FORT DAVIS Administrative History

Word of this change of heart on the part of the NPS energized Barry Scobee and his contemporaries in the town of Fort Davis, especially when they learned from Representative Rutherford that he wanted to build local momentum for creation of a park. A World War II soldier, the Odessa native had returned to Alpine with his veterans' benefits to attend Sul Ross Teachers College. There he had been a classmate of Gene Hendryx, and the two of them often had driven the 30 miles north to Fort Davis to roam the grounds of the post and climb in its ruins. Upon his election to Congress in 1954, the moderate Democrat pondered on ways to fulfill Barry Scobee's dream, and in May 1957 wrote to Scobee to test his idea for generating public support. Based upon notes Rutherford had accumulated for the past two years, he thought that Scobee should set up an "Old Fort Davis Association," with membership and annual dues to sustain the promotional efforts. Linkage of the military history of Fort Davis to the campaign would work well in a conservative climate, thought Rutherford, as "members would enter with the rank of 'Trooper,' 'Sergeant,' and the like." Scobee should then embrace all the trappings of organizational structure, planning for some sort of "annual convention" which "alone would bring a sizeable group of people to the community." Finally, the association could not go wrong with the historical connection of the fort to the Indian wars, as Rutherford believed that "people are enchanted by the spirit and traditions of the Old West, and this would be in our favor." [36]

Rutherford's interest motivated the historical society to redouble its efforts to raise funds for the purchase of the fort property from Mrs. John Jackson (remarried after the death of D.A. Simmons). Further exciting local sponsors was the arrival in Fort Davis on October 15, 1957 of U.S. Senator Ralph W. Yarborough, who toured the museum maintained by the historical society, and inquired about the "practicability of the public obtaining title to the Fort and of having it declared a National Historic Site." The junior Democratic senator from Texas had first come to the fort in February 1929, when he was a young lawyer in El Paso. Taking an automobile trip with his friend, Tom Newman, Yarborough marveled at the sense of history that the site conveyed; a sense that mirrored his own love of the westward movement. Yarborough returned to Fort Davis on several occasions (even after leaving El Paso in 1931), and in the late 1930s he worked again in the Trans-Pecos area as an assistant state attorney general on the legislation to create Big Bend National Park. Unfortunately for Yarborough and the Fort Davis supporters, he learned soon after his October 1957 visit that the Jacksons' asking price ($115,000) was "so high that it had not only delayed the creation of a National project there, but had almost destroyed the feasibility of it." [37]

Determined as never before to overcome the financial obstacles facing Fort Davis, Barry Scobee and the historical society met in February 1958 to discuss the lease held by Mrs. Jackson. The $1,000 lease payment that they made to the Jackson family "was considered by most of the members as too much," Scobee told his friend Frank Temple of the Texas Technological College library, and he moved that the society "give up operation of the Trading Post, as it was the money eater . . . but to continue the museum if possible." In the interim, Mrs. Jackson had visited Fort Davis and agreed to reduce her lease charges to $300 per year over a three-year period. Then in October 1958, the historical society convinced Mrs. Jackson to give them a purchase-option on the post (a total of 450 acres), prompting society president G. Martin Merrill to write NPS director Conrad Wirth informing the park service of this change of status. Wirth's office gave the society hopes that Washington had also changed its attitude about Fort Davis, advising Merrill that the renewed Historical Sites Survey program that year included the theme of "Western Expansion." Because "military and Indian affairs" comprised part of the mandate of the 1958-1959 survey, Fort Davis would be part of any list of potential parks that the NPS sent to Congress. The director's office also suggested that the historical society be aware of the distinction between a national monument and a national historic site. The park service could not guarantee under which category Fort Davis might fit, but Representative Rutherford assuaged the doubts of the local sponsors in May 1959 when he described the survey as "a long-range program now in its early stages." "You may count on my cooperation in every way possible," he told Frank Edwards, manager of the fort property in a letter reprinted in the Alpine Avalanche, and he cast the situation in as broad a context as possible with his closing remark: "I realize the establishment of Old Fort Davis as a national shrine would be a great asset for West Texas and l have a high personal interest in it." [38]

