Fort Clatsop Administrative History

Restoration Of The Fort Replica And Its Historic Scene

Memorial staff hanging reconstructed main fort gate, July 1964.
(FOCL photo collection)

In considering the site of Fort Clatsop for national memorial status in 1955, an important issue for the Park Service was the accuracy of the replica. The use of replication and restoration in the interpretation of America's historic sites and the proper application of these mediums has been debated by Park Service historians since the NPS incorporation of national historic sites under the 1935 Historic Sites Act. The problems of legitimacy and accuracy in replications troubled the Park Service from the beginning at the George Washington and Abraham Lincoln birthplace memorials. Both sites were received by the Park Service with erroneously replicated buildings. With regards to Fort Clatsop, it was important to the park service that the goal of historical accuracy and the presentation of the Lewis and Clark Expedition would not be compromised by faulty reproduction.

When national memorial status was granted to Fort Clatsop, research to improve the historical accuracy of the replica began with the 1959 Historic Structures Report and Furnishings Plan, Part One. The report consisted of six sections: administrative data, prepared by John Hussey; historical data, prepared by historian Carl P. Russell [11] architectural data, prepared by Charles S. Pope; archeological data, prepared by Paul J.F. Schumacher; landscape data, prepared by landscape architect Harold G. Fowler; and the furnishings data, also prepared by John Hussey.

In the administrative data section, Hussey listed the report's conclusions. In the context that the replica would be used as a historic exhibit, it was determined that

the existing log shell...will require reconstruction to remove elements admittedly not now historically accurate and to add features to bring the structure into conformity with what is known concerning the original Fort Clatsop built by Lewis and Clark in 1805-06. [12]

Hussey estimated the reconstruction would cost $17,000 for all materials, labor, surveys, plans, and supervision. Since the 1960 fiscal year budget included $8,000 for the memorial, Hussey requested an additional $9,000 be allocated. [13]

The historical data for the fort replica was compiled mainly from the examination of the Expedition's journals. Carl Russell examined this documentation for any information regarding the physical nature of the structure, the construction methods used, the resource materials available to the Expedition at the site, the tools and equipment in the Expedition's possession, and type of furnishings constructed. Russell researched William Clark's involvement in the construction of other frontier forts, both before and after the Expedition, looking at the style of construction with which Clark seemed familiar. Russell also examined the journals and notes regarding the building of the Expedition's 1803-1804 winter quarters, Fort Mandan, completing a sketch of the Fort Mandan structure from that documentation.

From all these sources, Russell gave his estimation of the materials and construction styles used in building the fort. For example, Russell concluded that the party probably did not peel the logs for the fort, that little shaping of the logs was done, and that there was no conclusive evidence of what style of corner notch was used in construction. Russell also discussed the tools used by the Expedition and how their use would have affected the construction style and look of the fort. The style of furniture was also examined and Russell included sketches of what he believed the furnishings looked like. Appendix B of the report listed tools and food stores.

Finally, Russell compared the replica to the data he had compiled and recommended several improvements for making the replica more representative of the available data. Briefly, these were:

1. Provide earth fill to hide the exposed concrete foundation of the replica.

2. Stain the logs to replicate a natural weathered look. The wolmanization process had caused a yellowing of the replica logs.

3. Use a clay plaster mix utilizing clay deposits on site to daub between the replica logs. No daubing had been done on the replica and the Expedition journals specifically mention "chinking and daubing" in constructing the original fort.

4. Replace the cedar shake roof with hand-hewn plank roofing.

5. Install wood gutters to conceal the existing gutters. Russell felt that with public use, methods should be used to keep the parade ground from turning into a quagmire.

6. Create smoke vents in ceiling of rooms with central fireplaces.

7. Build a fireplace with exterior chimney for the captain's quarters.

8. Make and install hand-hewn plank flooring for rooms.

9. Create central fireplace pits for rooms with central fireplaces.

10. Create half lofts for storage in captain's quarters and at least two enlisted men's rooms.

11. Make doors for all doorways.

12. Construct a sentry box loosely resembling a small outhouse without a door. However, Russell recommended not building the sentry box without giving an explanation.

13. Install the water gate, or second gate, in the back corner of the parade ground. A wood pile for firewood supply should be kept outside this gate.

