. [14] 

Wheeler had bitterly opposed government intervention because he had claimed $100,000 damages for 

illegal timber cutting on the estate of the Butler Cattle Company. This claim was based on the idea that 

the United States Forest Service had incorrectly surveyed the area. Both the House and Senate once 

voted for compensation, but President Franklin D. Roosevelt vetoed it. [15] Despite Wheeler's hostile 

feeling, the Park Service delegation persuaded him to cooperate with the government. At the meeting 

Wheeler agreed to recommend that the Union Land and Grazing Company donate to the United States 

Government approximately 1,000 acres of land for the establishment of a national monument. He also 

agreed to give a 200-foot wide right-of-way for an entrance road to the fort from Highway 85 (present 

day Interstate 25). [16] In return, the government agreed to fence the donated land, build a house for the 

company agent, furnish water and electricity, and construct at least three underpasses on the road for 

cattle passage. The agreement included a reversionary clause saying, "if at any time the land is not used 

by the United States as a national monument or reservation, title shall revert to the Union Land and 

Grazing Company or to its successor." [17] In the coming years, this clause was to prove the greatest 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi2a.htm (1 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:46:10 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 2)

single obstacle in creating a national monument at Fort Union.

For several weeks Tolson and Wheeler exchanged letters concerning minor points of disagreement on 

the entrance road. Both of them agreed to send another boundary survey team to the site. The news of 

the successful preliminary negotiations with the Union Land and Grazing Company quickly spread in 

the New Mexico press. On June 1, 1939, Governor John E. Miles of New Mexico wrote to Regional 

Director Tolson, expressing his hope that the National Park Service would "do everything within its 

power to expedite the establishment of the Fort Union National Monument." [18]

The Region Three Office in Santa Fe attempted to speed up the process for the establishment of the Fort 

Union National Monument. In a memorandum of June 8, Arthur E. Demaray, acting director of the 

National Park Service, told Tolson that the Advisory Board on National Parks, Historic Sites, Buildings, 

and Monuments had "not as yet classified this area as of national significance." [19] In answer to 

Demaray's memorandum, Tolson wrote back, "it is urgently recommended that...it be submitted for 

classification and approval for establishment as a national monument at the Advisory Board's next 

meeting." [20] Meanwhile, Tolson asked Richey to do another survey of the proposed boundaries and 

the road. On June 8 and 27, Richey and his assistant made separate trips to Fort Union. They discussed 

various details of the proposed area with Wheeler: the right-way and scenic easements. [21] In July 

1939, Tolson submitted to Washington a special report, in which he recommended that the federal 

government establish Fort Union National Monument by presidential proclamation. Convinced of the 

efficacy of New Deal legislation, he also thought to set up a Civilian Conservation Corps camp at the 

site "to preserve and develop the site adequately." [22]

The plan to establish Fort Union National Monument, therefore, was progressing well in the first few 

months. At the same time that Edward Wheeler presented his case to the board of directors of the Union 

Land and Grazing Company, the Park Service submitted its proposal for a national monument at Fort 

Union to the Department of the Interior, with recommendation that it be submitted to the Bureau of the 

Budget and the President. Almost without delay, the Department of the Interior agreed to the proposal. 

By early fall of 1939, the administrators of the Park Service were so confident that Fort Union would be 

a national monument that they had already sent out copies of the draft form of the proclamation, even 

before securing title to the land.

Just as the Park Service was preparing to celebrate its victory, unpleasant news arrived from New 

Mexico. On November 19, 1939, Wheeler sent Governor Miles a telegram saying, "Fort Union National 

Monument proposal encountered legal obstacle yesterday in Washington." [24] The U.S. Government 

wanted to omit the reversionary clause from the deed. According to the reversionary clause, the 

government would revert title to the company if the donated land remained "inactive." The federal 

government believed that such a guarantee was unnecessary even though the Union Land and Grazing 

Company insisted on it. Negotiations between the government and the company deadlocked.

Nevertheless, the Region Three Office of the Park Service reopened the dialogue with a new proposal. 

In December 1939, Tolson suggested that Fort Union be developed as a Public Works Administration 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi2a.htm (2 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:46:10 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 2)

project. Wheeler felt that this action would be a sufficient guarantee to satisfy the company. [25] On 

January 15, 1940, E. K. Burlew, acting secretary of the interior, wrote to President Roosevelt and John 

M. Carmody, administrator of the Federal Works Agency, asking for an allocation of $98,000 to 

establish Fort Union National Monument under the supervision of WPA. [26] Of the $98,000 of Public 

Works Funds, $13,500 would be used to acquire 837.367 acres of land for the monument, and $84,500 

for improvements. [27] Unfortunately, the Public Works Administration could not allot $98,000 for the 

project due to limited funds. Later, the Bureau of the Budget asked the Park Service to submit an annual 

budget of $12,000 for Fort Union. In July 1940, President Roosevelt gave his approval to proceed in 

acquiring the site for a national monument, provided that the maintenance costs would not exceed the 

fees collected from the public. [28]

The president's approval made it possible for the Park Service to begin a new deal with the Union Land 

and Grazing Company. Later that July, Tolson, then acting associate director of the National Park 

Service, wrote to Andrew Marshall, attorney for the company, to schedule a conference working out the 

details of the title transaction. The representatives of both sides met on October 28, 1940. [29] Since 

Andrew Marshall had advised the board of directors of the company not to transfer title of the land to the 

government unless the deed of transfer contained a reversionary clause, the representatives of the 

company were unwilling to give in on this point. [30] Marshall explained that because the site lay 

practically in the middle of the company's holdings, acquisition of this site by a third party would create 

an intolerable situation. On the other side, the government negotiators argued that the provisions of the 

Antiquities Act of 1906 were not broad enough to permit the U.S. government to accept less than fee 

simple title to land transferred to it for national monument purpose. [31] But the government pointed out 

that it could accept the title with a reversionary clause under the Historic Sites Act of 1935, which 

assigned broad powers and duties to the Park Service. Marshall was interested in this idea; however, the 

conference did not reach any agreement.

The Park Service then decided to draft a new deed for the establishment of Fort Union National Historic 

Site under the Historic Sites Act of 1935. Its hope soon died when Tolson received a letter from 

Wheeler. On February 19, 1941, Wheeler wrote to Tolson, quoting Marshall, "there are so many 

pressing things to be done in connection with Mrs. Ames' estate, and there is so little enthusiasm in the 

family about making this gift to the government, that the matter has had to be postponed somewhat to 

await the doing of more important things." [32] Similarly, the nation was concerned with more 

important issues surrounding the Second World War. Thus, the movement to establish a national 

monument at Fort Union was again interrupted for a few years.

After World War II, people in New Mexico revived the campaign to create the Fort Union National 

Monument. New Mexicans had learned that the previous efforts failed because of the lack of local 

interest in the project. This time local citizens and interest groups decided to lead the movement to 

ultimate success. At a Masonic Lodge meeting in Las Vegas in 1946, William Stapp read a paper 

entitled "Chapman Lodge No. 2, A.F. & A.M.," in which he again asked his brothers to pay attention to 

the significance of Fort Union. [33] The paper also brought back memories of their 1929 campaign to 

preserve the fort.

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi2a.htm (3 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:46:10 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 2)

CONTINUE >>>

foun/adhi/adhi2a.htm 

Last Updated: 22-Jan-2001

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi2a.htm (4 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:46:10 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 3)

Fort Union

Administrative History

CHAPTER 3: REHABILITATING AND PRESERVING THE FORT

(continued)

As a unique section of the National Park Service, Fort Union was the first monument established and 

developed entirely under MISSION 66. In 1956, Director Conrad L. Wirth of the National Park Service 

launched an ambitious conservation program to develop national parks to permit the visitors' maximum 

enjoyment while still pursuing the preservation of the park's scenic and historic resources. The 800-

million-dollar program was schedule to end in 1966, the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the 

National Park Service--hence the name MISSION 66. [9]

The construction of a permanent visitor center and residential housing topped the list of the master plan 

of development. People had different ideas about the location and style of the proposed visitor center. 

Some persons suggested that one of the historic barracks should be restored and used as the visitor 

center. But after a few months of discussion, the Park Service adopted Wing's blueprint to build a New 

Mexico territorial-style visitor center south of the main ruins and in line with the old hospital. [10] The 

National Park Service Western Office of Design and Construction (WODC) worked out the preliminary 

plans of the proposed visitor center and residence houses. Just as people were ready to see the start of 

the construction in October, the regional directors' conference in Washington decided to withdraw the 

1957 fiscal year construction funds from Fort Union, with the intention of completing most of the 

development in a "package" during the 1958 fiscal year. [11]

Nevertheless, some construction continued in 1957. In September, W. H. Elliot of Albuquerque received 

a $70,000 contract to construct two residences at the southern edge of the park near the main gate. His 

company completed a house and a duplex the following spring. [12] However, Acting Superintendent 

Wing was not able to enjoy the new living quarters. In January 1958, his wife Anna died of a heart 

attack. Soon after, he requested a transfer from Fort Union, where the couple had devoted a great deal of 

their energy to the new national monument. With sympathy for Wing's tragedy and praise for his work, 

the Park Service promoted him to assistant superintendent of San Juan National Historic Site in Puerto 

Rico. In April, Homer F. Hastings, former superintendent of Aztec Ruins National Monument in New 

Mexico, arrived at Fort Union to assume his duty as superintendent. [13] He immediately took up 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi3a.htm (1 of 3) [9/7/2007 12:46:11 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 3)

residence in the newly constructed house.

Born at Montrose, Colorado, Hastings began his Park Service career as a seasonal ranger at Carlsbad 

Caverns National Park during the summer of 1930. In 1937, he became a permanent employee, working 

first at Aztec Ruins. Before his new appointment at Fort Union, Hastings had served as superintendent at 

several Park Service units in Arizona and New Mexico. The arrival of this twenty-year veteran 

guaranteed strong leadership for the development of Fort Union National Monument. [14]

During his administration, Wing brought archeologist George Cattanach from Montezuma Castle 

National Monument in Arizona and filled the historian position with Donald Mawson, a tour leader at 

Carlsbad Caverns National Park. Following in Hastings's steps, Cattanach and Mawson occupied the 

separate duplex residence.

Since no modern facility had existed in the area, the new monument had to bring in everything from the 

outside. The basic utilities included water, electricity, telephone lines, and a sewage system. A small 

spring flowing in Wolf Creek west of the Third Fort appeared to be the only surface water accessible to 

the monument. Sometimes the creek was bottom dry. Thus, Fort Union needed a sufficient water source. 

After a groundwater study in July 1956, the U.S. geological surveyors affirmed the quality and quantity 

of groundwater at the site. They also helped to choose a suitable location for the well the following 

April. The Park Service awarded Red Top Drilling Company of Las Vegas a $3,725 contract to drill for 

water. On August 22, 1957, the company completed a 325-foot well. [15]

Meanwhile, the Park Service gave a $29,000 contract for water and sewage systems to Starr and 

Cummins Company of Albuquerque. According to the deal, the company would install one 52,000-

gallon water tank at the northeastern corner of the Third Fort, two 300,000-gallon sewage lagoons at the 

southwestern corner, and all the pipe lines. By spring of 1958 the water and sewage systems were 

operational. A year earlier, the Mora Electrical Cooperative had extended power lines to the monument. 

A modern communication system was also necessary for the monument to operate efficiently. In 

February 1959, after much negotiating, the Mountain Bell Telephone Company finally provided its 

services to the remote fort. [16]

When the package of construction funds for the 1958 fiscal year arrived, Fort Union immediately invited 

various business firms and individuals to bid on all the related projects. Again, Floyd Haake won a 

contract for $30,148 to surface an existing 1,600-foot dirt road in the residential area and to construct a 

new parking lot in front of the visitor center. Kueffer Construction Company of Las Vegas, another low 

bidder, got a $71,804 contract to build a visitor center and a utility building and to extend power lines to 

both buildings and a telephone line to the visitor center. [17] Close cooperation between the two 

companies provided a healthy working environment to guarantee that all the construction progressed 

speedily. On September 2, 1958, the newly surfaced residential loop road and the spacious visitor 

parking area passed the Park Service's inspection. Kueffer Company handed the visitor center and utility 

room over to Fort Union on February 17, 1959. For almost three years prior to that, the park staff had 

run the monument from a shabby wooden cabin, without running water or sewage lines. Visitors as well 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi3a.htm (2 of 3) [9/7/2007 12:46:11 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 3)

as staff had to use outdoor pit toilets. After blizzards or gales, the desks inside would be covered with 

either snow or dust. A reward eventually came in March 1959 when the park staff happily moved into 

the territorial style visitor center. [18]

CONTINUE >>>

foun/adhi/adhi3a.htm 

Last Updated: 22-Jan-2001

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi3a.htm (3 of 3) [9/7/2007 12:46:11 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 4)

Fort Union

Administrative History

CHAPTER 4: INTERPRETATION AND VISITATION (continued)

Beginning in 1957, full-scale research into Fort Union's past took the lead in all interpretive activities. 

As soon as Mawson became acquainted with the area, he set to work on the James W. Arrott Collection 

at the Rodgers Library at New Mexico Highlands University in Las Vegas. The study of historical 

documents significantly improved his ability to guide visitors and to answer their questions. At the same 

time, the regional office asked contract historian Arthur Woodward to write a book-length report on the 

history of Fort Union. Two years later, he produced a well researched paper entitled "Fort Union, New 

Mexico--Guardian of the Santa Fe Trail." It gave the most comprehensive picture of this nineteenthcentury military post up to that time.

Two other frontier scholars, Chris Emmett and Robert Utley, were also working on the same topic. In 

1957, James Arrott, a founding father of the monument, interested historian Emmett in writing a history 

of the fort. He spent eight years on the project before the University of Oklahoma Press eventually 

published his book, Fort Union and the Winning of the Southwest (1965). In 1959, Southwest Regional 

Historian Utley authored a special report, "Fort Union and the Santa Fe Trail," for the National Survey 

of Historic Sites and Buildings. His concise account of the fort not only provided government officials 

with clearer ideas about the historical significance of the military post but also showed to the Park 

Service the potential of good interpretive material. In 1962, he expanded his paper into a handbook. 

Because of its solid research and colorful writing, Fort Union National Monument immediately became 

a popular handbook. Today, almost thirty years after its first publication, students and visitors alike are 

still enjoying Utley's classic work.

The study of Fort Union also included oral history. Since a few eyewitnesses of the nineteenth-century 

frontier were alive, the park staff, encouraged and directed by Superintendent Hastings, conducted a 

series of personal interviews with the people who had lived during the fort's heyday. As living archives, 

they offered valuable information that supplemented the written documents. For instance, 103-year-old 

Hough Loudin recalled the social life of the military personnel at nearby La Cueva, a former recreation 

spot for officers. The Reverend Jay Wilson of Laramie, Wyoming, discussed an early Protestant church 

at Wagon Mound. And Ramon C. Baca talked about the "good old days" at Loma Parda. [20] The oral 

history program continued until the mid-1960s when interest shifted to living history. By that time, the 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi4a.htm (1 of 5) [9/7/2007 12:46:12 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 4)

monument had obtained an extensive collection of tape-recorded interviews for its library.

In 1961, Park Service Washington Office Historian Roy E. Appleman visited the fort and inspected its 

overall development. He found that the "museum exhibits, self-guided foot trail, and personal services...

[were] not only good but superior to most similar features and services in most of the other units of the 

[Park Service] system." [21] Within a short period after its establishment as a national monument, Fort 

Union had developed an interpretive program, which enabled visitors to experience the ruins in an 

enjoyable and educational manner.

Beginning in the early 1960s, the interpretive program entered its second stage, a period of refinement. 

Without any major change in principle, the program improved in many aspects. Because of New 

Mexico's large Hispanic population, the monument planned to provide bilingual services. In 1962, 

Ranger Patricio Quintana prepared a Spanish language version of the self-guided trail booklet. [22] 

Although the Spanish language was less common than English in the park's operation, Quintana's task 

showed the consciousness of the administration to a bilingual approach.

The dated English version of the self-guided trail leaflet received more attention. In 1967, the monument 

decided to revise the text and to add a colored cover. The Southwest Parks and Monuments Association, 

a non-profit organization of promoting national parks and monuments in the region, kindly handled the 

printing. In June, just before another heavy tourist season, the new leaflet arrived at the fort. On the 

cover, a picture of a frontier soldier superimposed on a general view of Fort Union. The new guidebook, 

as Superintendent Hastings reported, was spectacular, and the park staff were anxious to dispose of the 

old leaflets so that they could start selling the new ones. [23]

Offsite talks and presentations, initiated by Kittridge Wing, became more common and popular during 

Hastings's administration. In 1961, Hastings assembled a set of slides accompanied by a tape with a 

musical background for his standard slide show. It introduced to the public Fort Union National 

Monument, as well as the National Park Service at-large. [42] In the same year, historian Dale F. Giese 

of Carlsbad Caverns National Park succeeded Donald Mawson, who transferred to Tumacacori National 

Monument in Arizona. Both Hastings and Giese frequently delivered speeches or presented slide shows 

at various places such as New Mexico Highlands University, the State Hospital, the Mora-San Miguel 

Electrical Cooperative, the American Legion, the Las Vegas Rotary and Lions Clubs, the Masonic 

Lodges, Kiwanis Clubs, and Castle Junior High School. [25] These offsite presentations strengthened 

the relationship between the park and the community.

The monument regularly informed the media about its most recent activities. Accordingly, the press and 

radio releases kept the public aware of changing activities at the site. Meanwhile, the fort sought to reach 

larger audiences through either educational or entertainment programs. In May 1968, Clear Sight Cable 

Television in Las Vegas began a biweekly series under the title "Fort Union, New Mexico--Yesterday 

and Today." It aired through September and resumed in February 1969 for another season. The 

following month, historian Nicholas Bleser recorded a 30-minute program about the fort for KNME-TV 

of Albuquerque. [26] The program was broadcast on April 4, 1969. The footage of Fort Union also 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi4a.htm (2 of 5) [9/7/2007 12:46:12 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 4)

appeared on other television stations in the state.

