History on the Losing Side

Whether or not he was responsible for their precise language, Ronald Lee had undoubtedly shaped these amendments. Following his return from military service in 1946, Lee had assumed responsibility for the negotiations for Independence, without much communication with his colleagues in the Branch of History. Although no memoranda or other documents record his thinking, Lee's decisions were probably influenced by experiences with other historic areas. In at least three of those developed before Independence, the National Park Service's historians and other professionals had lacked sufficient control. Disagreements, sometimes acrimonious, had arisen with local supporters of the projects, and history had too often been on the losing side. The actions taken to propitiate the local groups had damaged the integrity of the sites and made it difficult, if not impossible, to interpret them in a historically accurate manner.

At Colonial National Historical Park the Lightfoot Stable was reconstructed fifty feet from its original site because the rector and parishioners of neighboring Christ Episcopal Church objected to the proper location. At the George Washington Birthplace National Monument at Wakefield, Virginia, inadequate research and planning, combined with pressure to complete a commemorative building in time for the 1932 bicentennial of Washington's birth, had resulted in reconstruction of the house on the wrong site. Freshest in Lee's mind must have been the philosophical disagreements between the National Park Service and Luther Ely Smith, the chief local proponent of the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial in St. Louis. Smith wanted a "City Beautiful" open park along the Mississippi River, with a major monument on the lines of the Washington Monument or the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. While the Independence legislation was being discussed, he was promoting an international architectural competition for a memorial. Many professionals in the National Park Service opposed Smith's grandiose concept, which required clearance of the site. They would have preferred to interpret it through retention of the historic commercial buildings along the waterfront, from which the country's western expansion had been supplied, and a relatively modest museum in the old courthouse. It was a losing position. Director Drury supported Smith's proposal.

Lee and his associates wished to ensure that the errors that had been committed at other sites did not recur in Philadelphia. Independence was not merely the most important historic site the National Park Service had dealt with, but the premier historic site in the nation. The attention of the country would be focused on its treatment; whatever was done must meet the highest standards. From the time the Shrines Commission had begun its deliberations, the park service had made it clear that this time it intended to maintain control over the development. As Drury had informed Lewis when recommending that Peterson come to Philadelphia to assist the commission, the National Park Service ultimately would be responsible for the planning. Roy Appleman had indicated at the decisive meeting in the office of the City Planning Commission, in July 1947, that his agency would want to devote considerable time to research and study before drawing up a development plan. His final report on the situation in Philadelphia had recommended that the legislation for the proposed park list by name those buildings that were to be preserved, but not be specific about the plan for development, reserving broad decision-making powers for the National Park Service. These recommendations undoubtedly had a strong influence on the amendments to the bill.