The critical person for Fort Davis now was no longer someone from the surrounding area, nor even Mrs. Jackson, but the Secretary of the Interior, Fred A. Seaton. A former owner of several small-town newspapers in his native state of Nebraska, Seaton had replaced in 1956 the embattled Secretary of the Interior, Douglas McKay, chastised for his role in the Dinosaur National Monument fiasco, and ridiculed in the media for his previous connection to the business world as a Chevrolet automotive dealer in the state of Oregon. More diplomatic and experienced in politics than his naive predecessor (known as "Giveaway McKay" for his leasing of public lands to private interests), Seaton believed in President Eisenhower's "partnership" principle for resource management. This included, in the words of Elmo Richardson, a "deeply held conviction that the government should do only those things which the states and the people could not do for themselves." Compounding Seaton's problems was the announcement in 1958 by the Eisenhower administration that it wished to reduce funding for MISSION 66 by half; a situation that the Democratic U.S. Senate reversed, and instead increased by some 100 percent. Seeking compromise between what Richardson called the "intentions and reality" of national resource policy, Seaton eventually in 1960 called for "a 'Mission 66' whereby the Bureau of Land Management [BLM] could develop recreation sites, and a 'Mission 76' to provide federal assistance to the states for their own park and recreation programs." [39]

The reasoned logic of Elmo Richardson, reflecting years later on the caution of the Eisenhower administration, did not suffuse the correspondence of SWR historian Robert Utley, whose task it was to survey the importance of Fort Davis for inclusion in Conrad Wirth's report to Congress. Disheartened not only by the dilatory tactics of Seaton, but by what he perceived to be the limited understanding of local interests in the machinations of Washington politics, Utley returned from his visit to Fort Davis in the fall of 1959 determined to change attitudes from the local to the national level about the abandoned post. In an interview years later with this author, Utley described the historical society's operation of Fort Davis as "real sleazy," especially the bohemian lifestyle of the artist-caretaker, Rodolfo Guzzardi, who seemed incapable of halting the vandalism that had increased over the years. "The locals didn't know how to promote Fort Davis," said Utley, and as for Barry Scobee: "He was full of the legends," and was "part of a network of west Texas historians [who told] half-real/half-mythic stories." The most odious of these tales that Utley and the NPS would confront was Scobee's "Indian Emily" story, reinforced by the prominence of the Texas Centennial Commission marker on the post grounds. Scobee, in Utley's words, "knew deep down that [the legend] was wrong," but their disagreement over its veracity did not keep the justice of the peace from assisting "the kid," as Scobee called the park service historian, in the collecting of documents and interviews. [40]

Caught between parochial interests and national politics, Utley then took the boldest step that a public official can make. He orchestrated a secret campaign of support for the creation of a park at Fort Davis, fully aware of the consequences to his career as well as to the future of the site. Like many veterans of military service in the postwar era, Utley believed deeply in the importance of military history to the national story. He also shared the public's fascination with the West, having begun his career with the NPS at the age of 17 as a seasonal ranger at Custer Battlefield National Monument (renamed in 1991 as the Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument).

Utley chafed at the constraints of bureaucracy, and knew that popular sentiment would override any intransigence on the part of his superiors. Evidence of this was the fact that 17 of the 26 highest-rated television shows that year were westerns, and the heroics of John Wayne as a soldier-scout, or cowboy, had regaled moviegoers since the premiere in 1939 of the film Stagecoach.

The regional historian's ally in this strategy of subterfuge was John Porter Bloom, assistant professor of history at Texas Western College in nearby El Paso. Bloom, the son of Lansing Bloom, longtime editor of the New Mexico Historical Review and himself a veteran of military service, had known Utley through their associations in the Westerners International (to which Ralph Yarborough belonged as well), and their membership in the Historical Society of New Mexico. In October 1959, the NPS advisory board had included Fort Davis "as a site possessing exceptional value for the purpose of commemorating and illustrating the history of the United States. "Yet Utley had learned soon thereafter that Secretary Seaton was "adopting what appear to be a number of stalling devices to avoid releasing the recommendations of the Advisory Board and thus taking a positive stand on several issues." "Lord knows," said the NPS historian, "when it will be publicly announced that the Park Service wants Fort Davis." Aggravating matters for Utley was the fact that the local historical society "could almost certainly get one of the Texas congressmen or senators to introduce a bill in the next session of Congress authorizing creation of the Fort Davis National Historic Site." Utley predicted that "the man who would write the [NPS] report is a devoted champion of Fort Davis [a reference to himself]," and Seaton would be forced to "sign the report rather than, in effect, repudiate his own Advisory Board." He could not "start the ball rolling without getting myself into trouble," and SWR could not "let the Fort Davis supporters know how to break the log jam." Thus Utley asked Bloom "discreetly and without divulging your source [to] make the above facts known;" a service which "might well advance the cause of historic preservation in Texas a long, long way - and it has a long way to go." [41]