The national monument needed more national publicity as well. Whenever a professional cameraman 

showed up at the fort, regardless of his purposes or affiliation, the park personnel offered assistance. As 

early as October 1958, a Life magazine photographer visited the fort to take pictures for an article on the 

old West. In July 1963, the Manco Recording Company of Fort Worth, Texas, filmed a documentary 

movie about Fort Union and the surrounding area. Two years later, a team from Screen Gems, Inc., shot 

film at the ruins to use in an advertisement for 1966 Chryslers. [27] All of these activities helped 

increase the national exposure of Fort Union.

Ironically, Fort Union personnel interpreted the historic site without an interpretive prospectus for 

eleven years. In 1965, a year after Giese left for the University of New Mexico to pursue a Ph.D. degree, 

administrative assistant Nicholas J. Bleser filled the vacant park historian position. He started to work on 

an interpretive prospectus and completed the first draft in March 1967. The prospectus presented three 

objectives: to explain the history of the American frontier, to stimulate the imagination of the visitor, 

and to provide access to detailed information. [28] It dealt primarily with the monument's physical 

improvement, such as the approach road, signs, photos, and the visitor trail. Although the 43-page 

document offered little in the way of new approaches or effective methods, it explained and justified 

contemporary practices.

Under the auspices of the prospectus, various improvements made visits to the park more enjoyable. In 

1967, an army escort wagon and mule dump cart were placed in the center of the mechanics' corral. 

These vehicles of the 1880s created a vivid historic scene among the unadorned walls. Also, more than 

30 metal photo plates featuring historic pictures were erected throughout the ruins for visitors to 

compare how the buildings appeared at present with how they looked in the nineteenth century. [29] A 

year later, park employees installed a replica cell door at the stone jail building and then added a new 

exhibit at the location of the Star Fort. [30] Piece-by-piece physical improvements animated this historic 

site.

In addition to the improved visual image of the fort, an audio system was introduced into the ruins areas 

to enrich the historic atmosphere. Park personnel had long realized that visitors often endured stillness 

along the 1.6-mile trail. The prospectus suggested that occasional soft notes of a bugle call could bring 

back the sounds of frontiersmen and their daily chores. In November 1970, the Park Service installed an 

audio system on the eastern end of the parade ground. It consisted of a recorder and clock-controlled 

speaker. The new device played thirty different calls, at regular intervals of sounds that were heard daily 

during the 1880s. Those "sounds of the past" gave the visitors a sense of the bustling activity of the 

garrison. [31]

After a three-year trial, in which the monument actively sought public opinion, the Park Service replaced 

the audio equipment with a high quality system. Following the suggestions of electrical engineer Daniel 

Zigler, the fort administration decided to relocate the speakers. According to the new plan, two speakers 

were mounted back-to-back horizontally on two 15-foot metal stands, running along the same lines as 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi4a.htm (3 of 5) [9/7/2007 12:46:12 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 4)

the top portion of the wall, which camouflaged them from the visitor. Elevated from the ground, the 

speakers projected the sounds much farther, to every corner of the ruins site. [32]

Other audio devices also served as powerful interpretive tools. In 1970, for the first time, the monument 

set up two small audio stations among the ruins to tell about the history of the post. Regularly delivering 

the pre-recorded messages, the stations operated basically the same as did the bugle call system. [33] 

After a test period chief ranger Robert Arnberger decided to place eight extra message repeaters along 

the visitor trail to supplement the existing ones. In 1974, under a $2,486 contract, Cockrell Electric of 

Las Vegas erected the metal pedestals. [34] Southwest Audiovisual Depot helped make the tapes, which 

featured first-person dialogues revolving around incidents in the Red River Indian War of 1874. Each 

station had a speaker and push button. Whenever visitors pushed the button, they listened to the 

conversations. [35] Together with the bugle call system, the message repeating stations further broke the 

quiet atmosphere of the ruins.

In addition to those internal improvements, good public relations were crucial for attracting more 

people. To strengthen ties with the local community, the park staff took some of the museum collections 

to various places in the region and set up itinerant exhibits. For example, in 1968, the fort arranged a 

show at the museum at Springer, New Mexico. [36] In 1972, a Fort Union exhibit graced the lobby of 

the Bank of Las Vegas and later traveled to the Southwest Public Service Company. The bank 

employees thought that it was "the best received display ever." [37] In the same year, with the 

cooperation of the State Highway Department, Fort Union placed new exhibits at the nearest I-25 

southbound rest area to stimulate traffic flow to the monument. [38]

Meanwhile, the Fort Union staff encouraged people to spend their special days at the fort. From Rough 

Riders reunions to Boy Scouts' adventures, special events often took place in the park. In the summer of 

1971, the park initiated a fiesta called "Las Vegas Day at Fort Union." On that day, the one-dollar 

entrance fee was waived as a gesture of goodwill to all neighbors. As a result, five hundred people 

showed up. [39] Because of the success of the fiesta, the park staff planned to expand the event the 

following year. Sponsored by the Las Vegas Fiesta Committee, the second annual "Las Vegas Day 

Fiesta" occurred on August 13, 1972, and included a free luncheon for all the participants. The delicious 

aroma of barbecue beef, posole, chile, and beans lured a crowd of 1,200 people. Many of them saw the 

ruins for the first time. [40]

Other special events included an International Student Day and a Veterans Day observance. In the spring 

of 1972, with the help of Highlands University, Fort Union hosted a party for foreign students. Under a 

contract with the United States Department of Information, Patton Enterprise of Santa Fe filmed the 

activities for Hurst Metrotone News. [41] Working with the Veterans of Foreign War Post 1547 in Las 

Vegas, the park invited veterans to hold the Veterans Day observance at the fort. On October 23, an 

unexpected snowstorm forced all activities into the visitor center but the spirits of 250 veteran remained 

high throughout the ceremonies. [42]

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi4a.htm (4 of 5) [9/7/2007 12:46:12 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 4)

Among the special visitors were foreign journalists. As a presentation of the American frontier legend, 

Fort Union drew the attention of Europeans, who were fascinated by western American history. In July 

1969, three members of the Italian television station RAT-TV visited the fort and shot film for a 

program entitled "The History and Legend of the West." Seasonal ranger-historian Lois Emrick 

presented a talk and rifle demonstration to the camera team. [43] In September 1977, a film crew from 

West Germany came to film the historic structures at both the monument and the nearby ranch for a 

public education television series in the fatherland. [44] Fort Union National Monument was gaining 

international fame too.

CONTINUE >>>

foun/adhi/adhi4a.htm 

Last Updated: 22-Jan-2001

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi4a.htm (5 of 5) [9/7/2007 12:46:12 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 5)

Fort Union

Administrative History

CHAPTER 5: NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (continued)

Meanwhile, the park administration continued to highlight weed control and personnel training. The 

accumulation of dry weeds in arroyos and along the fences became fire hazards and required constant 

removal. Superintendent Homer Hastings hired Margarito Lovato and his team to mow undesired plants. 

In the fall, the New Mexico Highway Department again helped clean the firebreaks along the entrance 

road and inside the eastern edge of the monument. Also, Hastings conducted a fire control inspection 

and instructed the employees on the proper use of the fire-fighting equipment. [6] By the end of the 

1950s, the monument staff had acquired the basic skills and equipment for fire control.

In managing water resources, Fort Union encountered a different situation. The problem was one of 

scarcity rather than abundance. The operation of the monument entailed furnishing a supply of water 

adequate for the needs of both the employees and visitors. A small spring meandering in the gully just 

west of the Third Fort could not meet the demand of ten-gallon-per-minute. The Park Service had to find 

other sources. To determine the feasibility of obtaining a ground water supply, the Park Service 

requested that U.S. Geological Survey study and assess ground water conditions. In addition to the field 

survey in July 1956, samples of well and spring water were sent to the laboratory in Albuquerque for 

chemical analysis. After the study, the surveyors affirmed the quality and quantity of ground water in the 

area. Later they helped select a suitable location for the well. [7]

As the first scientific study of the monument's natural resources, the survey gave people a better 

understanding of the fort's environment. While they searched for water, geologists examined various 

aspects of the park's geography, geology, and topography. In December, geologist I. J. Winograd 

presented a final report on the survey and its conclusions. His thirteen-page document became a 

collection of information useful for future research. The essential motive of the survey, however, came 

from a need to acquire water, not from a desire for more knowledge. As soon as fresh, pure water 

gushed out of the well, the Park Service lost interest in learning more about the area's environment. 

Accordingly, the Regional Office failed to conduct another scientific study on the natural resources at 

the monument for another 14 years.

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi5a.htm (1 of 3) [9/7/2007 12:46:13 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 5)

The pragmatic and utilitarian approach to natural resources also guided erosion control and landscaping. 

Although annual precipitation measured only 18 inches, occasional rainfalls could leave their distinct 

mark on the once overgrazed land, washing away topsoil and creating small ravines. As a by-product of 

the ruins stabilization work in 1957, Superintendent Wing initiated efforts at erosion control by dumping 

unwanted earth and broken bricks into a gully at the northeastern corner of the Third Fort. The work 

eased the erosion problem for a small section. [8] Except for this experiment, there is no record showing 

any other erosion control in this early period.

During the construction of support facilities, bulldozers made people realize the need for landscaping. In 

Wing's view, "a great amount of regrading and reseeding" in the residential and visitor center areas was 

"required to make the environs of the new homes presentable." [9] Paul Gensemer of Las Vegas 

received a contract to beautify the natural scenery of the park. Although the Park Service expected him 

to complete the work before the formal dedication of the monument in June 1959, he did not meet the 

deadline. By the end of August, with exception of four loads of manure scattered over designated places, 

no progress occurred. In the following month, the Park Service terminated the contract, and later 

awarded it to James Vander Sys, a nurseryman from Santa Fe. Securing a number of Apache plum trees, 

salt bushes, and sumacs in Watrous, he planted them around the new visitor center and the residences. 

On April 29, 1960, he fulfilled his contract. [10]

Leaking sewer water caused by the inconsistent construction activities was another problem. It remained 

difficult to get the newly completed sewer lagoons to hold water due to the porous soil in the area. No 

sooner did the water enter the lagoons than it soaked into the ground. In the spring of 1958, Acting 

Superintendent George Cattanach made arrangements with Fort Union Ranch to put a dozen horses, 

loosely roped together, into each lagoon for a few hours to help compact the loose soil on the bottom. 

This method proved effective, and the lagoons began holding water in a sufficient quantity to permit 

them to function properly. [11]

The park administration realized the impact of nature on cultural resources. Wind, rain, snow, hail, 

drought, and fire threatened the historic structures at Fort Union. To protect the ruins, the monument 

staff had to pay attention to the area's natural resources. Although none of them had any formal training 

in natural resource management, their daily actions, as mentioned above, benefited the environment. 

Meanwhile, the fort sought to collect weather information by recording daily temperatures, wind speeds, 

and precipitation. In May 1957, Fort Union began submitting monthly precipitation reports to the 

Albuquerque Office of the U.S. Weather Bureau, in the hope of encouraging a systematic study of the 

climate of the Mora Valley. [12]

The monument carried on its traditional trouble-shooting strategy for handling natural resources into the 

1960s. In the new decade, this passive and reactionary attitude still dominated all the decision-making 

processes. As long as the ruins and other man-made structures were safe, there remained no clear agenda 

for natural resource management. This did not forestall the fort administration in improving its ability in 

certain fields such as fire control. For example, in 1960 an additional tank and slip-on pump arrived at 

the fort, supplementing the existing fire equipment. Six years later, a new fire attack unit consisting of a 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi5a.htm (2 of 3) [9/7/2007 12:46:13 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 5)

110-gallon water container and a one-horsepower pump replaced all existing equipment, which had 

proved unreliable in cold weather. [13]

Meanwhile, weed control efforts continued. The maintenance crew constantly inspected and cleaned the 

fire-breaks. Sometimes they had to work extra hours due to excessive weeds and grass caused by 

unusually wet weather. In August 1963, about six inches of rain fell, damaging the fire-break and the 

service roads north and east of the Third Fort. The maintenance crew quickly repaired them but 

correcting the soil erosion was beyond the park's capabilities. Again in 1965, more than 22 inches of 

precipitation, 15 percent above normal, resulted in abundant plant growth, which became a fire hazard. 

After failing to control weed growth in the summer, the maintenance workers had to conduct a 

controlled burn inside the foundation outlines of the historic buildings. [14]

CONTINUE >>>

foun/adhi/adhi5a.htm 

Last Updated: 22-Jan-2001

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi5a.htm (3 of 3) [9/7/2007 12:46:13 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 6)

Fort Union

Administrative History

CHAPTER 6: HUMAN THREATS TO THE PARK (continued)

In protecting cultural resources, Fort Union had to keep illegal treasure hunters as well as campers away 

from its territory. After the close of the military post in 1891, the place became open territory to vandals 

and souvenirs seekers who took anything they wanted. Vandalism turned the remaining structures into 

ruins. When the ruins became a national monument in 1956, the Park Service prohibited artifact hunting 

on the government property. Few visitors wanted to challenge this rule. However, one or two treasure 

hunters tried to find valuable historic objects on the grounds and take them home. On July 2, 1987, a 

bold Texan used a metal detector and geologist's tools near the park entrance, looking for historic 

artifacts. Superintendent Douglas McChristian tolerated this for a few seconds. He stopped and 

questioned the Texan before he could find any item more valuable than rusty nails. Although such cases 

rarely occurred, illegal artifact hunting in the park never stopped entirely. [8]

Malicious vandals and shrewd thieves caused more trouble than this mindless Texan. On one hot 

summer afternoon in 1977, an unidentified visitor reported a hole in the heavy duty plexiglas exhibit 

cover at the commissary storehouse at the Third Fort to ranger Tom Danton. After a quick investigation 

and inventory, he found that a brass U.S. Army plaque and a blue culinary bottle were stolen. There was 

no evidence as to what had been used to break into the exhibit. Thus, the park authority remained 

clueless and the thief remained free. [9] Moreover, larceny occurred not only in a "remote" area but at 

the busy visitor center as well. On May 29, 1984, after counting the money in the safety box, ranger Carl 

Friery found forty dollars missing from the Southwest Parks and Monuments Association petty cash 

fund. Without any evidence, the park staff could not understand how the money disappeared from the 

safety box in the chief ranger's office. Since so many people, including employees and visiting 

researchers, had access to the office, it was impossible to identify a suspect. The case became another 

mystery. [10]

Most of the unlawful activities at Fort Union involved illegal entry into the monument. Curious visitors 

commonly drove into the residential area. Once, an unidentified person even broke a window of a 

ranger's house. [11] Whenever they ran into an uninvited guest, the rangers turned him or her away 

immediately. In several cases, angry visitors who arrived just after the park's business hours bumped 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi6a.htm (1 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:46:14 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 6)

their cars against the locked gates to break into the park. Discovering the damage to the gates the 

following morning, the park rangers were unable to make any arrests.

Even during regular business hours, some adventurous travelers either used unusual means to tour the 

monument or entered prohibited sections. On a few occasions, visitors drove along the service roads 

used for maintenance purposes, perhaps not knowing that the vibration of motor engines could further 

weaken the fragile ruins. In another case, two riders turned their motorcycles off the established road 

onto the grass and proceeded in the direction of the Star Fort. Just in time, park technician C. Susan 

Shampine, in her patrol vehicle spotted the motorcyclists and stopped them with red flashing lights. She 

gave them a verbal warning. [12] In most similar incidents, the park rangers prevented illegal actions 

before they caused severe damage.

Despite the fact that the law enforcement played only a minor role in Fort Union's daily operations 

because of the few illegal activities, the park administration sought to prepare for possible crises in the 

future. In 1973 after a crime-free season, chief ranger Arnberger initiated a program of visitor protection 

and law enforcement. To meet the Park Service's new standards, Fort Union procured the necessary 

equipment including handguns and CB radio gear. Armed with modern communication equipment and 

first-aid supplies, a patrol vehicle was ready for duty at all times. [13] The following September, Chief 

Ranger Hoff attended a two-week law enforcement training course at Marana, Arizona, and graduated as 

a qualified law enforcement officer. [14] Then, the regular training of employees in law enforcement 

became an instituted part of human resource management. As a result, Fort Union was able to deal with 

misdemeanors.

To battle felonies, Fort Union still needed outside help. Its small semi-professional police force, usually 

consisting of only the chief ranger, could not effectively counter any major crime such as a murder, riot, 

or armed robbery. In most cases, the monument did not have the authority to act on those types of 

"external threats," so any satisfactory resolution of serious criminal incidents had to rely on consultation 

and cooperation with other federal agencies, as well as with state and local governments.

In 1974, Superintendent Hopkins and chief ranger Arnberger met with the U.S. Attorney in Albuquerque 

and officials from the New Mexico State Police and Las Vegas Police Departments to discuss preplanning for cooperative efforts for riot and disturbance control. [15] Several years in a row, park 

management worked closely with these agencies plus the Federal Bureau of Investigation on details. 

Fort Union finally reached an agreement with these agencies for cooperation in mutual areas of interest 

in law enforcement. [16] In 1984, the park made a similar agreement with the Mora County Sheriff's 

Department. [17] More cooperation meant less worry about the park's own ability to counteract major 

crimes.

One incident showed the effectiveness of cooperation. At four o'clock in the afternoon of July 21, 1987, 

Chief Ranger David Roberts saw a strange man walking around the visitor center singing to himself. 

Quickly checking the parking lot, Roberts found no cars. Following the man to the rear of the building, 

the ranger saw a Toyota pickup parked on the interpretive trail. A sense of duty pushed Roberts towards 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi6a.htm (2 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:46:14 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 6)

the vehicle. As he approached, the man appeared to be very nervous and tried to start his car hurriedly. 