14. Replace or conceal iron hinges on main gate.

15. Cover the parade ground with fill to prevent quagmire of mud.

16. Construct crude furnishings, bunks, tables, and chairs, and lay out examples of items the Expedition used.

In completing his recommendations, Russell gave examples of other Park Service reconstruction projects, such as the reconstructed army hut at Morristown National Historical Park, for comparison and construction data. [14]

In conclusion, Russell stated that if the Park Service were to build a replica of the Fort Clatsop structure from scratch, it would probably be rougher and have less concern with permanency than the existing replica. The "most glaring" errors of the replica, according to Russell, were the close fitting logs and the perfect vertical lines at the corners, which could only be corrected by completely rebuilding the replica. Due to the time and effort of the many local people and organizations in building the replica, Russell acknowledged it would be difficult to justify tearing it down and rebuilding. He advised the Park Service could do good interpretive work at the site if the "mark of the American backwoods craftsman" was evident. [15]

Architectural data consisted of the working drawings by local architect John Wicks which had been used in constructing the replica. WODC architect Charles S. Pope completed architectural drawings for the possible reconstruction projects listed by Russell in the historical data section. The construction projects detailed in Pope's drawings were covered by Russell in the historical data section.

Archeological data consisted of a review of past excavations done at the site and recommendations for further study. Paul Schumacher recommended subsurface excavation prior to completion of the landscape work. Schumacher estimated that with the use of a backhoe [16], the work could be completed in two to four days at a cost of $1,000. Schumacher also recommended dating materials from firepits located during his 1957 excavations by a new thermoluminescent dating process.

Landscape data consisted of recommendations for preparation of a design and plan for the landscape at the site. Fowler determined the journals had been sufficiently researched through the site determination process. He suggested an examination of existing virgin Oregon coastal forest to determine the general appearance needed at the memorial. He recommended that WODC prepare the landscape plans at the same time that design plans for the replica restoration were completed.

Fowler gave several recommendations for those plans. He suggested that the landscaping in the vicinity of the replica and at the overlook onto the Lewis and Clark River should re-create a wilderness atmosphere. The visitor center and parking should be screened by using not only native conifer species, but also native deciduous trees such as alder. All additional plantings should be done to supplement the existing conifers and a dense forest should be avoided due to the darkness it would create. [17] Screens around the overlook onto the river and Saddle Mountain would be done only to conceal physical structures. Finally, the trails to the canoe landing, spring, and eastern section of the trail to the coast should be re-established.

In the furnishings data section, John Hussey refers back to Carl Russell's historical data report. Russell also was preparing the Preliminary Exhibit Plan for the fort replica, which provided supplementary data to his historical report. Hussey recommended following Russell's suggestions and using those guidelines as the replica's furnishings plan. He estimated that $5,800 of the $17,000 projected remodeling cost would be used for replica furnishings.

This 1959 report constituted the preliminary data for the replica reconstruction. Part I was intended "to be a clarification of the scope of work, the coordination and resolution of the various investigations, and the definitions of guides for the work to be done in Part II" [18] Part II, completed December 1962 and approved by the regional office in April 1963, outlined decisions regarding the replica restoration, responding to further investigations into the feasibility and authenticity of recommendations from Part I.

Part I was reviewed by the regional office, the WODC office, and the Washington D.C. office. Superintendent Peterson made many contacts, both inside and outside the Park Service, for data and opinions regarding the recommendations in Part I of the Historic Structures Report. He consulted with other parks containing reconstructed log structures, including his previous work station Morristown National Historical Park, and with Lewis and Clark historians. Other sources consulted regarding the original structure were the OHS depositions from 1900 and the 1957 interview with Harlan Smith.

Part II of the Historic Structures Report and Furnishings Plan was much more refined. Specific actions and purposes in remodeling the replica structure were outlined. The report was again divided into six sections: administrative; historical; architectural; archeological; landscape; and furnishings data. This report was completed mostly by Superintendent Peterson and park historian Burnby Bell, incorporating review comments and additional research completed during the interim.

Administrative data presented the proposed use and provisions for operating the replica as a house museum. The replica was identified as Building #4, category III, work code 7. The replica was to be "reconstructed, furnished, and used as a historical exhibit." In furnishing the replica, it was to look as it did the day the Expedition left. Considering theft and vandalism, the planners did not feel secure in furnishing the replica with items representative of everyday life at the fort. During the summer season, one or more seasonals would be at the fort and provide visitor interpretation. For the off-season and times when no ranger was available at the fort, an audio station would be installed to provide a taped interpretive narration. Approximate hours of operation were 9 A.M. to 9 P.M. during the summer and 9 A.M. to 6 P.M. during the off-season. The estimated cost for the remodeling project remained at $17,000, including the cost of the audio station. [19]

The historical data section, in summarizing the historical data report completed by Carl Russell and the continuing research done by the park staff, stated that the floor plan and some details of the replica conformed to the data available in the Expedition journals. "All other work done and to be done is based on conjecture and contemporary structures, and is representative of the summary beliefs of individuals who have performed research for the project." [20] The report also presented information regarding the north-south directional placement of the fort. In examining the 1900 OHS depositions as well as the 1957 Smith interview and subsequent correspondence with Harlan Smith, the planners determined that the fort most likely was placed in an east-west direction rather than the replica's north-south placement. The cost of reorientation of the replica was estimated at $9,000 for construction and $1,500 for overhead if done prior to the reconstruction, and two to three times that amount if done afterward. Overall, the planners stated that the current orientation of the replica was satisfactory from an interpretive standpoint.