John Porter Bloom was as good as his word, engaging in an extensive campaign of correspondence throughout west Texas, and in Washington, DC, on behalf of Utley's request. Barry Scobee offered Bloom some background on previous attempts to create a national park at the site, remembering in January 1960 how Big Bend's appropriation had denied Fort Davis access to state funds for purchase of the post. Then World War II terminated all non-essential activities in Congress. "I have seen a dozen moves to buy the fort," said Scobee, "and we have always come out minus." Bloom also encouraged his own El Paso Historical Society to pass a memorandum in favor of Fort Davis. He went so far as to approach Senator Johnson, who in the winter of 1960 was the Senate majority leader and was contemplating his own candidacy for the presidency of the United States. Johnson asked Conrad Wirth to "give me your views and opinions, however tentative, on this . . . most interesting proposal." Representative Rutherford, now on the House subcommittee that oversaw the national parks, agreed to draft legislation creating Fort Davis National Historic Site, and the NPS director could inform Senator Johnson on March 4: "We are undertaking further studies relative to Fort Davis to determine whether this Department should support the proposal to establish it as a national historic site." [42]

On February 10, 1960, Representative Rutherford introduced in the House his bill (HR 10352) to designate Fort Davis as a national historic site. In his letter to Representative Wayne N. Aspinall (D-CO), chairman of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Rutherford asked for help in "scheduling hearings on this bill as quickly as possible and convenient." He then detailed the significant historical features of the post, calling it "an important link between the East and the West of the United States." Fort Davis was also near Texas's "only National Park - Big Bend," and inclusion in the NPS system would "give [Fort Davis] added attraction in a historic area." Rutherford then drew attention to one of his favorite stories about the post: Indian Emily. Unaware of the thoughts of Robert Utley on this issue, Rutherford repeated to Aspinall the romantic story told time and again by his friend Barry Scobee: "Many visitors come to this grave and to review the Old Fort's ruins, although no official designation has ever been given to the site by any governmental level." [43]

Within two weeks, Senator Yarborough had followed Rutherford's lead in submitting Senate Bill (S.) 3078 to create the park at Fort Davis. In both cases the lawmakers instructed their colleagues to "set aside [Fort Davis] as an public national memorial to commemorate the historic role played by such fort in the opening of the West. " Rutherford and Yarborough did depart from established congressional guidelines in requiring the Secretary of the Interior to "acquire, on behalf of the United States, by gift, purchase, condemnation, or otherwise, all right, title, and interest in and to such lands. " Heretofore Congress had wanted all new parklands donated by private or non-federal entities. But early indications were that none of Rutherford's and Yarborough's peers would criticize this effort, and on March 15, 1960, Senator Yarborough had included in the Congressional Record an article from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram praising the work of Barry Scobee on Fort Davis. The park service also swung into action, designating Robert Utley in March to be the author of the historical report on Fort Davis. Utley, said Conrad Wirth, "will be familiar with this aspect of the task since he has performed similar work in connection with the studies of Fort Bowie and Apache Pass [in southeastern Arizona] and the report on Promontory Point [near Ogden, Utah] that is currently in progress." [44]