Ignoring Roberts's knocking on the window, he raced his pickup along the trail to the mechanics corral, 

then across a field onto a service road to exit the park. Roberts called the State Police for assistance. The 

eight-mile entrance road was the only way out. Before the person could pass Wheeler Lake, policeman 

James Montoya had blocked the escape route. The trapped suspect had no choice but to surrender to the 

officer. After a preliminary investigation, the State Police found that he was suspected of car theft, and 

put him in Mora County Jail pending court action. [18]

In addition to the occasional vandal and criminal, developers also threatened the integrity of the 

monument. If the Union Land and Grazing Company decided to turn Fort Union Ranch into a ski resort 

or a petroleum field, Fort Union National Monument would lose its scenic setting and become "true 

ruins." As an island besieged by vast areas of private property, the park felt powerless in controlling its 

own destiny. In the seventies, the Southwest Regional Office began to express concerns about the future 

of Fort Union Ranch, and asked the park employees to keep an open line of communication with the 

landowner. Accordingly, Fort Union maintained close ties with the employees and officials of the 

company. The good neighbor policy of the Park Service enabled the fort personnel to detect any change 

in the use of the ranch lands. [19]

In the report that responded to the regional director's request, Superintendent Hopkins expressed doubt 

of any changing land status of Union Ranch in the near future, but several facts boosted his confidence. 

Both water and climate had limited the use of the land in the surrounding twenty-mile radius to dry 

farming, cattle ranching, and forest production. Also, no metropolitan center was near the monument. 

Las Vegas, thirty miles away, was a static, economically depressed town of 20,000 residents. It had little 

industry and its prospects appeared poor. Therefore, no immediate encroachment or industrial threat 

would occur near the borders of the park. [20]

Since the mineral resources in the Mora Valley were as poor as the economy of Las Vegas, the 

monument could escape the threat of industrial development. For a long time, outside entrepreneurs and 

landowners hoped to find "gold" on the Fort Union Ranch. In 1977, Andrew Marshall brought 

professional scientists to the ranch to search for precious metals and petroleum. From September 

through December, a survey team from Cities Service Oil Company sank two exploratory wells on the 

prairie, primarily seeking oil, natural gas, and carbon dioxide. The survey ended as none existed in the 

area. [21]

The siege of Fort Union by the vast private lands around it, under a single owner, could be protective to 

the park if the company continued to keep the area as a cattle ranch. Ninety-seven-thousand acres of 

grass and forest served as a buffer to separate the fort from the noisy world. Because of this natural 

defense, air and water pollution posed no problem. In 1979, Fort Union participated in the Park Service's 

survey of air quality, providing the Regional Office with perceptive opinions about its atmosphere. 

Although the fort staff could not determine how pure the air was in the region because of the lack of 

equipment, they believed the air at the fort was free of air pollution. Nine years later, the second survey 

produced the same results. Chief ranger John Batzer requested air monitoring equipment but the Park 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi6a.htm (3 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:46:14 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 6)

Service never purchased any. [22]

CONTINUE >>>

foun/adhi/adhi6a.htm 

Last Updated: 22-Jan-2001

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi6a.htm (4 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:46:14 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 1)

Fort Union

Administrative History

CHAPTER 1: A FRONTIER POST (continued)

Figure 5. Fort Union Depot served as the Army supply center for the Department of New Mexico. 

The Mechanic's Corral, Fort Union Depot, in 1866. 

Courtesy of the National Archives.

In the quarter-century after the Civil War, Americans conquered their last frontier by settling on the 

Great Plains. The greatest barrier to American settlement was the Plains Indians such as the Kiowas, 

Comanches, Cheyennes, and Apaches, who had resisted white encroachment. To confine them to a 

designated area required intensive military campaigns. During that period, Fort Union participated in 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi1b.htm (1 of 3) [9/7/2007 12:46:15 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 1)

several large operations against the Indians: the Mescalero Scout of 1867, the Campaign of 1868, and 

the Red River War of 1874. As the largest military post west of the Mississippi during the period from 

1865 to 1875, Fort Union helped the nation to subdue the Indian war parties.

In September 1867, a Mescalero Apache war party ran off 150 head of stock near Mora. With several 

dozen soldiers from the Third Cavalry, Capt. Francis H. Wilson immediately rode out of Fort Union in 

pursuit. On October 18, the soldiers finally caught up with the raiders in western Texas. After a threehour battle in Dog Canyon, the army destroyed a winter camp of 400 Mescaleros and drove the warriors 

into the mountains. Fort Union played a memorable role in the Mescalero Scout, in which the raiders 

received a severe blow. [27]

Replacing the Mescaleros, the Plains Indians once more drew the attention of Fort Union from the east. 

In the fall of 1868, Maj. Gen. Philip H. Sheridan decided to launch a winter campaign against the 

Kiowas and Comanches. He planned to have four columns converge on the winter campground of the 

Indians. Participating in this unprecedented military operation, Fort Union sent its troops down the 

Canadian River as a western thrust to encircle the Indians. Led by Maj. Andrew W. Evans, the New 

Mexico column engaged in several battles in western Texas and broke the resistance of the Plains tribes. 

Some Indians yielded to government demands and accepted the hated reservation system. [28]

Beginning in the early 1870s, some recovered Kiowas and Comanches joined by a few Cheyennes and 

Arapahos increased their raids on settlements on the northern frontier of Texas. General Sheridan 

decided to repeat his strategy by fighting the tribes from different directions. One of the five converging 

columns came from New Mexico. Under the command of Maj. William E. Price, three troops of the 

Eighth Cavalry left Fort Union on August 20, 1874, and scoured the valleys of the Canadian and 

Washita rivers. At the end of the year, the Red River War resulted in victory; the defeated tribes of the 

southern Plains never again posed a threat to settlers. [29]

In its forty years (1851-1891) as a frontier post, Fort Union often had to defend itself in the courtroom as 

well as on the battlefield. When the U.S. Army built Fort Union in the Mora Valley in 1851, the soldiers 

were unaware that they had encroached on private property, which was part of the Mora Grant. The 

following year Colonel Sumner expanded the fort to an area of eight square miles by claiming the site as 

a military reservation. In 1868 President Andrew Johnson went even further to declare a timber 

reservation encompassing the entire range of the Turkey Mountains and comprising an area of fifty-three 

square miles, as part of the fort. [30]

The claimants of the Mora Grant immediately challenged the government squatters and took the case to 

court. By the mid-1850s the case reached Congress. In the next two decades the government did not give 

any favorable decision to the claimants, until 1876 when the Surveyor-General of New Mexico reported 

that Fort Union was "no doubt" located in the Mora Grant. But the army was unwilling to move to 

another place or to compensate the claimants because of the cost. Thus, the Secretary of War took "a 

prudential measure," protesting the decision of the acting commissioner of the General Land Office. He 

argued that the military had improved the area and should not give it up without compensation. [31] This 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi1b.htm (2 of 3) [9/7/2007 12:46:15 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 1)

stalling tactic worked; the army stayed at the fort until its demise in 1891, not paying a single penny to 

legitimate owners.

The transcontinental railroad symbolized the conquest of the frontier. On Independence Day 1879, the 

first locomotive of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad steamed into Las Vegas. The railroad 

opened a new era in the Southwest by replacing the old Santa Fe Trail as the main artery of commerce. 

During the 1880s Fort Union lost its military importance and commercial usefulness due to the defeat of 

the Indians and the arrival of the railroad. The number of soldiers stationed at the fort declined 

significantly. The fort no longer had any great military value. Once the superintendent of Indian schools 

proposed to acquire the vacant arsenal buildings for the establishment of an Indian manual labor school. 

Certainly, the heyday of Fort Union had passed. [32] In 1890, with the census reports' symbolic closing 

of the frontier, the War Department decided to abandon many of the old frontier posts, including Fort 

Union. As a result, a year later Fort Union was officially closed.

As a military post to protect travel and settlement for 40 years, 1851 to 1891, Fort Union played a key 

role in shaping the destiny of the Southwest. During the first decade of its existence the fort stood as the 

guardian of the Santa Fe Trail. The fort acted as a federal presence in the Territory of New Mexico. The 

Civil War added to the fort's fame at the battle of Glorieta Pass, where Union soldiers stopped the 

invading Southern columns. In the quarter-century after the reunion, Fort Union contrived to help 

American settlers and devoted the rest of its life to the conquest of American frontier. As historian 

Robert Utley praised, "The ruins of Fort Union graphically commemorate the achievements of the men 

who won the West." [33]

<<< INTRODUCTION TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 2 >>>

foun/adhi/adhi1b.htm 

Last Updated: 22-Jan-2001

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi1b.htm (3 of 3) [9/7/2007 12:46:15 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 2)

Fort Union

Administrative History

CHAPTER 2: FROM RUINS TO A NATIONAL MONUMENT

(continued)

Figure 7. Fort Union Hospital in 1939. A visitor's car parked nearby. 

Courtesy of Fort Union National Monument.

One incident finally started a widespread movement for the establishment of Fort Union National 

Monument. On June 17, 1949, E. N. Thwaites of a Las Vegas radio station called a local resident (Mr. 

Walter), indicating that on June 20, the Union Land and Grazing Company was going to raze Fort 

Union. Quickly passing among local citizens, this news prompted Boaz Long, director of the Museum of 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi2b.htm (1 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:46:16 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 2)

New Mexico, and his wife to inspect the ruins the next day. They did not find anything unusual except 

some tourists' cars struggling to get through the muddy route. Once back in town, Long made half a 

dozen calls without getting any worthwhile information. [34] On June 19 Long repeated the process with 

no luck. Other people spent the day in search of Roger Reed, who had received a contract from the 

company to backfill all cisterns and wells in order to prevent people and cows from falling into them. 

When they finally found him, they asked him to suspend action until the Las Vegas Chamber of 

Commerce met on June 20. Although no record showed Reed's response, the action did take place. Louis 

Timm, Reed's employee at the time, later recalled that he and other workers filled in all cisterns and 

wells, and toppled the weak walls and twenty chimneys. [35] Outraged by this action, people in Las 

Vegas saw the urgency of preserving the ruins of Fort Union.

With a strong will to save the historic site as well as ranching interests, local citizens took the issue to 

the Las Vegas-San Miguel Chamber of Commerce. On June 20, 1949, board members of the Chamber 

of Commerce, in regular session, voted to seek aid from the federal government and the state of New 

Mexico. They also voted to pay the cost of purchasing iron gratings to cover open wells and cisterns on 

the land. The next day their decision made headline news in the Las Vegas Daily Optic. [36] With a 

copy of the paper in hand, Lewis F. Schiele, secretary of the Chamber of Commerce, lost no time in 

writing Clinton P. Anderson, U.S. senator from New Mexico, explaining the current situation of Fort 

Union and expressing his concern over past destruction. Schiele urged the senator to take steps 

necessary to encourage the government to acquire the site. [37] E. N. Thwaites, newly elected chairman 

of the Fort Union National Monument Committee, took the opportunity on June 22 to write Andrew 

Marshall, treasurer of the Union Land and Grazing Company, telling him that the Las Vegas Chamber of 

Commerce, the New Mexico Historical Society, and the Order of Masons were interested in preserving 

Fort Union as a historic site. Thwaites wanted Marshall to cooperate with local groups and hoped the 

company would participate in a new round of negotiations. [38] The actions taken by the Chamber of 

Commerce, which headed this committee, began a renewed campaign.

Sending a copy of Schiele's letter to the director of the National Park Service, Senator Anderson invited 

the Park Service to cooperate with the local campaigners. The Park Service's response was quick, 

enthusiastic, and favorable. Washington asked the Region Three Office to review its files on the project 

and to arrange a meeting with representatives of the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce. In compliance 

with this request from Washington, regional director M. R. Tillotson assigned the task to Dr. Erik K. 

Reed and Milton J. McColm. They went to Las Vegas to discuss the current situation with Schiele. From 

him they learned that Roger Reed, local manager for the company, was antagonistic toward any idea that 

would open Fort Union to the public. On August 17, 1949, they visited the ruins and found that 

"considerable further deterioration had occurred since 1939-40." [39] In the report Erik Reed and Milton 

McColm concluded, "the situation is evidently hopeless...." [40]

The situation back east was not much better. While Thwaites was waiting for Andrew Marshall's reply to 

his letter, U.S. Rep. Antonio M. Fernandez of New Mexico informed him about Marshall's tactics in 

Washington. Fernandez revealed that although Marshall had not written to Thwaites, he had written to 

fellow congressmen from his home state of Massachusetts, asking them to oppose any effort to create a 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi2b.htm (2 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:46:16 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 2)

national monument at Fort Union. [41] At this point Marshall and his company had the upper hand.

Despite these unfavorable events, New Mexicans continued fighting for their cause. In 1949 the 

Masonic lodges of Las Vegas and Wagon Mound held their annual meetings at Fort Union for the first 

time since it closed in 1891. This initiated an annual pilgrimage to the fort. The largest one was in 

September 1951 when the Masons celebrated the 100th anniversary of the founding of Fort Union. More 

than three hundred people toured the ruins of the fort and enjoyed a barbecue. [42] "This celebration," 

Preston P. Patraw, acting regional director of Region Three, commented, "gave evidence of deep local 

interest in and support for the Fort Union National Monument project." [43]

During the same period, from 1949 to 1951, some people pushed for a state monument at Fort Union. 

Boaz Long first sold his idea to the New Mexico State Tourist Bureau, thinking the state could 

expropriate the site at a cost of $12,000. [44] He received support from both local citizens and the 

Tourist Bureau. By 1951 the movement for the preservation of Fort Union had gained solid ground in 

the state.

On August 13, 1951, more than 21 years after the first legislative attempt to make Fort Union a national 

monument, U.S. Rep. John J. Dempsey of New Mexico introduced a new bill (H.R. 5139) in the 82nd 

Congress to authorize the establishment of Fort Union National Monument. [45] The Committee on 

Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives asked the secretary of the interior for his 

opinion. On August 30, Secretary Oscar L. Chapman, in his letter to the committee chairman John R. 

Murdock, recommended that the bill be enacted immediately. The hearings were held on May 29, 1952. 

At this time objection to the proposed legislation came from the owners of the Union Land and Grazing 

Company, who lobbied to block the bill. Influenced by Andrew Marshall, the committee felt that "action 

should be delayed until full consideration could be given to certain safeguards the owners desired." [46] 

Like the previous legislation, the bill died in committee.

On the home front, New Mexicans constantly pressured the Union Land and Grazing Company. Lincoln 

O'Brien, president of New Mexico Newspapers, Inc., bragged he could influence Marshall, now 

treasurer of the company, because he was a personal friend. After a few letters to Marshall, it appeared 

that O'Brien was as good as his word. On October 12, 1951, Marshall made a visit to New Mexico. 

Following an aerial survey of Fort Union, O'Brien flew Marshall to Santa Fe, where they met with 

Preston Patraw, acting regional director, Hugh M. Miller, assistant regional director, and Erik Reed, 

regional archeologist and historian. [47] At the meeting Marshall told them that "the Union Land and 

Grazing Company did not want to appear uncooperative or obstructive...." [48] The company was 

concerned that "a road-way would seriously interfere with the circulation of the range cattle and an 

influx of careless tourist would greatly increase the hazard of grass fires." [49] Although Marshall came 

to Las Vegas to meet with the representatives of the Park Service in February 1952, he remained 

unmoved in his opposition. For a year negotiations over the Fort Union project stalled.

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi2b.htm (3 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:46:16 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 2)

CONTINUE >>>

foun/adhi/adhi2b.htm 

Last Updated: 22-Jan-2001

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi2b.htm (4 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:46:16 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 2)

Fort Union

Administrative History

CHAPTER 2: FROM RUINS TO A NATIONAL MONUMENT (contined)

A breakthrough finally occurred in Santa Fe in 1953. State Senator Gordon Melody of Las Vegas helped 

to sponsor a bill in the state legislature. According to House Bill No. 297, the state of New Mexico 

would authorize the state park commission to acquire the Fort Union Military Reservation and the rightof-way for access through eminent domain proceedings. Then New Mexico would convey them to the 

federal government for national monument purposes. [50] On March 20, 1953, the state legislature 

passed the bill. Governor Edwin Mechem signed the bill on the following day.

When the state of New Mexico showed that it could acquire the land without approval from the 

company, the passage of House Bill No. 297 conceivably changed the attitude of Andrew Marshall and 

the company from one of antagonism to cooperation. As soon as the bill became law, The Las VegasSan Miguel Chamber of Commerce planned to negotiate with the Union Land and Grazing Company to 

acquire lands for the proposed monument by appointing two committees: a negotiating committee and a 

financing committee. In less than a month the board of directors of the company, who believed the 

establishment of Fort Union National Monument was inevitable, decided to "deal amicably" with the 

representatives of the chamber of commerce. They sent Marshall to New Mexico to negotiate. Once in 

Las Vegas on May 6, Marshall frankly informed Assistant Director Hugh M. Miller of the Park Service, 

"they would not again exert pressure to defeat in Congress a bill authorizing the creation of Fort Union 

National Monument...." [51] In the next few months negotiations between Marshall and Schiele seemed 

cordial. Marshall again raised the issue of the reversionary clause and mineral rights because the 

company worried about the possibility of draining oil out from under its adjacent property. [52] But the 

company's fears imposed no serious threat at the bargaining table. By late August the two sides reached 

a tentative agreement that, after local donors paid the company a sum of $20,000 for "damages," the 

company would then transfer the lands directly for national monument purposes. [53]

In 1953 New Mexicans made their third legislative attempt in Congress to create Fort Union National 

Monument. Realizing the significant change through the new state law and in the attitude of the 

company, Rep. John Dempsey again introduced bill (H.R. 1005) authorizing the establishment of Fort 

Union National Monument in the 83rd Congress. [54] To accompany Dempsey's bill, Sen. Clinton P. 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi2c.htm (1 of 3) [9/7/2007 12:46:17 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 2)

Anderson of New Mexico submitted a bill (S. 2873) in the Senate. With the absence of negative 

lobbying from the Union Land and Grazing Company, the bills received a warm reception on Capitol 

Hill. Meanwhile people in the executive branch showed their support, recommending the bills be 

enacted immediately. On February 19, 1954, the House Subcommittee on Public Lands held hearings on 

H.R. 1005. John Dempsey and Conrad L. Wirth, director of the National Park Service, testified before 

the committee. Both of them did a superb job in convincing the committee that the future operation of 

the monument would not be too costly. In the end, the members of the subcommittee unanimously 

approved the bill and sent it to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. [55]

Accompanied by a reversionary clause, which was acceptable to the Department of the Interior, H.R. 