The architectural data section presented modified recommendations for the replica remodeling. The recommendations made by Carl Russell in Part I were restudied and re examined for their feasibility and necessity by Park Service planners. Most of the original recommendations were modified.

Recommendations for covering the concrete foundation, building half lofts in the cabin rooms, and building the fireplace and chimney in the captains' quarters remained the same. All the other recommendations were modified, most only minor changes to the design or materials suggested. The most significant changes included closing the "gun ports" located in the outside walls of the replica. Windows looking into the parade ground were to be cut and the log material taken out used to patch the gun ports. Daubing was to be done only in select spots, not all over the replica. Plans for central fireplaces and roof vents were eliminated for all but the meat room. The sentry box would be built and used to house the visitor-activated audio narration unit. All rooms and the parade ground were to be excavated with drain lines and a gravel base with shredded bark cover for proper water drainage. Gutters were to be placed only over doorways.

Construction of the exterior fireplace for the captains' room, July 1964.
(FOCL photo collection)

It was determined that all reconstruction work should be done over an extended period of time in order to allow visitation to continue with minimal disruptions. An order in which to complete the projects was established. The creation of parade ground windows and the closing of the gun ports received top priority, followed by the construction of the chimney for the captains' room. This was followed by the construction of the water gate, the reconstruction without iron hinges of the main gate, drainage ground work, construction of the sentry box, completion of the fireplace in the captains' room, the construction of firebacks in the enlisted men's quarters, the central fireplace in the meat room, re-roofing, construction of doors, flooring, and lastly, half-lofts and shelves.

The park staff concluded that reorientation of the replica was not feasible and that not enough evidence supported a reorientation. With regards to the "mechanically perfect" construction noted by Carl Russell in Part I, it was concluded that weathering had softened the appearance of the replica and no additional work to roughen its appearance would be necessary.

The archeological data section of Part I had suggested further excavations with a backhoe before remodeling projects began. The excavations were carried out during the summer of 1961 and the results presented in Part II of the study. The excavations were again completed by Paul Schumacher.

During these excavations, firepits were uncovered and material from mid-to-late nineteenth century settlement were uncovered. No evidence of the Lewis and Clark Expedition was found. The report concluded that historical evidence was strong enough to substantiate the site's location and that no further excavation work needed to be done, except for monitoring of future ground-breaking construction. The report also stated that excavation work would be complicated by the amount of tree roots lying underground, which would have destroyed any evidence. [21]

The landscape data section referred to the park master plan being written by the park staff. Volume I, Chapter 5, outlined the design plans for landscaping the memorial. The area around the fort replica was targeted for replanting as well as the location of the old county road, areas between the replica and modern buildings on site, and large open field spaces to the south of the replica. Native tree and plant species were to be used.

Finally, the recommendations for furnishing the replica were outlined in the furnishings and exhibition section. Each individual room was listed with the furnishings to be constructed for each. The three enlisted men's rooms were to be furnished with tables and benches, a gun rack, and four bunks, each two beds high. Room #2 was to have a tree stump with stools in place of the table and benches. This was derived from the oral testimony of settlers documenting the site, who reported that a large tree stump was located in one room of the fort and used as a table. There is no mention in the Expedition journals to any stump. The meat storage room was to have overhead poles and wall pegs used for the hanging and drying of jerky. The orderly room would be furnished with a table, two benches, two bunks, and a gun rack. The captain's room would have a large table, two chairs, two drawing boards, two single beds, and two shelves. The Charbonneau family room would be furnished with a low double pallet, a small table, and two chairs. In the parade ground, a period flag would be flown and outside the water gate a large utility table would be placed.

The goal in furnishing the replica was to make it look as it did when the Expedition left and gave the fort to Chief Comowool. Park administration determined that the risk of theft and vandalism was too great to be able to present replica objects that would have been carried and used by the Expedition. Replica furnishings would change as the park's interpretation programs developed.

Reforestation to re-create the forest atmosphere that would have existed during 1805-1806 initially centered around the fort replica and between modern construction, as identified in the landscape sections of the historic structure reports. Tree and plant species identified by Lewis and Clark in their journals and other sources describing the plant life of the early nineteenth century were to be used to determine what species to plant. Planting around the fort replica was postponed until after reconstruction work was done. Emphasis was placed on the restoration of the old county road area on the east side of the replica and supplementing the second growth trees already in existence. Tree screens were begun in 1962 around modern construction by transplanting young trees from other areas on the memorial grounds. Planting efforts also occurred along trails constructed to the canoe landing and spring. Reforestation continued later in various stages to fill in areas identified in the 1964 Master Plan.