This last remark about Robert Utley's workload indicated the volume of research outstanding on potential park sites; a situation that did not square with Secretary Seaton's cautious strategies about "partnerships" and local initiative. To that end, E.T. Scoyen, acting NPS director, informed the Office of the Solicitor that the Park Service, while supportive of Fort Davis's inclusion in the system, should not move as quickly in providing material to Congress. "It is the best remaining example in the Southwest of the typical post Civil War frontier fort," said Scoyen, but "we have not yet carried out studies needed to indicate what would be desirable boundaries of the proposed historic site in order to provide for protection and preservation of the site and its structures." Hence the Park Service hoped for a modest delay, and expected that Utley's study "will be completed in time to permit a report to the Congress . . . before the end of this session." Rutherford, however, noticed a problem in April when "these kind of bills [began] having rough sledding on the Floor [of the House] this year." The west Texas congressman wrote to Barry Scobee on April 19: "Rather than take the bill up now in the mad scramble toward an early adjournment, and with tempers short, I had about decided to wait until the beginning of next session to push the Fort Davis bill on the theory that a 'good humored' House would be more receptive then." [45]

Robert Utley proceeded to Fort Davis soon after announcement of the delay in the site's progress through Aspinall's committee. Working hastily in the election year of 1960, Utley completed a draft of the Fort Davis report by May, and submitted it through channels in the Park Service. The regional historian made clear in the first section his intent for Fort Davis: "Its mission will be to recall vividly through the nostalgic atmosphere of a remarkably well preserved frontier army post the loneliness and frustration, the laughter and song, sorrow and tragedy, and the nomadic feeling of infantry and cavalry garrison life in the late 19th century." Utley marveled at the relatively slow process of deterioration at the site, which an aerial photograph in 1924 "revealed that all or portions of the entire fort as constructed were still standing although evidences of destruction were noticeable." He found that spring "seven quarried stone buildings [along officers' row] whose walls are intact and three of these have been maintained, reroofed, and are equipped for occupancy." His architectural summary concluded: "The most striking difference between this site and others of the same general period and influence is the large extent of ruins remaining. [46]

Turning to the work remaining before the site could open for business, Utley suggested that "the visitor to Fort Davis should respond to the mountain setting and become imbued with an interest in the extensive century old remains." He called for "stabilization of the remaining adobe ruins, restorations of at least some of the stone officers' quarters and other important buildings, replanting with trees and sod and installation of an authentic flagpole on the parade ground." Utley suggested that the visitor should also have access to a "small visitor center to accommodate exhibits associated with the fort and the accomplishments of the personnel garrisoned there," with "the main interpretive devices [being] in-place exhibits at appropriate locales accessible from hard-surfaced trails." Because the site and community were "practically contiguous," Utley saw no need for concession services. He did warn that "the Service will encounter adverse development across the highway from the fort," but this he believed would be "no worse than during the years when the fort was active." One could not easily stop "motels, service stations, lounges, curio shops, etc.," but these "will only tend to increase the atmosphere of non-commercialism within the proposed Service area." [47]

The Fort Davis draft report circulated among Utley's contemporaries in other offices of the Park Service, including that of Kenneth Saunders, SWR architect. He joined a party of regional officials on a tour of Fort Davis in mid-June 1960, reporting on the cost of restoration work at the site. Saunders counted a total of 49 buildings and structures, comprising an "original architectural design" that he considered "not outstanding." In addition, "throughout the United States there are now many fine examples of this period of architecture that are still in excellent condition." He judged "the majority of the remaining buildings or structures at Fort Davis [to be] in poor condition far past the time for reconstruction or rehabilitation and are unsafe to walk around." Saunders called on the Park Service "to remove all old lumber (roof structures, stud walls, etc.) and exterior walls of adobe buildings." In their place he wanted "complete restoration of eight typical examples of the old buildings." His plan would cost some $273,500, and would provide the visitor with "a fine idea of old Fort Davis as originally built." [48]

The Saunders report drew criticism immediately from Utley and others in the regional office, as it threatened further delay of final approval of Fort Davis. Erik Reed, SWR chief of interpretation, told the regional chief of operations that "if Fort Davis is added to the National Park System, it will be because of the historical significance of the post (and the buildings) rather than of the aesthetic values of the structures." Saunders' suggestion to dismantle buildings and tear down walls also irritated Reed, who preferred to "strengthen what remains by capping and/or re-roofing. " The Saunders report thus triggered rapid responses from other study team members, and Roland Richert, the acting supervisory archeologist who had accompanied Saunders to Fort Davis, sided with Utley and Reed: "The review, advice, and recommendations of the Interpretive Branch with respect to any or all structures are considered essential for achieving maximum objectivity and accuracy in final appraisals and planning for the area." [49]