1005 encountered little opposition from the committee and passed the House in late March. 

Immediately, Senator Anderson urged the Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands to support his 

monument bill (S. 2873) and to hold a hearing, which, he thought, needed only a few minutes. [56] 

During the era of the Second Red Scare, the McCarthy hearings had preoccupied the Senate Chamber in 

which many members "engaged in that circus everyday." Twice, Henry C. Dworshak, chairman of the 

Subcommittee, tried to set up the hearings on the bill and each time a scheduled hearing had to be 

canceled due to certain "difficulties." Finally, Anderson requested that the Committee on Interior and 

Insular Affairs report the bill out without subcommittee's consideration. The full committee did so and 

sent the bill to the floor. [57] On June 15, 1954, the bill passed the Senate and went to the White House. 

On June 28, 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed it. The new law authorized the secretary of 

the interior to acquire the site and remaining structures of Fort Union for national monument purposes. 

[58]

Along with this long and troublesome legislative battle in Washington, the main campaign for the 

establishment of Fort Union National Monument was taking place in New Mexico. After the preliminary 

agreement between the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce and the Union Land and Grazing Company, 

the finance committee superseded the negotiation committee in taking a major role in the business. The 

finance committee was responsible for raising the $20,000 required under the agreement. In late 1953, 

those involved realized that a larger, independent organization was needed to handle contributions. 

Thus, a non-profit organization known as Fort Union, Inc., was formed to replace the finance committee 

in December 1953. The specific purpose of the new organization was to undertake the acquisition of the 

site of Fort Union through fund raising. [59] Recruiting interested citizens from different groups such as 

politicians, businessmen, teachers, and Masons, Fort Union, Inc., united all forces in the campaign in a 

coordinated way.

At the first meeting, on January 11, 1954, eleven of the original fourteen members of Fort Union, Inc. 

elected Ross E. Thompson as president, James W. Arrott vice-president, and Lewis F. Schiele secretarytreasurer. [60] Under the leadership of these three able and devoted men, the corporation launched a 

state-wide campaign to secure $20,000 to reimburse the Union Land and Grazing Company for their 

inconvenience. Since the proposed road to Fort Union had been approved as a secondary federal aid 

project, the New Mexico State Highway Department agreed to contribute matching funds of $10,000. 

Through its coordinators in Las Vegas, Raton, Gallup, Deming, Santa Fe, Socorro, Albuquerque, 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi2c.htm (2 of 3) [9/7/2007 12:46:17 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 2)

Roswell, and Farmington, Fort Union, Inc., contacted various companies, organizations, and individuals 

who might be interested in helping the cause. [61] Fund-raising efforts were also taken to the public 

schools. No contribution was too small to be accepted. For example, Castle Junior High School of Las 

Vegas in a poster stated that even a five-cent contribution would be welcome. [62] Each student who 

contributed would receive a small card saying, "I helped save Old Fort Union." By the end of 1954 the 

organization had already collected $10,076 after spending only $431.14 on office supplies; it had a net 

deposit of $9,645.61. [63]

In the meantime, federal and state government politicians continued to work out the details for land title 

and the access road. The chief concerns of the company were the scenic easement and the cattle 

underpasses. According to the agreement, the government was going to build at least three underpasses 

on the highway and prohibit all billboards along the road. On June 10, 1955, Regional Director Hugh 

Miller sent a draft of the deed to Andrew Marshall and the attorney general of the United States. Six 

days later the board of directors of the Union Land and Grazing Company voted to grant 720.6 acres of 

land to the U.S. government. The final deal came on August 24, 1955, when Ross E. Thompson, on 

behalf of Fort Union, Inc., turned over to Marshall two checks totaling $10,000. On the following day 

the deed was recorded with the County Clerk of Mora County. With the approval of the attorney general, 

the U.S. government accepted the donation on October 18, 1955. On April 4, 1956, Secretary of the 

Interior Douglas McKay signed the order to establish the Fort Union National Monument in Mora 

County, New Mexico. [64] The ruins of Fort Union officially became a national monument.

After the nation bid farewell to the frontier in 1890, the War Department abandoned Fort Union, once 

the largest military post in the West. The land reverted to the original owners; the adobes reverted to the 

earth. In the next 65 years the buildings at the fort gradually deteriorated because of natural attrition and 

human vandalism. Many people, however, were concerned with saving the old fort from further 

destruction and asked for help from the federal government and the state of New Mexico. From the 

1920s, New Mexicans, joined by government officials, campaigned to created a national monument at 

the site. In 1956, after many defeats, they finally achieved their goal. The establishment of Fort Union 

National Monument was the result of an arduous and persistent effort by both the officials of the 

National Park Service and the citizens of New Mexico.

<<< CHAPTER 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 3 >>>

foun/adhi/adhi2c.htm 

Last Updated: 22-Jan-2001

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi2c.htm (3 of 3) [9/7/2007 12:46:17 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 3)

Fort Union

Administrative History

CHAPTER 3: REHABILITATING AND PRESERVING THE FORT

(continued)

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi3b.htm (1 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:46:18 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 3)

Figure 9. In late 1956, the stabilization team first worked on the remaining chimneys. 

Photo shows Martin Archuleta and other unidentified workers filling a chimney with cement. 

Courtesy of Fort Union National Monument.

Along with the development of supporting facilities, the excavation and stabilization of the ruins 

received an equal amount of resources and energies from the Park Service. During his trip to Fort Union 

on December 13, 1955, archeologist Charles Steen of the Park Service realized that deterioration was 

taking place with astonishing speed at the ruins. Photographs taken in 1945 showed two dozen chimneys 

standing at full height; ten years later, only six full chimneys remained, and two of them probably would 

not survive another winter. [19] Steen's discovery urged the Park Service to come up with protective 

measures for the crumbling walls and chimneys. Accepting his suggestion, the regional office decided to 

start a rehabilitation program as soon as the monument was established.

On August 1, 1956, archeologist George Cattanach arrived at Fort Union to direct the stabilization and 

excavation of the ruins. Even though the Park Service already had accumulated much experience in the 

stabilization and preservation of historic structures, the adobe walls at the fort posed a new challenge. 

Because there was no proven method for stabilizing adobe buildings, trial and experimentation seemed 

to be the only satisfactory answer. Only a week after he reported for duty, Cattanach led a crew of five 

men to begin the emergency preservation program. Prior to this work, Acting Superintendent Wing had 

directed a four-man team to work on several preliminary projects such as picking up roofing tin from the 

grounds. This work made Cattanach's job easier. The initial objectives consisted of clearing away rubble 

and debris, reinforcing chimneys with concrete, and experimenting with various materials for capping 

the adobe walls. [20] In the first two months, excellent weather enabled the crew to complete the 

stabilization work on the remaining chimneys of the commanding officer's residence, and to clear the 

original flagstone sidewalks that totaled about 800 lineal feet in front of officer's row.

Although Cattanach and his workers accomplished the initial work, the entire program lasted less than 

three months. In the first two months, the stabilization crew spent $6,700 of the project's total $18,020 

budget for the 1957 fiscal year. Thus, in late October, the park had to lay off four persons due to lack of 

funds. [21] During the winter, Cattanach and the only maintenance man excavated sections of the ruins. 

At the same time, he was planning a stabilization program for the next season, developing techniques, 

securing materials, and acquiring advice. The high winter winds continued to level the more fragile 

adobes. Once a six-foot block of chimney was blown down.

The stabilization work resumed in the spring of 1957. The first season provided the monument staff with 

much useful experience. Because the adobe walls of the forty historic buildings comprised a total length 

of five miles, one hundred percent preservation was impractical and too costly. Wing and Cattanach 

tried to define a limited objective for the project. Any building that contained more than fifty percent of 

original wall material would receive maximum stabilization attention. But they did not deliberately 

ignore the other structures because they knew that once a building was reduced to foundations alone, it 

became much less interesting to visitors. [22] Their strategy for priority never restrained their 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi3b.htm (2 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:46:18 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 3)

willingness to save as much of the ruins as possible. In May, the stabilization crew increased to seven 

members with directions to focus on the adobe walls. They used steel braces and cement paste to support 

the weakened portions of buildings. Then the workers capped the weathered walls with soil-cement 

bricks. Finally, the entire structure was sprayed with a silicone preservative to make it moisture resistant. 

However, the silicone had to be applied annually to assure maximum protection.

The stabilization proceeded smoothly. In June, the preservation team recruited three more persons. Some 

of them began to work on excavation tasks while the stabilization job continued throughout the ruins. 

Again, in October, the park laid off the full crew of ten men due to limited funds, however, they had 

accomplished most of their job.

The winter of 1957-58 was an extremely hard one. Covering Fort Union with eight feet of snow, the 

cold weather hampered all construction and stabilization projects. As in the previous winter, Cattanach 

stayed inside his warm residence and contrived various preservation techniques for the next spring. As 

soon as the snow melted into Wolf Creek, a twelve-man crew started the new working season. In May 

1958, the stabilization crew was expanded to 21 persons. Their main objectives were to excavate the 

buildings and improve the visitor trail through the ruins. By the summer, they had excavated most of the 

buildings by removing thousands of cubic yards of dirt. Under Cattanach's leadership, the crew did an 

excellent job on excavation and stabilization. To reward his superb performance at Fort Union, the 

regional office promoted him to a higher position at Mesa Verde National Monument. In early 

September, archeologist Rex L. Wilson of Ocmulgee National Monument in Georgia came to Fort 

Union to replace Cattanach. [23] As another winter approached, the park staff could look back on their 

most successful season.

Under Wilson's direction, excavation and stabilization continued at great speed. All stabilization was 

undertaken on a priority basis; those walls and features in most urgent need of repair received the 

earliest attention. Small repair jobs in buildings often followed at a later date. [24] Before the close of 

1959, people saw the success, with the realization that the stabilization of the ruins would be completed 

by the next season. Thereafter, a small maintenance crew could handle the daily routines of preservation. 

By August 1960, after spending four years and more than $100,000, the Park Service had accomplished 

the initial emergency stabilization. [25] The program was extended for another fiscal year for wrap-up 

operations.

Despite success in protecting the ruins, stabilization at Fort Union left a negative impact on the 

archeological deposits located in the Third Fort area. Because of little information on the archeological 

deposits and the pressure of time on the project, Cattanach and Wilson allowed the crew to use 

destructive methods. For example, a bulldozer was used extensively on the exterior of the various 

structures to clear deposits that had built up against the walls. These efforts, which removed dirt and 

debris to the wall footings or below them, also removed archeological evidence of the construction or 

demolition sequences of the various structures. [26]

Although rehabilitation rather than reconstruction of the fort was the substance of a Capitol Hill 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi3b.htm (3 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:46:18 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 3)

agreement for the establishment of Fort Union National Monument, the Park Service later modified its 

position. Along with the construction of supporting facilities on the outskirts of the ruins, a small 

reconstruction project took place. The park staff believed that if a replica of the flagpole could stand in 

the center of the parade ground, it would enhance the historical atmosphere of the fort. After a year of 

research, historian Donald Mawson produced an accurate drawing of the flagstaff. In February 1959, 

Kueffer Construction Company erected a replicated flagpole in front of the commanding officer's 

quarters. [27]

Another construction project at the ruins was a visitor trail. Designed by Wing himself, the primitive 

sand-gravel trail, 2,900 feet long and six feet wide, appeared in April 1957. A year later, workers added 

2,500 feet of soil-cement trail. Some parts of the trail were surfaced with emulsified asphalt. In 1959, 

after spending $11,936, The crews at Fort Union had completed a 4,103-foot trail network. [28]

CONTINUE >>>

foun/adhi/adhi3b.htm 

Last Updated: 22-Jan-2001

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi3b.htm (4 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:46:18 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 3)

Fort Union

Administrative History

CHAPTER 3: REHABILITATING AND PRESERVING THE FORT

(continued)

Figure 10. Carlos Lovato, Ike Trujillo, Benito Lucero, and Dionicio Ulibarri stabilizing the wall of 

Commissary Warehouse, October 1958. 

Courtesy of Fort Union National Monument.

Nineteen fifty-nine marked a watershed in the history of Fort Union National Monument. When it 

became a national monument in 1956, the abandoned post was still in the wilderness. Occasionally, a 

few curious visitors drove to the ruins along the ruts of the old Santa Fe Trail. Just three years later, Fort 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi3c.htm (1 of 5) [9/7/2007 12:46:19 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 3)

Union had a permanent visitor center and two residence houses with electricity and running water. A 

paved highway and telephone line had linked the fort to the rest of the world. Even the aged adobe walls 

had received modern cosmetic treatment such as the silicone coating. Indeed, the monument had 

finished its first period of intensive development and become a fully functional national monument.

Certainly, it was time to have a celebration. Since the ribbon-cutting ceremony three years before, 

people had constantly asked for a formal dedication of the monument. However, the Park Service did 

not think that it was wise to hold this kind of event without the existence of basic service facilities and 

an operating stabilization program. By the spring of 1959, everybody realized that the situation was 

mature; Fort Union, Inc., began to organize the pageant, which was scheduled for June 14, 1959. In 

order to bring as many people as possible, open invitations printed on placards were placed in the 

windows of most business firms in Las Vegas. [29] As had occurred during the campaign for the 

establishment of Fort Union National Monument, the dedication again showed the efforts of the 

community.

Around one-thirty on the afternoon of June 14, the Twelfth Air Force Band started playing while three 

thousand attendants took their seats between the new visitor center and the old officer's quarters. At two 

o'clock, four F-100 Super Sabre jets flew over Fort Union as the signal came to hoist the American flag 

up the replica flagpole. To give a 21-gun salute with a 105mm howitzer, 101 members from the 726th 

AAA Battalion of the New Mexico National Guard presented the colors. A series of speeches followed. 

Among the prestigious speakers were President Ross Thompson of Fort Union, Inc., Superintendent 

Homer Hastings, New Mexico's Lieutenant Governor Ed V. Mead, Brigadier General William C. 

Kingsbury of the Air Force, Assistant Secretary of the Interior Roger C. Ernst, and Director Conrad L. 

Wirth of the National Park Service. In his dedication address, Ernst delightedly expressed that he had the 

double opportunity to dedicate the fort and the visitor center. He paid tribute to those who won the 

frontier and those who won the monument. [30] Indeed, the ceremony formally ushered in a new era for 

Fort Union National Monument.

As the decade of the 1960s arrived, the administration of Fort Union properly shifted its emphasis of 

management from construction to maintenance. Routine operations such as cleaning the water tank, 

painting the wooden fences, and repairing the visitor center filled the park staff's many working hours. 

In 1963, funds available at the regional office permitted the addition of another residence at the 

monument. Cillessen Brothers Company of Albuquerque completed construction during the next spring. 

[31] Except for this small expansion, no major construction occurred at the place during the early 1960s. 

Most workers just kept themselves busy with daily maintenance.

Ruins preservation continued. The maintenance crew applied silicone coating to the walls that needed it 

twice a year. In 1963, however, the collapse of several walls due to high winds renewed the search for 

more reliable methods of stabilization and preservation. The workers tried a new technique that used 

Redi bolts and guy cables to strengthen those walls in the greatest danger of collapse. By September 

1965, all the adobe walls at the fort had received a silicone coating with the exception of one section of 

the Post Hospital's wall, which was being tested with sandstone, adobe paste, and epoxy resin. It proved 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi3c.htm (2 of 5) [9/7/2007 12:46:19 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 3)

that these new methods were better. [32]

From the mid-1960s, Fort Union National Monument began to try other new ways of preserving the 

ruins on a large scale. Previously, workers routinely applied silicone coating to the crumbling adobe 

walls to prevent them from further deterioration. Although silicone temporarily worked as a shield to 

fend off the sun, snow, and rains, in fact, silicone coating often trapped moisture inside the structures 

and weakened the entire building. White silicone coating, which reflected more light, destroyed the 

unique complexion of the ruins, which resembled the reddish color of the soil. Cooperating with the 

Park Service and the University of Arizona, the Globe Archeological and Stabilization Center in Arizona 

gradually developed a new technique to preserve the adobe structures. Specialists at the center 

recommended that Fort Union try epoxy resin and adobe paste on the ruins because they were closer to 

the original materials. Under the direction of the center, the monument underwent large scale 

experimentation. [33]

As devoted caretakers of the ruins for ten years, Fort Union's staff won their reputation in the National 

Park service. In July 1965, three regional offices of the National Park Service (the Southwest, Southeast, 

and Midwest) formed a joint committee to undertake a survey of seven western forts. [34] Fort Union's 

management was deemed the best among all seven western forts, and the committee suggested that the 

other forts learn from Fort Union's experience. "Fort Union, New Mexico," concluded the committee, 

"was an outstanding example of good management." [35]

One of the chief caretaking operations in the late 1960s was to reconstruct the visitor trail. When the 

monument opened to the public, the original flagstone walks built around 1877 were repaired to serve as 

a part of the visitor route. The larger portion of the route was a 4,000-foot path of emulsified asphalt laid 

in the late 1950s. After ten years, this weather-beaten path started to crack. Because the heat and 

moisture trapped by asphalt made the trail an increasingly fertile breeding ground for undesirable 

vegetation, rapid growth of weeds constantly broke the surface of the asphalt path from below. By 1967, 

Fort Union administrators had to consider the reconstruction of the trail, writing a tentative proposal for 

a $19,000 project. [36] Awarded the contract, Howard Flanagan of Las Vegas, in the spring of 1968, 

began to replace some sections of the asphalt trail with flagstones. Before the winter came, he finished 

approximately 1,700 feet of flagstone walkway. [37]

Extensive repairs of the visitor trail continued in the 1970s. Superintendent Claude Fernandez reported 

in 1972 that more than 13,000 square feet of the asphalt trail needed either replacing or repairing. 

Because of the unavailability of local gravel and a considerable amount of money, the park had to 

postpone the work for three years. In 1975, the regional office appropriated extra funds for the project. 

Then the monument replaced the remainder of the asphalt path with a rock-crusher waste walkway. [38]

In addition to the new visitor trail, a series of construction projects occurred at Fort Union in the first 

half of the 1970s. Expecting to provide better service to the public, park staff installed several picnic 

tables outside the visitor center and interpretive-resting benches along the visitor trail. For its own 

benefit, the monument acquired two storage buildings for stabilization equipment, general supplies, and 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi3c.htm (3 of 5) [9/7/2007 12:46:19 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 3)

maintenance tools. Moreover, all the service buildings, including the visitor center, living quarters, and 

maintenance shop, received a facelift. In 1973, Superintendent Ross Hopkins reported that all the service 

buildings were in "a sad stage of deterioration." They needed to be repaired immediately. Carefully 

assessing the conditions of the structures, the park began to repair them the following spring. That 

summer, a heavy thunderstorm, which covered the ground with hail up to eight inches deep, caused 

$4,000 in damages to vehicles and buildings. But the storm did not stop this project. By the end of 1974, 

all the buildings were rehabilitated. [39]

During the same period, personnel changes occurred at Fort Union. In January 1971, Superintendent 

Hastings retired after almost 13 years of service at the monument. Although in the last few years of his 

tenure he became less energetic and creative, everyone felt that Hastings's leaving was a big loss to the 

park. He not only held the longest tenure as superintendent in the history of Fort Union National 

Monument, but also acted as superb leader in the early development of the park. In April, Claude 

Fernandez of Carlsbad Caverns National Park came to fill the vacant position. He remained at the fort 

for only 26 months, during which severe diabetes limited his performance. In June 1973, he accepted a 

new job as supervisory park ranger at Chamizal National Memorial in El Paso. Again, Fort Union was 

looking for a new, energetic, and healthy leader. Fortunately, a month later, Ross Hopkins, a 15-year 

Park Service veteran came from the Denver Service Center of the Park Service and began his seven-year 

administration. [40]

As soon as he arrived at the fort, Hopkins injected new energy into the never-ending task of adobe 

preservation. Although maintenance routines such as filling cracks with soil-cement bricks and capping 

walls with adobe mortar proceeded as usual, the preservation crew developed a new system to take care 

of the ruins. Besides emergency repairs following unpredictable severe weather, a regular five-year 

maintenance schedule was assigned to each wall section because erosion usually began to occur within a 

five-year period. Designed to beat mother nature, this system made the preservation crew operate more 

efficiently. Original wood beams were treated with wood preservative, and metal was painted with rust 

resistant paint on a five-year cycle.

When a spot check of the ruins using photos from the stabilization records showed most of the adobe 

walls firm and strong, the keen workers found that the stone foundations, which were not included in the 

routine maintenance process, were in increasingly bad shape. They needed a complete resetting and 

pointing. [41] The Park Service decided to use the skills and experience of some Indians who were 

experts in stone building. In the fall of 1973, archeologist George Chambers from the Arizona 

Archeological Center, with a special grant of $25,000, directed a ruins stabilization unit of Navajos to 

ameliorate the damage to the stone foundations. During the eight-week project, they focused on the 

officers' quarters and reset all the limestone foundations. The chosen sections were reinforced with 

cement. The Navajos did an excellent job. [42]

CONTINUE >>>

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi3c.htm (4 of 5) [9/7/2007 12:46:19 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 3)

foun/adhi/adhi3c.htm 

Last Updated: 22-Jan-2001

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi3c.htm (5 of 5) [9/7/2007 12:46:19 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 3)

Fort Union

Administrative History

CHAPTER 3: REHABILITATING AND PRESERVING THE FORT

(continued)

Beginning in the second half of the 1970s, the ruins entered another intensive care period. In 1976, 

Hopkins helped acquire special funds--$75,000 annually--for a five-year stabilization project. At the 

same time, the Division of Cultural Resources of the Regional Office provided the monument with a 

weather station, set up near the Sutler's store, to monitor weather affecting the ruins. [43] With the new 

funding, equipment, and enthusiasm, employees at Fort Union immediately started their work on 

stabilizing the ruins. Before winter arrived, they had complete basic training in masonry repair and a 

drain system for the foundations of some buildings. Because of this project, the monument kept a stable 

team of ten men to labor on the ruins from each spring through fall during the next five working seasons.

As usual, Fort Union established its goals each year. Cyclical maintenance and improvement of park 

facilities were the major objectives for 1977. The asphalt trail and flagstone walkways were repaired. 

Workers assisted the Division of Cultural Resources in photographing, measuring, and inventorying all 

Third Fort buildings for a historic structure report. In the following summer, maintenance personnel 

again replaced some parts of the stone walkway laid only a decade ago. In general, the maintenance 

operation went smoothly.

Nevertheless, mother nature caused more troubles for the ruins. As the result of heavy snow and winds 

in February 1979 and January 1980, several huge sections of the adobe walls collapsed. Thus, during 

these two seasons, emergency stabilization was the primary issue. [44] After receiving an additional 

$83,000 for this urgent need, the preservation workers re-treated all the walls of the Third Fort and 

Arsenal with adobe coating and metal supporters. By the fall of 1980, the crew members had completed 

the stabilization of the building foundations for all the post officers' quarters and half of the depot 

officers' quarters. [45] Most of the five-year emergency preservation plan was achieved.

In July 1980, just as it celebrated its twenty-fourth birthday, Fort Union National Monument underwent 

a major administrative change. With a strong desire to reduce administrative costs and inefficiency, 

Southwest Regional Director Robert Kerr combined the administration of Fort Union and Capulin 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi3d.htm (1 of 3) [9/7/2007 12:46:20 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 3)

Mountain under Capulin's superintendent, Clark D. Crane. When Ross Hopkins left for Saguaro 

National Monument in Arizona on July 27, a unit manager position replaced the superintendency at the 

fort. Until the selection of a permanent manager, general foreman Willis E. Reynolds served as acting 

unit manager. In late December, the Regional Office offered the new position to Carol M. Kruse of 

Canaveral National Seashore in Florida. She reported for duty on January 6, 1981. Despite minor 

adjustments in operating procedures, the new organization made a smooth transition. [47]

Although Fort Union lost its sovereignty, daily business was as usual, and was perhaps even more 

efficient. Under the benevolent rule of the superintendent of the Capulin Mountain National Monument, 

all division chiefs at Fort Union were responsible for their own day-to-day operation. They looked to 

Capulin counterparts only for special expertise or the coordination of projects that affected both areas. 

However, Crane separated the maintenance functions from those of the preservation team by creating 

two distinct divisions: maintenance and preservation. Each had its own specific agenda. Consequently, 

this realignment resulted in a more productive operation for both divisions.

Besides this administrative reorganization concerning the maintenance of the fort, the strategies and 

tactics for ruins preservation took a novel departure from their traditional course. Since the 

establishment of the monument, workers had been using soil-cement bricks and silicone coating as the 

main materials to stabilize the crumbling structures. Later, it proved that both materials trapped moisture 

inside the walls and hastened their deterioration. From the 1960s, the park staff started to test some new 

material and techniques but they were never applied on a large scale. In the spring of 1981, prior to the 

new working season, Fort Union, with the assistance of regional architect Dave Battle, devised a 

comprehensive plan for ruins preservation. According to the plan, first the fort's workers would return to 

the use of original materials rather than the cement and chemical products in adobe and foundation 

work. Second, the preservation crew would concentrate on repairing the ruins whose condition 

constituted major safety hazards to employees or visitors. Finally, the monument would immediately 

reinforce the foundations where the identity of entire buildings or of remaining walls was about to be 

lost. These three points began to serve as the park's principles for future ruins rehabilitation. [48]

Undoubtedly, the preservation activities were better prepared and executed in the following years. The 

severe rains and storms in the summer of 1981 once more indicated that the traditional cement-base 

protective plaster proved unsatisfactory when it cracked and peeled off from the walls. This situation 

gave more opportunities for experimenting with new methods on a large scale. The crew patched the 

damaged and exposed adobe structures with an adobe paste, which consisted mainly of sand and clay. 

For the first time, the entire project was photographically documented, both before and after. [49] The 

photographs provided more accurate data for future care of the ruins. In 1984, the monument purchased 

a new 35mm Olympus camera to facilitate high quality photographs for the ruins preservation work. 

Today, Fort Union has a complete set of photo files of the ruins.

Through the mid-1980s, the preservation crew continued to try various new methods and techniques. A 

protective coating was applied to the exposed adobe surfaces when the multiple layers of cement plaster 

began to crumble away. The mud coating appeared capable of surviving longer than the other materials 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi3d.htm (2 of 3) [9/7/2007 12:46:20 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 3)

did. Another new method was to make a large number of adobe bricks at the beginning of each working 

season to allow adequate drying time before use. This increased the life span of bricks. Moreover, 

workers realized that it was necessary to clear debris and weeds from the base of all structures for the 

purpose to minimize moisture penetration. From 1982 to 1986, the preservation crew devoted many 

hours to such activities as removing rubble from fallen walls, resetting rocks to original locations, and 

uprooting weeds around building foundations. These operations provided better care to the ruins in 

general. [50]

A systematic study of adobe structures is as important as preservation itself. Before Fort Union outlined 

an appropriate preservation plan, some basic information about these historic structures became crucial. 

From the late 1970s, the monument, with the help of the Regional Office, started to gather accurate data 

about the ruins. They included historical research and current surveys. In 1982, Dwight Pitcaithley of the 

Regional Office and Jerome Greene of the Denver Service Center completed a long-term project, "The 

Historic Structure Report, Historic Data Section, the Third Fort Union, 1863-1891," which provided an 

excellent data base for Third Fort buildings. [51]

Meanwhile, Fort Union obtained information pertaining to the fort and related historic structures from 

the State Historic Preservation Office because New Mexico had excellent records about historic adobe 

buildings. [52] The park staff also accumulated more data by surveying all the ruins. As a result of the 

studies conducted in 1984, the monument had a better idea about its assets. For example, surveys 

showed that the Third Fort, Sutler's store, and the Arsenal contained 18,072 linear feet of foundations 

and 125,336 square feet of adobe surface suited for preservation work. [53] The collection of 

information paved the way for future research and rehabilitation.

CONTINUE >>>

foun/adhi/adhi3d.htm 

Last Updated: 22-Jan-2001

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi3d.htm (3 of 3) [9/7/2007 12:46:20 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 3)

Fort Union

Administrative History

CHAPTER 3: REHABILITATING AND PRESERVING THE FORT

(continued)

All non-historic buildings at the fort also underwent change. In 1982, the monument began to renovate 

the out-of-date visitor center by relocating the interior partitions, insulating the walls, carpeting the 

lobby, and installing florescent lights. Renovations included the reconstruction of two restrooms to 

provide easy access for handicapped visitors. When the remodeling of the visitor center was completed 

the following spring, it resulted in a more pleasant environment for both visitors and employees. [54] As 

had the visitor center, the residential houses and maintenance shop received new foam roofs and stucco 

paint. However, a severe thunderstorm in the summer of 1983 struck Fort Union. Concentrated in the 

residential and maintenance areas, the thunderstorm, combined with a 37 mile-per-hour wind, caused 

approximately $30,000 in damages, which included the destruction of a storage shed and damage to the 

new roofs. This was the most costly natural disaster in the history of the monument. [55] But 

maintenance workers soon repaired most of the damaged buildings. In 1984, Fort Union concluded its 

four-year reroofing project.

Another aspect of this fresh outlook at the fort was a new trail and roads. In July 1983, as a service 

project, the Boy Scout troops of Las Vegas laid out a flagstone walkway from the visitor center to the 

hospital. Additionally, the Boy Scout troop from Santa Fe erected three platforms along the trail for 

interpretive purposes. [56] In 1984, under the Federal Lands Highway Program, Fort Union received 

$200,000 to reconstruct its aged roads. Awarded this contract, R. L. Stacey Construction of Santa Fe 

began to reconstruct and resurface all the blacktop roads within the park boundary. The company 

repaved all the residential driveways, the entrance road, and the maintenance parking area. They finished 

most of the job in December 1985. [57] After the Park Service found some minor defects, the company 

returned the next summer to put new patches and fog coats on some cracked areas. [58] By 1986, Fort 

Union had renovated almost all its supporting facilities and become a more accessible and 

accommodating place.

In March 1987, Carol Kruse accepted a promotion to superintendent of Tonto National Monument in 

Arizona. The fort lost a good manager. Nevertheless, two months later, exciting news arrived that the 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi3e.htm (1 of 3) [9/7/2007 12:46:21 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 3)

new regional director, John E. Cook, had decided to grant Fort Union independence from Capulin 

Mountain National Monument. Realizing that Fort Union and Capulin Mountain had represented totally 

different values and purposes, he dissolved the seven-year odd marriage between the two units. 

Although the separation cost a little money, it helped the development of Fort Union, which gained more 

budgetary freedom. [59]

Between June 7 and October 1, the administrative functions at the two sections were gradually 

separated. During that time, Douglas C. McChristian of Hubbell Trading Post in Arizona came to 

assume the superintendency of the fort. As an energetic manager, he helped carry out a smooth transition 

of the administration. Accordingly his administration placed emphasis on finding more efficient methods 

of ruins preservation. His tenure, however, lasted less than a year. In May 1988, John Cook called him to 

Santa Fe for a new appointment. Later, he was selected as historian of Custer Battlefield National 

Monument (the present day Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument) in Montana. Several months 

had passed before the monument got a new chief. On August 15, Harry Myers, a seven-year veteran as 

superintendent of Perry's Victory and International Peace Memorial in Ohio, came to fill the same 

position at Fort Union. The arrival of Myers, an experienced leader who fully understood how to build 

relationships among and with employees, opened a new chapter in the administrative history of the 

monument. [60]

After Fort Union became a separate administrative unit, it immediately entered a new era of ruins 

preservation. Managers and workers were deeply involved in more comprehensive research and 

planning instead of simple practice. Until that time, the fort lacked enough information for the proper 

management of its cultural resources. Although Greene and Pitcaithley had produced a historic structure 

report, the study contained virtually no information on the First and Second Forts. The park even lacked 

a historical base map of the ruins. In 1989, regional historian Melody Webb initiated a new project for 

the creation of the historical base maps of Fort Union. Research historian James E. Ivey received the 

assignment. His work will soon be completed. [61]

In 1987, the Regional Office and Fort Union began to conduct a thorough investigation of the remaining 

structures. Their purpose was to collect all the data concerning the ruins and develop a comprehensive 

preservation plan. Approving $12,000 for a preservation-plan study, the regional office asked research 

historian Rick Geiser to do some preliminary work on the subject. [62] A large project was planned for 

the period from 1988 to 1990; it required $80,000 annually for a total of $240,000. In addition, $20,000 

of the total was earmarked for a joint adobe preservation research project with Pecos National 

Monument. [63] Research historian Laura Harrison was assigned to do the historical resource study in 

1988. Unfortunately, after only one season the National Park Service put the project on hold due to lack 

of funds.

Despite this big setback, the park staff at the monument continued to accumulate knowledge on 

preservation methods and techniques. In 1987, the Regional Office appropriated $2,500 to hire a special 

consultant to provide training in basic adobe preservation techniques, which included the selection of 

proper soil, the manufacturing of adobe bricks, and the coating of walls. [64] P. G. McHenry, an adobe 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi3e.htm (2 of 3) [9/7/2007 12:46:21 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 3)

specialist from Albuquerque, received the contract to examine soil types and recommend a suitable one. 

He worked closely with the preservation crew at the fort and taught workers how to use new tools and 

more efficient methods. In September, he and Park Service adobe specialists conducted a hands-on 

workshop at Fort Union. Colleagues from other state and national parks attended this session. In the end, 

workers improved their methods of preservation and learned a better formula for soil selection. [65]

The ruins preservation at the fort continued to improve. In the late 1980s, workers conducted their 

routine operations without any significant problems. Each season they manufactured more than a 

thousand adobe bricks. The major work, as usual, was to plaster adobe walls and do emergency repairs 

after severe weather. [66] Even though the park was still waiting for a comprehensive preservation plan, 

the crew continued to search for the best way to protect the ruins. In comparison with other parks, Fort 

Union had done a remarkable job in adobe preservation, and its experiences were valuable for others. 

Again in April 1989, Fort Union hosted a three-week workshop for colleagues from other areas. [67]

Because of their nature, adobe structures present more preservation difficulties. Since the establishment 

of the monument, Fort Union has lost one-third of the adobe walls (from 200,000 square feet in 1955 to 

the present 120,000 square feet) due to natural causes. But workers at the fort have no desire to quit. 

Instead, they put more effort than ever into preservation work. They are still searching for the best way 

to save the ruins.

After 36 years of intensive care in the National Park system, Fort Union National Monument has 

matured. When the Park Service adopted this historic site in 1956, there was nothing on the land except 

the ruins themselves. Today, the monument has appropriate support facilities: a 3.39-mile road system, a 

4,000-square-foot visitor center, and 15 residential and maintenance buildings. All of them are in good 

condition. The most significant aspect of good care at the fort belongs to ruins preservation, in which the 

park staff keeps the deterioration of the ruins at minimal rate. In general, the experiences of Fort Union 

in preservation and development have been remarkable.