As the Saunders report drew fire within the regional office, the final version of Utley's "Area Investigation Report" for Fort Davis became available. In it the historian was much more thorough than he had been in the four-page synopsis submitted in haste in May. Utley remembered that in 1953 the region had assigned John Littleton to prepare a report entitled, "Frontier Military Posts of the Southwest. " Littleton believed that Forts Davis, Union and Bowie offered the best evidence of the Indian wars fortifications. Because of its proximity to the SWR headquarters in Santa Fe, as well as that city's tourist trade, only Fort Union received favorable treatment from the park service as a result of the Littleton report. Utley conceded that Forts Union and Laramie already interpreted the Indian wars for the general public, making the costs of land purchase and building restoration at Fort Davis a challenge. Yet in its favor was the presence nearby of two major national parks: Carlsbad Caverns to the north, and Big Bend to the southeast. Utley expected Fort Davis to draw better than Fort Union (14,000 in 1959), but less than Fort Laramie (41,000 that year). [50]

Most critical to the success of Utley's plans was purchase of the 454-acre tract from Mrs. John Jackson and her family. The Fort Davis Historical Society was hard-pressed to generate much more than the $1,500 per year lease payment for the property, plus operating expenses. "None of the present uses would be consistent with Service policy," Utley concluded, as these encompassed not only the museum, rental quarters, and "curio shop," but also riding stables (with twelve horses grazing on the grounds), and a Church of Christ summer camp in Hospital Canyon. Utley suggested that the NPS offer to purchase about 440 acres from Mrs. Jackson, as a tract of 14.6 acres held "no historical or developmental value." "The only additional lands" that he could detect "would be the head of Hospital Canyon to assure scenic control and prevent a possible access problem to the 3 to 5 acres within the canyon owned by local landowner, H.E. (Dude) Sproul." [51]

It was when Utley examined the Jeff Davis County tax records that he learned of the variance between what Mrs. Jackson paid in taxes for the property, and what she wanted the federal treasury to reimburse her for the improvements on the land. "For the Assessor's office the assessed value is approximately 1/4 of true value," said the historian, which rendered "an approximate true value . . . in the neighborhood of $50,000." Utley could not estimate the cost of restoration, although the alterations made by private interests "do not appear to have wrought any irreparable damage to the integrity of the area." As for the loss of tax revenues on the property for Jeff Davis County, because Mrs. Jackson already paid so little in taxes, Utley believed that the modest decrease of county ($96.00), state ($50.40), and local school revenues ($240.70) "would almost certainly be compensated by an increase in business activity and by an resultant nominal increase in land values within the town of Fort Davis. [52]

Upon receipt of Utley's report, the SWR director compiled a memorandum for the NPS director's use with Congress. Two problems surfaced that the regional office could not dismiss: the high cost of restoration, and the lack of unified local support for the park. "The question of restoration-rehabilitation-stabilization is certainly wide open for further consideration and discussion," said regional director Thomas J. Allen. "Should Fort Davis National Historic Site be authorized," the Park Service faced "costs for the first five years of operation . . . at $1,170,200, with an estimated annual recurring cost of $65,000 thereafter." Allen described as "somewhat controversial" the "relative value of the Jackson et al. property." The local historical society's purchase option of $115,000 expired on March 31, 1961, making its current value about $257 per acre. "Perhaps not pertinent, but at the same time somewhat startling in comparison," said Allen, "is the reported $30 to $50 per acre valuation of adjacent good grazing land; " an amount only 11 percent to 20 percent of Mrs. Jackson's asking price. "We cannot anticipate [the Jacksons'] reaction should the appraised value be less than $257 per acre," said the SWR director, "although it is known they feel the property to be worth much more. "What Mrs. Jackson hoped to accomplish in the sale to the park service was recapturing not only the $25,000 paid by her late husband to "Mac" Sproul in 1946 for the property, but also "close to a quarter-million dollars" for "fencing, some restoration, the construction of facilities, utilities, and roads, and . . . losses suffered in such unprofitable ventures as a boy's camp." [53]