<<< CHAPTER 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 4 >>>

foun/adhi/adhi3e.htm 

Last Updated: 22-Jan-2001

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi3e.htm (3 of 3) [9/7/2007 12:46:21 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 4)

Fort Union

Administrative History

CHAPTER 4: INTERPRETATION AND VISITATION (continued)

Figure 12. Acting Chief Ranger T. J. Sperry and Ranger Frank Torres were two key players 

during the 1991 living history program. 

Courtesy of Fort Union National Monument.

While making progress toward the goal of attracting more visitors, the park interpretive program 

suffered a temporary setback in 1973. Fifty percent of the permanent staff--administrative clerk Theresa 

Fulgenzi and Superintendent Claude Fernandez--transferred in June, just before the summer tourist 

season. Assuming the duty of acting superintendent, chief ranger-historian Robert Arnberger was unable 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi4b.htm (1 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:46:22 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 4)

to concentrate on his primary duties. Also the Arab oil embargo of 1973 curtailed American tourism. 

The gasoline shortage caused a substantial decrease in visitation. The park's offsite talk and presentation 

schedule became less active for the same reason. [45] The park staff, however, did not await the 

recovery of visitation. Instead, the new administration, headed by the recently arrived superintendent, 

Ross Hopkins, worked hard to make the interpretive program more attractive.

The previous experience gained from the rifle and uniform demonstrations revealed to park 

administrators that a living history program might be successful. In early 1960s, historian Dale Giese 

introduced an idea of living history for the interpretive program. Occasionally, he arranged for a few 

"frontiersmen" and horses to wander among the ruins in order to give visitors a sense of frontier life. 

Since then park personnel had periodically worn old Army uniforms and fired weapons for visitors. 

Those activities often stimulated people's curiosity to ask questions about the fort's past. [46]

One day, a couple of girls from Texas burst into the visitor center, where historian Bleser was on duty. 

He was wearing a period reproduction uniform of an 1883 sergeant-major in the 23rd Infantry. The girls 

asked if there were any Indians around as in the old days. Bleser jokingly replied that there was one right 

now who was out chopping weeds on the grounds, pointing to Ralph Lujan, a Taos Pueblo youth 

working at the fort under a ten-week neighborhood youth corps program. Delighted by his presence, the 

two girls dashed out from the visitor center and ran to Lujan. They asked him to autograph their trail 

guides. When the girls came back, they topped off Bleser's day by asking, "did you capture him?" [47]

Despite positive reactions from visitors, the uniform and rifle demonstrations did not develop into a 

living history program until the 1970s. Becoming less creative and energetic in his late years at the fort, 

Superintendent Hastings, a conservative bureaucrat, showed little interest in such an idea of living 

history. He neither encouraged nor prevented rangers' initiatives. [48] Under Superintendent Fernandez's 

administration, living history gained more ground but his short tenure passed the opportunity to develop 

a living history program along to his successor.

When Superintendent Hopkins, a military history fan, arrived at the fort, he decided to undertake a 

departure in interpretation by shifting emphasis to living history. Living history in the National Park 

Service by the early 1970s, had been a "trendy" concept and the thing to do in interpretation. It was 

natural that Hopkins plunged Fort Union into the living history arena. Intending to attract more visitors, 

Southwest Regional Director Frank F. Kowski supported Hopkins' approach. [49] In 1973, planning for 

a living history program became one of the primary goals. As a loyal friend of Fort Union, Southwest 

Parks and Monuments Association continued its support of visitor services. In September, Hopkins 

requested financial assistance. The association donated $1,000 as "seed money" to begin the program. 

The following month the organization gave the monument an additional $4,000 to purchase uniforms, 

equipment, firearms, and other items. By the end of the year, approximately $6,000 had been donated for 

the project. [50]

Beginning in April 1974, on weekends, the park staff, dressed in clothing of the nineteenth century, 

portrayed military and civilian life on the frontier post. Offsite talks and presentations promoted the 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi4b.htm (2 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:46:22 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 4)

theme of living history. Anticipating a full-scale program for the busy tourist summer, Hopkins hired 

three seasonal employees: Walter Hood, C. Susan Love, and Paul S. Shampine, all from the Texas A&M 

campus. After two months of dress rehearsals, the living history program deputed on June 16. Waiving 

the regular entrance fee for the day, Superintendent Hopkins extended an invitation to all residents of 

Las Vegas and the region. At noon, retired regional director Frank F. Kowski and the present director 

Joseph Rumburg opened Fort Union's living history program by firing the six-pounder howitzer. 

Echoing the past, it announced the birth of a new era of interpretation. [51]

With daily presentations throughout the summer, the living history program offered visitors a chance to 

see nineteenth-century frontier life. Shampine wore a blue coated uniform of the First Colorado 

Volunteers and Hood posed as a civilian craftsman while Love, in bonnet and wide-skirted calico dress, 

portrayed an army wife. In front of tents erected behind the visitor center, they demonstrated to visitors 

the daily routines of frontier army life. The more popular reenactment included woodstove cooking, 

cloth dying, soap making, candle dipping, and weapons firing. In order to make the program more 

meaningful, the living history personnel involved visitors. For instance, one Sunday the park rangers 

were making plum duff dumplings. Instead of watching, some visitors stepped in to knead the dough. 

After they were cooked, the dumplings were handed out for the visitors to taste. [52] Although many of 

these replica uniforms and primitive demonstrations were not historically accurate, they stimulated the 

visitor's interest in the ruins. As the Denver Post said, people felt that they had "relived at old Fort 

Union." [53]

The living history demonstrations recessed over the winter and resumed the following May. To do an 

even better job in the second season, chief ranger Robert Hoff and seasonal ranger Stephen Walker went 

to Fort Davis National Historic Site in Texas to participate in a Park Service course, "Camp of Military 

Instruction." [54] During the week of intensive training, they learned much about military life, which 

helped improve the living history program. A few days after they returned, the monument's living 

history program began another season.

To kick off the living history program for the summer of 1975, Susan Love and Paul Shampine were 

married in an unusual style at the fort on June 8, creating much drama for the opening day. Everyone 

who attended the wedding--bride, groom, flower girls, bridesmaids, parents, and even the Methodist 

minister Terry Voss--was clad in period clothing. Because this was the first wedding held at Fort Union 

since the 1880s, it received considerable publicity. Several local and regional newspapers including the 

Denver Post reported the event with detailed articles and photos. [55]

During the second season, the living history program improved in both quantity and quality. As part of 

the demonstration, the interpreters kept fresh ground coffee, which was the frontier soldiers' main 

beverage, hot and available for sampling. Occasionally, visitors tasted the soldier's typical meal of salt 

pork and hardtack. For the first time, a blacksmith's forge operated near the tents. Among the 

interpretive personnel, each individual had specific assignments. In addition to his performance, he was 

required to tell of his unit's role in the past, explaining all related topics to the visitors. [56] The park 

rangers no longer waited for a crowd. They were as likely to be talking to two people as to twenty-five. 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi4b.htm (3 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:46:22 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 4)

[57]

Both the visitors and the staff, but particularly the latter, were delighted with the results of the living 

history program. The well-prepared program not only stimulated the public's desire to ask more 

questions but also induced them to stay at the site longer than before. Where the average visitors used to 

spend an hour at Fort Union, they were now likely to be there twice as long. Visits of four or five, and 

even six hours, were not unusual. [58] The magnetism of living history was amazing.

The park administration exploited the success of the living history project by extending it beyond the 

monument's boundaries. Whenever there was an opportunity to give a talk or a demonstration in the 

local community, Fort Union sent its personnel. The biggest offsite presentation of 1975 took place at 

the De Vargas Shopping Center in Santa Fe. Because of inflation and the energy shortage of the 

previous year, the state of New Mexico and the Park Service promoted local tourism aimed at New 

Mexicans. Encouraging people to "rediscover" New Mexico, the state government and the Southwest 

Regional Office co-sponsored an "inflation vacation exhibition" at the De Vargas Mall from June 11 to 

14. While all eleven national park sites in the state shared a booth, Fort Union had its separate display 

with the theme of "living history in the Old West." Led by Shampine and Love, the Fort Union team, all 

in period clothing, contributed the event's best presentation. [59]

CONTINUE >>>

foun/adhi/adhi4b.htm 

Last Updated: 22-Jan-2001

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi4b.htm (4 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:46:22 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 4)

Fort Union

Administrative History

CHAPTER 4: INTERPRETATION AND VISITATION (continued)

At the beginning, the living history program received dissenting reports from chief ranger Arnberger. He 

expressed that unlike reconstructed Fort Davis, Texas, the ruins of Fort Union offered no setting for 

living history. The noise of cannon and rifle demonstrations fractured the ghost-like beauty of Fort 

Union, which spoke for itself. Using live ammunition, weapons firing also posed a serious threat to the 

public safety. Rangers in period clothing robbed the park of green and gray uniforms. Since Hopkins had 

become addicted to living history, Arnberger's legitimate concerns had little effect on his superior's 

determination to pursue his hobby. Arnberger reluctantly but dutifully participated in the living history 

program, which he called, a "circus." [60]

In the fall of 1975, the two-year-old living history program went into "mothballs." In a speech before the 

National Press Club earlier in the year, National Park Service Director Gary Everhardt reminded the 

audience that some services in the park system were going to be reduced because of lack of funds. 

Consequently, the Regional Office in Santa Fe thought that Fort Union's living history program was too 

costly despite the fact that it produced a seventeen percent increase in visitation in 1975. In response to 

the suggestion of Santa Fe, Superintendent Hopkins agreed to suspend the living history project 

indefinitely so that the monument could direct all available resources to ruins preservation. Hopkins 

expressed hope that the park would resume the popular program in the future, as soon as it became 

economically practical. [61]

The cancellation of the project directly impacted visitation. In 1976 and 1977, two years in row, 

visitation to the park plummeted. During the same period, a 50 percent reduction in the interpretive staff 

precluded the usual summer extension of park business hours. This affected the monument negatively 

too. Thus, visitation in 1976 decreased by nine percent in comparison to that of 1975; visitation in 1977 

declined by another six percent from 1976. The Park Service tried to lure visitors back by lowering the 

entrance fees at Fort Union, but with limited results. [62]

During the decline in visitation, the monument managed to spend more time and resources on the 

improvement of its existing interpretive facilities. In anticipation of increased reliance upon self-guiding 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi4c.htm (1 of 5) [9/7/2007 12:46:23 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 4)

means, the park administration decided to upgrade the visitor trail at the Third Fort and to revise the 

decade-old guidebook. In 1976, all audio stations were rehabilitated and new trail guides printed. 

Catalogued for the first time, all books at the library went on newly-built wooden shelves. Above all, the 

most significant improvement was the museum exhibits. Because of energy conservation needs, the park 

reluctantly cancelled a plan to construct eight exhibits for the Bicentennial Celebration of the United 

States and rotate them through northeastern New Mexico communities. Instead, a new lobby exhibit for 

the visitor center was installed. [63] Those internal improvements helped ease the pain of cancelling the 

living history program.

In 1978 after a two-year hiatus, the living history presentations returned to Fort Union. New Regional 

Director, John Cook, played a key role in resuming the program by appropriating more funds to the fort. 

[64] Dusting off the old army uniforms and oiling up the replica military rifles, the park rangers started 

offsite talks and presentations. To help the ranger get a better feel for nineteenth-century military life, 

Hopkins sent a few of his men to attend a six-day camp in military instruction at Fort Laramie, 

Wyoming. Joined by two dozen comrades from other national parks, they lived as frontier soldiers, 24 

hours a day. As soon as these highly trained "soldiers" returned, Fort Union began onsite living history 

performances on June 5. [65] In July, the staff presented the first weapons firing demonstration since 

September 1975.

Overall living history enhanced the fort's interpretative program. Unfortunately, visitors did not 

immediately return to Fort Union in large numbers. In the summer of 1978, the New Mexico State 

Highway Department inadvertently removed the Fort Union signs along Interstate 25. Visitation had 

been slowly increasing but began to drop after the removal of the signs. Although the signs were 

replaced in April 1979, visitation continued to decline due to a drop in tourism caused by a fuel shortage 

and economic recession. [66] Visitation for 1979 reached its lowest point since 1961. The nation's 

sluggish economic situation prevented a quick recovery of tourism through the early 1980s. It took 15 

years for the park to attain the attendance numbers of 1972. Not until 1988 did Fort Union see a surge in 

the numbers of visitors.

Beginning in 1980, after Superintendent Hopkins, a living history advocate, left for Saguaro National 

Monument, Fort Union National Monument modified its living history program. An extravagant, 

summer-long living history program had become a burden to the park. Rangers agreed that a well 

organized event could draw more people to the site in one day than the monument normally did in a 

month. Thus, Superintendent Crane decided to change the fort's interpretive course by arranging a few 

special events, with a living history motif. Soon after the unit manager Carol Kruse arrived, she quickly 

institutionalized "special events," as a standard for future interpretation. [67]

Among creative ideas was a "Children's Christmas at Old Fort Union." On December 28, 1980, between 

ten o'clock in the morning and two o'clock in the afternoon, the fort hosted an old-fashioned Christmas 

celebration for local children. While eating cookies made from nineteenth-century recipes, children 

played old games such as Leap Frog Relay, There, Squat, Bird, Beast, and Skip. Also, a costumed ranger 

vividly told young visitors some frontier children's stories, most of which they had never heard before. 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi4c.htm (2 of 5) [9/7/2007 12:46:23 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 4)

More than 300 children and their parents attended the celebration. The event was so well-received that 

the park considered making it an annual affair. [68]

Tasting the success of this special event, the interpretive personnel tried a few more ideas. Besides the 

second annual children's Christmas party, another fiesta called "A Family Day at Fort Union" was held 

on July 12, 1981. Two hundred thirty-five people spent a pleasant afternoon at the fort. In 1982 and 

1983, the monument hosted only one large event each year. But it invited more performers, including 

both the New Mexico and Colorado Volunteers as well as several Boy Scout troops. In addition to drills, 

flag ceremonies, and conducted tours, these "frontier soldiers" demonstrated adobe making, hardtack 

baking, scrub board washing, butter churning, horse shoeing, and other routines of frontier life. Each 

two-day show attracted more than 500 visitors. After a period of experimentation, the park was ready to 

try a more spectacular event for 1984. [69]

To commemorate the founding of the first fort on July 26, 1851, Fort Union National Monument hosted 

a gala entitled the "Fort Union Founders Day" celebration on July 28 and 29, 1984. Little different from 

previous special events, the Founders Day mainly served to carry out the park's living history program. 

Forty-two volunteers-in-parks (VIPs) contributed 684 hours to make the program run smoothly. Handled 

by Mike Pitel of the New Mexico Travel and Tourism Department, news coverage appeared in several 

newspapers and magazines, including New Mexico and Sunset magazines. At the same time, park 

employees spoke on KFUN and KNMX radio stations in Las Vegas to publicize the upcoming event. As 

a result, visitation reached an all-time high, with 1,622 persons attending the two-day party. [70]

After the initial triumph, the Founders Day became an annual attraction, which occurred on the fourth 

weekend of July. Each year some fresh ideas and services were injected into the program. Starting in 

1985, the park served a barbecue to all Founders Day visitors. Thus, tourists, particularly travelers from 

other areas, stayed longer at the site. In return, their presence helped the local economy. According to 

the New Mexico Economic Development and Tourist Department, the Founders Day celebration of 

1985 generated $56,200 in travel industry gross receipts for San Miguel County, where Las Vegas was 

located. [71]

The living history program became more dramatic. For example, in 1986, Ann O'Shea, proprietor of 

"Old Clothes Only" store in Las Vegas, portrayed a prostitute from the nearby Loma Parda. A curious 

crowd gathered to hear her lecture as she sauntered up the visitor trail. Changing characters a moment 

later, Ann along with five other women conducted a "Temperance Rally" march followed by a speech on 

the "Evils of Alcohol." [72] The park developed the living history performance from simple skills 

demonstrations into refined skits.

Meanwhile, an outside event boosted the park's interpretive program. In the 99th Congress, House 

Representative Bill Richardson from New Mexico introduced a bill (H.R. 4794) to designate the Santa 

Fe Trail as a national historic trail. The bill received opposition from landowners along the route. They 

appeared before the House subcommittee and expressed the concerns of private landowners. The bill 

passed the House but suffered a lingering death in the Senate. [73] In 1988, Richardson reintroduced the 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi4c.htm (3 of 5) [9/7/2007 12:46:23 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 4)

bill with certain revisions to the 100th Congress. This time, the bill passed both houses and President 

Ronald W. Reagan signed it into law. The Santa Fe Trail officially became a national historic trail. [74]

A growing interest in the Santa Fe Trail inspired the park administration to make some adjustments in 

interpretation. Because of its close ties to the Santa Fe Trail, Fort Union National Monument became a 

multi-theme park. In supporting the campaign for Richardson's bill, chief ranger Dave Roberts gave a 

speech on the Amtrak train running between Trinidad, Colorado, and Raton, New Mexico, in 1986 when 

the Santa Fe Trail Symposium was held in the region. [75] A year later, the fort changed the name of the 

Founders Day to "Soldiering on the Santa Fe Trail." The pageant remains the largest annual gathering at 

the site.

Nineteen eighty-eight was an important year for the monument. The congressional effort to declare the 

Santa Fe Trail a national historic trail helped market Fort Union. Consequently, visitation increased. To 

maintain this momentum, the park hosted three special events instead of one. In addition to "Soldiering 

on the Santa Fe Trail," "The Santa Fe Trail--the Early Years" and "An Evening at Old Fort Union" 

added two more shows to the park's interpretive program. In June, for the first time, the park 

administration opened the First Fort to the public. Because of its separate location, the First Fort hosted 

visitors only one day a year, usually on the Memorial Day weekend. Also, a Christmas open house was 

held on December 17 when students from Wagon Mound decorated a Christmas tree with reproductions 

of historic ornaments. The park's VIP, Nicki Sperry, researched and provided information to the school 

for the manufacture of the ornaments. Through the event, the students learned a great deal about the 

costumes, traditions, and material aspects of Christmas at the frontier post. [76] All of those 

developments, at both national and local levels, contributed to a revival of interest in the monument. 

Annual visitation increased by 25 percent.

Nevertheless, an even bigger season was ahead. While continuing to benefit from the historic trail 

activities, Fort Union did not forget to exploit the modern highway network. In 1988, with the help of 

the State Highway Department, the monument relocated its signs on I-25. The signs in both directions 

were moved farther away from the exit connecting the entrance road to the interstate. Thus, travelers 

now had more time to decide whether to visit the ruins. This old highway trick again worked well, and 

intercepted some hesitant or reluctant tourists who would have passed the exit if the signs had remained 

at the original locations. [77] In 1989, annual visitation for the first time reached the 20,000 mark.

Entering a new decade, Fort Union National Monument witnessed continued improvement in 

interpretation. The three special events held in the two previous summers were repeated in 1990. Since 

those annual pageants had established reputations, they drew people from as far away as Denver. 

Congressman Bill Richardson and Governor Gary Carruthers also visited the fort. But excluding special 

guests, attendance declined for the first time since 1979 after a decade of steady growth. There were 

three reasons: first, the honeymoon of the Santa Fe National Historic Trail celebration was over; second, 

the Persian Gulf crisis began in August and raised gasoline prices; and third, unpleasant weather 

occurred more frequently. These factors forced annual visitation to drop by fifteen percent. However, 

fewer visitors did not automatically mean less progress in interpretation. Acting chief ranger T. J. Sperry 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi4c.htm (4 of 5) [9/7/2007 12:46:23 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 4)

continued to improve the quality of interpretation, making everything historically more accurate. The 

interpretive program was the pride of the park and it accounted for Fort Union being one of three 

finalists in the 1990 Lon Garrison Gold Award competition, a contest for the best interpretive program 

in the Southwest Region. [78] In 1991, Fort Union won the award.

Fort Union recently commemorated the 100th anniversary of the military post's abandonment, as well as 

the closing of the American frontier. The special ceremony to honor those historic events occurred on 

May 15, 1991. At seven o'clock in the evening, the band from Robertson High School of Las Vegas 

welcomed visitors. Despite a strong wind, 300 people remained in high spirits. Superintendent Myers 

gave an introduction. Then, history professor Michael Olson of Highlands University delivered the 

keynote speech to commemorate the significant role the fort played in the conquest of the West. Finally, 

the park interpretive personnel and volunteers, all in military uniforms and led by acting chief ranger T. 

J. Sperry, lowered and folded the American flag, recapturing the historic scene. As another success in 

the interpretive activity, the jubilee ushered the park into a new era. In 1991, annual visitation reached a 

new historical record of 22,300. [79]

Thirty-six years of experience in interpretation has produced a fine, mature program designed to 

encourage an unending dialogue between the manager and the visitor. The principal theme is the 

American frontier; and the chief goal is a marriage of recreation and education. Today, people can enjoy 

visiting the ruins while learning about frontier history. The park also serves as a research institute. Its 

library contains more than 1,600 Western books and numerous rolls of microfilm. The museum 

collection contains more than 10,000 objects. Fort Union National Monument has become a classroom 

for both tourists and scholars.

<<< CHAPTER 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 5 >>>

foun/adhi/adhi4c.htm 

Last Updated: 22-Jan-2001

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi4c.htm (5 of 5) [9/7/2007 12:46:23 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 5)

Fort Union

Administrative History

CHAPTER 5: NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (continued)

The growing interest in natural resource management at Fort Union resulted from the changing cultural 

climate in the United States. The passage of the Wilderness Act of 1964 announced the third natural 

preservation movement, following those of the Progressive and New Deal eras. This time, the noble 

cause attracted powerful grassroots support. Throughout the second half of the sixties, Americans, led by 

burgeoning environmental groups like the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society, began to introduce 

environmental agendas into both local and national politics. The entire country articulated concerns 

about the state of America's physical environment. The "Keep America Beautiful" campaign that Lady 

Bird Johnson initiated during her husband's presidency educated the public on the issue. Environmental 

movements won a significant victory in 1970 when the federal government proclaimed "Earth Day." [15]

Americans cared about their land and the Park Service responded to the nation's call. The tone of the era 

made the agency reconsider its priorities and responsibilities. The MISSION 66 program was designed 

to provide visitors with high standard services that would encourage maximum enjoyment for those who 

used the parks. In 1966, the 80-million-dollar program ended successfully. However, an increase in 

visitation brought a need to protect the natural resources from the depredations of people. If the Park 

Service hoped to continue quality service in the future, the natural resources in its domain required more 

attention. After a decade in which the use of the nation's parks overwhelmed the system's capabilities to 

preserve its resources, Park Service policy began a dramatic shift in the opposite direction.

Astute officials in Santa Fe lost no time in implementing Washington's policy. Recruiting enthusiastic 

young preservationists armed with the latest scientific knowledge, the Southwest Region began to 

implement various environmental programs. As early as 1969, it launched a campaign for environmental 

awareness and education. Regional Environmental Education Coordinator William Brown arranged a 

field exercise, in which people contributed their ideas and suggestions about the program, at Bandelier 

National Monument on February 27 and 28. Representatives from the different park units in New 

Mexico, including Fort Union, attended the meeting, and the participants were "imaginative and positive 

in their commitment to the environmental management concept." [16] Each unit drew up its own plan.

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi5b.htm (1 of 3) [9/7/2007 12:46:24 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 5)

In comparison with its counterparts, Fort Union's plan for environmental education appeared a little 

sketchy but practical. According to the plan, the staff was going to discuss the issue during daily coffee 

breaks and scheduled monthly meetings, with the hope that various themes for natural resource 

management could be developed before the end of 1969. In the following year, the monument would 

create an environmental study area for the use of Las Vegas schools. Thus, students would gain firsthand experience in the program. Also, Superintendent Hastings contacted the local agency of the Forest 

Service and Highlands University in order to obtain their advice. [17]

The environmental education program continued through the early 1970s. After Superintendent 

Hastings' retirement, park ranger Robert Arnberger carried on the unfinished mission, laying the 

groundwork for the establishment of an environmental study area at the First Fort. Like his predecessor, 

he solicited the local schools and college for support. With the help of professors Werner Muller and 

Bob Lessard, an introductory course on the environment became a part of the teachers' preparation 

program at Highlands University. [18] A group of public school teachers also showed an interest in 

taking an active role in the program.

Applying the same tactics used in the interpretive program to natural resource management, Fort Union 

sought to build close relations with the community. The park personnel frequently contacted 

preservation organizations such as the Sierra Club and the Adelante Conservation to recruit assistance. 

Arnberger was invited to speak to the local Sierra Club. [19] These contacts and meetings helped the 

park determine its agendas and goals. Meanwhile, environmental education materials were distributed at 

the visitor center. As a result, both the Park Service and society benefited from the environmental 

education program. It strengthened the public's belief in conservation. For the first time, the monument 

devoted much time to environmental issues. Indeed, a balance between cultural resource and natural 

resource management began to emerge.

As natural resource management formally occupied the fort's administrative calendar, a series of actions 

involving preservation and research occurred at the site. One of the priorities was soil conservation, 

because erosion threatened the safety of the historic structures. Every cloudburst washed away dirt and 

created unwanted ravines in the park. Although Fort Union occasionally conducted a few emergency 

measures to fight erosion, the problem was beyond the park's capabilities. It had neither the money nor 

sufficient knowledge to retain the soil. This situation lasted until 1970 when the National Park Service 

addressed the issue in a serious manner. In November, Assistant Park Service Director Edward Hummel 

sent to the regional headquarters guidelines for soil and moisture conservation at each unit. Washington 

also agreed to appropriate more funds for such purposes. [20]

Under the guidance of Washington and Santa Fe, Fort Union started planning soil erosion control. For 

the first time, the Park Service asked the experts to conduct a systematic study on both the conditions of, 

and the solutions to, soil erosion. In October 1973, U.S. Soil Conservation Officer Harold Dineen 

inspected the situation of arroyo erosion at the monument and outlined the necessary measures. [21] 

According to his suggestions, masonry check dams and ripraps should be placed in arroyos to stabilize 

the banks. In the following year, the maintenance crew experimented with his methods and filled some 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi5b.htm (2 of 3) [9/7/2007 12:46:24 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 5)

of the arroyo heads with rubble and debris. Their work proved effective against the severe summer 

storms. [22]

The preliminary research and experimentation led to a well-planned and funded project for soil erosion 

control. In 1975, Fort Union and the U.S. Soil Conservation Service Mora-Wagon Mound District 

reached a cooperative agreement. It required the district to prepare a land inventory map of Fort Union 

National Monument, showing the soil, water, and vegetation potentials and limitations. Also, the 

conservation officers were willing to supply available technical assistance and information on how to 

treat the land. In return, the monument followed the district's instructions and recorded data about its 

soil, water, and vegetation. The chief beneficiary of this agreement was Fort Union, which received a 

detailed proposal for soil erosion control. [23]

Designed by conservation specialist Gary Storch, the proposal detailed work that was to occur in two 

stages. During the first year it focused on diverting water. Sheer vertical arroyo banks would be sloped 

and cut to no greater than a 2:1 slope to limit damages from runoff to downstream areas. Several new 

waterways with erosion-resistant rock lining were to be constructed to help dispose of large quantities of 

runoff water more efficiently. For 1976, the second season, the main objectives were rack building and 

grass seeding. Certain spots would receive either wooden posts or metal bars to catch debris in the 

arroyos and reduce the speed of flux after a rain. But nothing was more effective than grass cover. Thus, 

the plan suggested that workers seed the disturbed sections with native grasses such as blue grama, little 

bluestem, and western wheat. Careful planning was the first step toward success. [24]

Meanwhile, the Park Service received funds for a number of projects from the Economic Development 

Administration as part of the Job Opportunity Program. Fortunately, Fort Union was a chief beneficiary, 

and got a lion's share of the funds with $71,000. The unexpected funds enabled the monument to hire 

twenty unemployed veterans from Mora County and to execute its elaborate scheme for erosion control 

immediately. Following the plan, the workers accomplished their assignments and went home before 

Christmas. In the spring of 1976, eleven returned for the second season. They labored through early 

December until both the Job Opportunity Program and the erosion control project were completed. [25]

As a result, the two-year program eased most of the troubles concerning soil erosion. Although it was 

impossible to solve all the problems at once, this intensive conservation program stopped the further 

depletion of the earth to a great degree. For the time being, park administration could shift its attention 

to other natural resource issues.

CONTINUE >>>

foun/adhi/adhi5b.htm 

Last Updated: 22-Jan-2001

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi5b.htm (3 of 3) [9/7/2007 12:46:24 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 5)

Fort Union

Administrative History

CHAPTER 5: NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (continued)

Certainly, water was another long-forgotten aspect, that required more study. Since the U.S. Geological 

Survey effort of 1956, the Park Service had shown little interest in water resource management at Fort 

Union. In the late sixties, the predominant national mood favoring environmental preservation 

influenced the attitudes of government bureaucrats at every level. Concerning the safety of visitors and 

the potential for future consumption, the Southwest Region decided to examine both the quality and the 

quantity of water in the fort area. In 1970, hydraulic engineers suggested that the fort keep records of 

water use, including domestic consumption and irrigation. The absence of meters, however, made it 

difficult for the monument to provide accurate data about water use. Without basic cooperation from the 

local unit, the regional office had no alternative but to postpone water resource research indefinitely. [26]

The 1970s witnessed no activity in hydraulic studies at the fort except for a brief test of the well. After 

the Red Top Drilling Company installed a new pump, the Park Service did a routine check of the new 

system. In April 1974, Hydraulic Engineer Garland Moore and his team arrived at the site. They 

inspected the well and the new pump. Surprisingly, they found that the water table had dropped from 85 

feet in 1957 to 91.7 feet. Because the team could not decide why the underground reservoir had shrunk, 

the test remained inconclusive. To the monument, a comprehensive hydraulic study remained 

unavailable. [27]

Nevertheless, the quality of the groundwater at Fort Union remained unchanged throughout its history. 

Beginning in 1960, the park staff collected water samples twice a month for bacteriological tests by a 

state-approved laboratory. Thorough analyses were made every three years. The chemical quality of the 

groundwater always met the drinking water standards set by the Public Health Service in 1962. Also, the 

maintenance crew regularly cleaned the water tank to keep the artisan water pure. [28]

When Fort Union merged with Capulin Mountain National Monument, water resource management 

received new attention. Both Santa Fe and Capulin bosses requested an inventory of water resources in 

the fort area. With some assistance from natural specialists from Capulin, unit manager Carol Kruse 

prepared a detailed report entitled "Water Resources Management Profile for Fort Union National 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi5c.htm (1 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:46:25 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 5)

Monument." Based on previous information and recent studies, the document dealt with various aspects 

of water resources such as physical description, legal rights, problem identification, recommended 

strategies, and bibliographical references. For the first time, the Regional Office received an overview of 

the fort's water assets and problems. Despite its primitive nature, the profile reflected a new approach 

toward resource management, from trouble-shooting to systematic studies. [29]

Although the small number of personnel limited Fort Union ability to conduct any large-scale research, 

the monument sought to learn more about water resources. In 1984, Carol Kruse requested that Santa Fe 

do a new examination of the well. The Regional Office brought in Hydrologist William Werrell from 

Fort Collins, Colorado, who arranged another aquifer test. After his field trip, Werrell compiled a 

detailed report about his survey. It suggested that a new well be drilled even though the existing one 

might be productive for a few more decades. His study gave the Park Service a better understanding of 

the groundwater situation at Fort Union. [30] In addition, the monument employees themselves 

continued to inquire into water resources. Throughout the 1980s, each management plan or 

superintendent's annual report showed progress in the field.

Unlike water resource management, which could pause at any time as needed, fire control required 

constant attention such as personnel training and equipment improvement. Because of its location where 

water was scarce and grass was abundant, wildfire posed the most dangerous threat to the park. Thus, 

the park employees were constantly on fire alert. They regularly checked and repaired the old firefighting tools. Every few years, new equipment was purchased and fresh ideas surfaced. In 1972, the 

monument redesigned its four fire hose houses and made them fireproof. [31]

Five years later, all the equipment was upgraded again. In April 1977, workers completed a new fireresistant fire cache building in the maintenance area. The 300-gallon pump trailer received a new pump, 

improved hose reels, and other gear. Also, the monument procured a portable, backup fire pump for 

forest fire control use. Later in the season, four sets of bunker gear, including helmets, gloves, boots, 

turnout coats and pants, and self-contained breathing units, came to Fort Union to arm its mini-fire 

department. By the late seventies, with sufficient modern equipment, the monument had greatly 

increased its fire-fighting capability. [32]

The development of training in fire control went even faster. Wildfires in the neighboring areas offered 

the park staff good opportunities to acquire real battlefield experiences. In the seventies, natural fires 

broke out more frequently in the region than they did in previous decades. For example, one fire in April 

1974 engulfed 1,500 acres of grassland belonging to the Union Land and Grazing Company. Armed 

with modern weapons, the park employees responded to calls for help and fought the fire effectively. 

[33] The only rewards for their sweat and bravery was enhanced skills and experience.

The park's amateur fire fighters also participated in suppressing wildfires in other regions and states. In 

June 1977, the La Mesa fire at Bandelier National Monument destroyed large portions of the Upper 

Canyon and Frijoles Mesa areas. Answering an emergency call for assistance, Superintendent Hopkins 

and ranger Thomas Danton, with their recently acquired equipment, quickly drove to the burning area. 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi5c.htm (2 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:46:25 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 5)

Both spent six consecutive days in the blazing forest. No sooner did they put the equipment back into the 

cache building than a fire broke out at Sequoia National Forest in California in August. Chief Ranger 

Robert Hoff and battlefield-hardened Danton were assigned to the La Bonita fire. They flew there and 

stayed on the front line for a week. These airborne fire fighters performed excellently. At the end of the 

summer, Hopkins, Danton, and Hoff received interagency fire fighting qualification cards. These special 

occasions helped Fort Union to develop an exceptional fire fighting squad. [34]

Besides reliable equipment and proper training, cooperative activities within government, community, 

and citizenry were crucial for the suppression of large fires. In 1968, the Southwest Region of the 

National Park Service and the state of New Mexico reached agreement on mutual aid in the case of 

natural disasters. Although the agreement covered the Mora Valley, the management sought additional 

cooperation from the surrounding communities. In 1975, Superintendent Hopkins and Andrew Marshall, 

then treasurer of the Union Land and Grazing Company signed an agreement on a joint effort to deal 

with fire disasters. A revised version appeared three years later. During the same period Fort Union and 

the Watrous Volunteer Fire Department struck a similar deal. With these agreements, the monument 

bore more responsibilities, but in trade for better fire protection. [35]

The best protective measure was to prevent fires in the first place. After improving its fire control 

abilities, the monument exhibited a growing interest in scientific studies. In April 1983, Fort Union 

installed a fire weather station near the visitor center to collect data on wind, precipitation, temperature, 

and humidity trends. High winds often proved to be a major factor in determining fire hazards. Because 

the highest recorded winds usually occurred in August, that became the most dangerous month for 

wildfire threats. So the preparation began before each summer. [36]

Learning from other parks' experiences, Fort Union tried a new fire control method--"prescribed burn." 

It was an effective tool used to restore the historic scenery and reduce fire hazards by carefully burning 

small sections of the vegetated area under closely supervised conditions. On April 10, 1985, the 

maintenance crew burned off five acres at two sites. Minimal pre-burn information was available, but 

the revegetation was documented with photographs for the following six weeks. The prescribed burn 

slowed the growth of woody plants and in return, the prairie grass made a comeback. [37]

The monument continued to improve its fire management capabilities in every way. In 1990, the draft of 

the fire management plan for Fort Union arrived at Santa Fe for review. It showed the maturity of fire 

control. Recent decisions by the Park Service, however, prohibited any prescribed burn due to "safety" 

reasons. The maintenance workers returned to more traditional ways of limiting the growth of unwanted 

plants by regularly cleaning the firebreaks and mowing the overgrown areas. But in general, fire 

management at Fort Union was successful as no fire has ever damaged any park property since its 

establishment.

CONTINUE >>>

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi5c.htm (3 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:46:25 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 5)

foun/adhi/adhi5c.htm 

Last Updated: 22-Jan-2001

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi5c.htm (4 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:46:25 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 5)

Fort Union

Administrative History

CHAPTER 5: NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (continued)

Figure 14. A Canada goose posed itself in front of the Officers' Quarters and 

hissed at visitors through most of the spring of 1984. 

Courtesy of Fort Union National Monument.

As a part of the cultural and natural resources of the monument, the Santa Fe Trail ruts raised a new 

issue for resource management. In the late seventies and the early eighties, the 800-mile Santa Fe Trail 

was developing a reputation in the public's eye as a significant historic resource in its own right. At Fort 

Union, the trail became a major attraction in addition to the ruins. A hundred years of revegetation, 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi5d.htm (1 of 5) [9/7/2007 12:46:26 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 5)

weathering, and erosion had changed the original appearance of the trail by either deepening the ruts into 

arroyos or filling them with earth. Sections of the trail, within the monument grounds, were lost through 

the construction of the visitor center, residential houses, and maintenance buildings. Although the park 

staff carefully photographed and mapped the ruts for further research, they could not decide how to 

preserve the trail. [38]

Beginning in 1985, a soil erosion control project helped care for the Santa Fe Trail ruts. Assisted by the 

U.S. Soil Conservation Service Mora District, Diane Jung and Keith Yarborough from the Southwest 

Region authored a plan for a two-year arroyo stabilization program at Fort Union. As soon as they 

finished the blueprint, the maintenance crew started constructing, mulching, and seeding earthen dikes. 

Banks of an arroyo at the northeast corner of the monument were sloped. In the summer of 1986, 45 Boy 

Scouts labored for 179 hours on the erosion control program. The project was completed in 1986 when 

the ruts of the Santa Fe Trail stood more firmly against the threat of erosion. [39]

But the problem was far from resolved. Since the visible ruts of the Santa Fe Trail stretched through the 

entire valley, their preservation as a whole seemed unrealistic. All wagon wheel ruts could eventually 

erode away. Even if the Park Service discovered a reliable way to preserve a small section of the ruts, it 

still could not restore the integrity of the historic trail. Realizing the situation, the fort administration 

pleaded with the regional office for further study on both the strategy and the tactics of preservation. In 

recent years, Superintendent Harry Myers made a few contacts with the Santa Fe Trail Association and 

the U.S. Soil Conservation Service to discuss possible measures. There was no quick answer. As are 

many interested citizens and government agencies, Fort Union is still searching for a solution. [40]

One of the best studies on the park's natural resources was Sandra Schackel's Historic Vegetation at Fort 

Union National Monument, 1851-1983. Then a history graduate student at the University of New 

Mexico, she accepted the Park Service's contract to produce an in-depth investigation of the fort's flora. 

Because the prairie environment affected Fort Union's physical condition regarding such things as soil 

erosion, fire hazards, animal habitats, and natural scenery, the Southwest Region decided to approach 

natural resource management at the "grassroots" level. Schackel pioneered the task. Working closely 

with the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, she investigated various species of plants and searched 

government documents to determine whether there was biological continuity or change through the 

park's history. In 1983, the first study on the history of the park's vegetation appeared.

According to Schackel's study, vegetation conditions at Fort Union in the early 1980s appeared similar 

to those documented in the historic records of the mid-nineteenth century. The valley possessed rich 

blue grama and other grasses interspersed with a great variety of beautiful wild flowers until the coming 

of U.S. troops in 1851. The construction of buildings, gardens, corrals, and the parade ground gradually 

turned the once luxuriant pasture into a barren, dusty area. In American frontier history, ranchers often 

followed soldiers. After the closing of this frontier post, the commercial grazing company replaced the 

military as the catalyst for environmental change. Cattle grazing continued to diminish the remaining 

vegetation cover for 65 years. However, the establishment of Fort Union National Monument brought 

new hope for environmental protection as the Park Service fenced the land and allowed the start of a 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi5d.htm (2 of 5) [9/7/2007 12:46:26 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 5)

recovering process. In the last 36 years, vegetation at the monument was gradually restored. Today the 

prairie is once again growing toward a potential climax. [41]

Simultaneously, several other research projects, not funded by the Park Service, were under way. In 

1982 while Schackel was studying the park's vegetation, Lee Boyd of West Texas State University came 

to Fort Union to research the geological features of the nearby Turkey Mountains, which formerly were 

included in the military reservation. This year-long study resulted in a scholarly work, Geology and 

Joint Pattern Study of the Turkey Mountains. Park volunteers Charles and Peggy Matlock performed the 

first survey of birds at the monument and the surrounding areas. They lived at the fort in the fall of 1983. 

Incorporating data from personal observations and previous records, the Matlocks compiled a report 

about bird activities in the area. These research projects broadened the park's scope in fields from 

geology to flora and fauna. [42]

In accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service defined and 

listed all endangered species of flora and fauna in the nation. Fort Union was home to none of them. The 

threatened creatures of Mora County, the black-footed ferret, the swift fox, and the spotted bat never 

visited the fort. Only bald and golden eagles occasionally stopped at the fort during their long flights.

Of all the fauna at the park, snakes received the most attention. A considerable snake population lives in 

the Third Fort and the Depot, with sightings recorded in all months except January and February. 

Unchecked activities by these reptiles, particularly rattlesnakes, threatened public safety. Rattler 

sightings in public use areas averaged 25 per year, about half of which involved confrontations with 

humans. Concerned with the safety of visitors, the Park Service, since the establishment of the 

monument, placed warning signs along the interpretive trail and asked people to stay out of the grass, 

where poisonous serpents were likely to linger. In past years, the warning sign helped reduce the chance 

of snake confrontations. [43]

Throughout the history of Fort Union National Monument, there was only one recorded incident of a 

snake bite. On August 18, 1983, a boy, Nathan Hagman, walked off the marked trail and into the grass. 

Suddenly, a rattlesnake bit his left leg about six inches above the ankle. It took only five minutes for his 

father to report the matter to the park staff. Under park ranger Carl Friery's advice, Dale Hagman 

properly kept his son still with his legs lower than his heart, and rushed the boy to the Northeast 

Regional Hospital in Las Vegas. [44]

Although only one rattler attack was recorded, the search for a proper way to handle potential 

confrontations between humans and snakes was needed for both public safety and resource management. 

Historically, neighboring ranchers killed rattlesnakes on sight. From 1958 to 1971, records indicated that 

Fort Union exercised the same extermination policy as its neighbors. The environmental preservation 

movement made the Park Service realize the importance of ecology and the coexistence of various 

species. Consequently, Fort Union shifted its policy from extermination to relocation. In the last two 

decades, the relocation philosophy remained the standard. Whenever a rattlesnake moved too close to 

the public use areas, trained park personnel quickly captured the errant reptile. Each captured snake was 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi5d.htm (3 of 5) [9/7/2007 12:46:26 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 5)

marked with brown paint on its tail and released on the northeastern boundary near the water tank. This 

method met the demands of public safety as well as environmental protection. [45]

In 1984, Fort Union issued its first written rattlesnake policy. Concise and perceptive, it gave an initial 

account of the park's experience in snake management, with thoughtful comments and practical goals. 

Approved by the Southwest Region, the rattlesnake policy became effective. In addition to the existing 

methods of warning and relocation, the park rangers began to encourage visitors to report rattler 

sightings. Public cooperation helped the Park Service gather more information for further research. The 

change of policy from extermination to relocation showed that the park administration supported "the 

native animal life of the parks for their essential role in the natural ecosystem." [46]

During the 1980s, natural resource management developed significantly. It became as important as 

preservation and interpretation. In 1976, personnel at Fort Union wrote a "Statement for Management," 

which gave natural resource management minor attention with only one short sentence that mentioned 

the desire to enhance the park's environmental quality. Soon, this attitude changed. Under pressure from 

the public and the Park Service, the monument began to prepare for a comprehensive management plan 

in 1979. It took about two years before unit manager Carol Kruse submitted the plan for approval. This 

time natural resources received significant attention; a natural-cultural resource balance in management 

began to arise. [47]

As the first plan of its kind, the "Resource Management Plan and Environmental Assessment" guided the 

fort's operations through the decade. Every three or four years the park administrators made efforts to 

revise and update it. The public was encouraged to provide input. In essence, by creating such a written 

document the administration saw the need for a natural resource management entity at the monument. 

[48]

In comparison with the ruins preservation and historical interpretation programs, natural resource 

management in the last two decades failed to cover the many problem spots that revealed themselves in 

management operations. Today, some areas are still waiting for research. For example, a pollen and soil 

study will augment Schackel's work and allow the mapping of soil as well as vegetation. A 

climatological study is needed to provide some insights into weather patterns and to predict their effects 

on ruins preservation. The animal population at Fort Union remains largely unstudied. Ground squirrels, 

whose burrows have severely weakened the trails and ruins, are not understood. The increased presence 

of rodent families raises additional concerns for human exposure to bubonic plague. Indeed, a careful 

appraisal of all these aspects of the environment is required before the park's natural resource 

management meets Park Service standards.

<<< CHAPTER 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 6 >>>

foun/adhi/adhi5d.htm 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi5d.htm (4 of 5) [9/7/2007 12:46:26 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 5)

Last Updated: 22-Jan-2001

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi5d.htm (5 of 5) [9/7/2007 12:46:26 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 6)

Fort Union

Administrative History

CHAPTER 6: HUMAN THREATS TO THE PARK (continued)

Figure 16. On October 7, 1984, a man from Dalhart, Texas illegally landed 

a single-engine plane near the hospital ruins. 

Courtesy of Fort Union National Monument.

Few external human threats to Fort Union appeared as destructive and annoying as low-flying aircraft. 

Their frequent visits and sonic booms disturbed the visitors as well as the ruins, which developed a few 

more cracks every time an airplane passed the valley at low altitude. For the dedication ceremony of 

Fort Union National Monument in 1959, the Park Service invited the New Mexico National Guard to fly 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi6b.htm (1 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:46:27 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 6)

its "Top Guns" over the site as the signal for hoisting the American flag. Four F-100 Super Sabre jets 

zoomed over the monument while three thousand attenders applauded. But nobody realized that aircraft 

was to pose a major threat to the historic structures in the future.

On November 29, 1963, the first visit Fort Union by airplane occurred. The three-man camera crew of 

the Columbia Broadcasting System landed their helicopter near the parking lot without advance notice. 

They were cruising over the region in search of material for a television program, "The Changing Face 

of America," to be presented on January 12, 1964. No sooner did they emerge from the helicopter than 

Superintendent Homer Hastings advised them that low-flying and landing on monument land violated 

the Park Service regulations. Apologizing, the crew members explained that the Santa Fe Trail and Fort 

Union as seen from the sky were well suited to their purposes. Also, they were low on fuel and 

concerned about the weight of the film equipment. Accepting this reasonable explanation, Hastings let 

them finish their job of shooting film. Afterward, park personnel hauled their luggage to the Las Vegas 

Airport by car so that the helicopter could leave safely. [23]

The Park Service began to realize the destructive impact of low-flying aircraft, particularly military jet 

on training missions over the ruins. Lightly populated, northern New Mexico served as an ideal area for 

the United States Air Force pilots to practice low-flying. Their sonic booms led the park staff to 

speculate on their effects on the historic structures. In 1971, the fort employees' assumptions proved 

correct that low-flying aircraft damaged the historic buildings. As Superintendent Claude Fernandez 

reported, "a tremendous sonic boom caused an existing crack on the ruins wall to widen." [24]

Sometimes airplanes even crashed near Fort Union, which, of course, made the Park Service nervous. 

Any direct hit by a crashing plane could destroy most of the park and turn the ruins into ashes. Just as 

darkness fell on April 14, 1967, a fire ball noted in the southeastern sky disappeared over the horizon 

and left a glowing bright light. Soon, the park staff learned that a USAF SR-71 Black Bird, the Air 

Force's fastest airplane, had crashed between Las Vegas and Fort Union and the crew had parachuted to 

safety. [25] Although it missed the monument, the fort personnel became convinced that they had to 

defend their skies too. According to the records, military aircraft caused less trouble for the park in 

recent decades.

After the military jets reduced their activities in the area, civilian aircraft filled the vacant sky. Their 

altitude was lower and their moves more capricious. According to the Federal Aviation Administration 

regulations, planes must maintain an altitude of 500 feet or more above people, structures, and vehicles. 

But reckless pilots often passed the fort below this safety altitude, trying for a bird's eye view of the old 

military post. On November 2, 1975, a Californian flew his twin-engine plane just above the ruins. He 

made two passes at an altitude of only 130 feet. The flight was so low that the park staff could read the 

plane's number. Five weeks later, another pilot made four passes over the ruins and residential area at an 

approximate altitude of 200 feet. The Park Service promptly contacted the FAA and provided the agency 

with the information. [26] The Californian pilot did not escape justice. As soon as the National Park 

Service filed complaint statements with the FAA, the government tracked him to Orange County, 

California. In February 1977, after a year of investigation and preparation, the trial began. 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi6b.htm (2 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:46:27 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 6)

Superintendent Hopkins and Ranger Paul Shampine testified as government witnesses during the trial. In 

the end, an administration law judge for the National Transportation and Safety Board found the pilot 

guilty on two counts of violating the federal regulation code and ordered the suspension of the pilot's 

license for sixty days. [27] This was Fort Union's first successful case in air defense.

Nevertheless, the Park Service was not so lucky in tracking every pilot who buzzed Fort Union. In the 

eighties, the number of incidents increased but there were few cases that resulted in court convictions. 

Facing tougher challenges, the Park Service tried its best to deal with the problem. In 1985, the Park 

Service and the FAA signed an interagency agreement on joint efforts to prevent low-flying aircraft over 

national park territories. Two years later, Congress passed a law, the Aircraft Overflight Act, which 

made low-flying illegal. Under orders from the Southwest Regional Office, Fort Union documented all 

aircraft overflight problems. [28]

More dangerous than overflights was the landing of planes in the park. Over the years several cases 

involved aircraft landings inside the monument. They threatened not only the historic buildings but the 

visitors and employees. Any human error or mechanical malfunction could result in a fatal accident. In 

addition, an aircraft at high speed and low altitude had little room to maneuver. Once a pilot called the 

park and asked for permission to land his plane in the park. After the park authorities refused his request, 

the angry pilot buzzed the ruins.

Some bold and risky flyers landed their planes in the park regardless of the law. At 11:35 a.m. May 6, 

1976, a single-engine Cessna 180, with two Santa Fe men on board, approached the monument. They 

made four circles; each time descending to a lower altitude, only fifty feet on the third run. On the fourth 

run the plane landed inside the park and parked one hundred feet southwest of the hospital. Quickly 

arriving at the scene, Superintendent Hopkins and Chief Ranger Hoff issued a citation for operation of 

an aircraft in a NPS area to the unannounced visitors. Then, the park authority informed the FAA 

Albuquerque Bureau about the incident. Before the two men visited the ruins, they were forced into the 

air and out of the monument. [29]

Another illegal aircraft landing occurred more quietly and elusively. Walking to the visitor center in the 

afternoon of October 7, 1984, off-duty ranger Charles Spearman noticed an airplane parked near the 

hospital ruins. Upon entering the visitor center, he asked on-duty park technician Carrie Vernon about 

the plane. Caught by surprise, she recalled that a couple who was touring the park mentioned they had 

flown in a few minutes ago. It did not occur to her that they had arrived by plane. Ranger Spearman 

called chief ranger George West at Capulin Mountain National Monument, the only commissioned law 

enforcement officer in the area. Following instructions, Spearman took several pictures of the plane and 

brought the pilot to the office. Then he phoned the FAA office in Las Vegas to report the incident. The 

pilot from Dalhart, Texas, claimed that he thought the plane had landed on land belonging to the Fort 

Union Land and Grazing Company. While Spearman was on the phone again, the pilot ran back to his 

plane and took off before he could be further questioned. [30]

After the passage of the Aircraft Overflight Act in 1987, the problem of low-flying and unauthorized 

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi6b.htm (3 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:46:27 PM]
Fort Union NM: An Administrative History (Chapter 6)

landing at the fort eased dramatically. In the last four years, only one helicopter from a television station 

landed in the park. While enjoying a temporarily peaceful period, the park employees remain vigilant for 

any threat from above, realizing that external threats are three-dimensional. Fort Union, as well as the 

Park Service, today continues to hope and work toward eliminating dangers from aircraft.

In comparison with other units in the national park system, Fort Union National Monument seemed to be 

a safer place. After 36 years in operation, no major disaster caused by human activities or mistakes had 

occurred. Although the monument constantly faced external threats, their intensity or degree in 

destruction appeared relatively low. For many years, the park achieved a perfect safety record. The 

credit for limiting the impact of human threats belonged to Fort Union's geographical isolation, low 

visitation, and responsible operation.

<<< CHAPTER 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 7 >>>

foun/adhi/adhi6b.htm 

Last Updated: 22-Jan-2001

file:///C|/Web/FOUN/adhi/adhi6b.htm (4 of 4) [9/7/2007 12:46:27 PM]