CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT HABS US-4 (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS US-4 Route du Monument Chateau-Thierry Departement de l'Aisne (France)

WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA

HISTORIC AMERICAN BUILDINGS SURVEY National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street NW Washington, DC 20240-0001 HISTORIC AMERICAN BUILDINGS SURVEY

CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS NO. US-4

Location: Route du Monument, Department of the Aisne, France, on “Hill 204” just above the commune of Chateau Thierry. The monument is located at latitude: 49.041978, longitude: 3.371442. The coordinate was obtained in 2016 using Google Earth (WGS84). There is no restriction to the public.

Present Owner: The monument is owned and maintained by the American Battle Monuments Commission on property leased in perpetuity from the French Government.

Present Use: The monument is a historic site open to the public.

Significance: Chateau-Thierry Monument was built between 1928 and 1930 under the auspices of the American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC) as one of three “commemorative” monuments to World War I. It honors the services of the American Expeditionary Forces and the French Army, and the friendship and cooperation between the two, in the critical operations of the Aisne-Marne region. The monument was designed by renowned architect Paul Philippe Cret, who is further distinguished by his service as Consulting Architect for the ABMC’s World War I design program. Cret’s national reputation as a civic architect in the Beaux Arts tradition, French heritage, and war service made him ideally suited to the task. The ABMC found particularly appealing Cret’s austere, modern interpretation of Classical design, which was deemed more appropriate to the American experience. The Chateau-Thierry Monument represents the ABMC’s use of classically inspired architecture to place America’s World War I battle victories in the context of important events in world history and to employ architecture as a symbol of international diplomacy abroad.

Chateau-Thierry Monument takes the form of a minimalist, free-standing, classically inspired double colonnade. It rests on an expansive terrace overlooking the town of Chateau-Thierry and is ornamented by commemorative inscriptions and by sculptural allegorical figures of the American eagle and of America and France joined in friendship. The colonnade has been employed as an important architectural motif since Greek antiquity, and indeed the design of the Chateau-Thierry Monument is reminiscent of the Greek stoa. The most fundamental of Greek architectural forms, the stoa is a colonnaded structure providing a protected space for civic, mercantile, and commemorative purposes. However, in Cret’s own interpretation of Classical forms, which he refers to as “New Classicism,” the monument is stripped of its traditional details CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 2)

and reduced to its basic form. According to Cret, while inspired by Greek architecture the Chateau-Thierry Monument is not a proper “archeological adaptation,” but reflects instead “the spirit of our own times.” Cret is considered the primary proponent in the United States of what is now referred to as Stripped Classicism, which he believed could “bridge the end of Beaux-Arts historicism and the rise of modernism.” The monument is among the first of Cret’s designs to realize the full development of this aesthetic. It is silhouetted against the crest of a hill in a picturesque setting that Cret likened to that of a Greek theater, rendering it a highly visible component of the commemorative landscape of the Aisne-Marne region.

The Aisne-Marne Offensive during the late spring and summer of 1918 marked a significant turning point in the war in which the French and American forces drove the Germans from the region. Empowered by their recent defeat of the Russian army, the Germans planned to launch major offensives in the west, overwhelm the Allied forces here and proceed to Paris. They made a surprise attack along the Aisne River on May 27, advancing rapidly towards the Marne while driving a deep salient into Allied territory roughly defined by Reims, Chateau-Thierry, and Soissons. Although initially gaining ground, the German Army was ultimately unable to achieve victory. The American 2nd and 3rd divisions successfully halted their progress on the front lines, while the 3rd and 28th divisions fended off the last German offensive on the western salient on July 15-17.

On July 18, a major Franco-American counter-offensive was launched against the whole of the German salient. The Allied forces made critical advances, including a victory at the famed Second Battle of the Marne, in which the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 26th, 32nd & 42nd divisions of the American Expeditionary Forces played a prominent role. By August 6, the enemy was driven beyond the Vesle River. The region was finally restored to French control following desperate fighting along and north of the Vesle in which the 4th, 28th, 32nd & 77th American Divisions and parts of the 3rd & 93rd participated. The locations of the most critical battles are inscribed on the face of the monument. The German Army was forced to retreat eastward toward Oise-Aisne, Meuse-Argonne, and eventual surrender. Chateau-Thierry Monument honors the joint French and American Aisne- Marne offensive through the allegorical liberty figures of Marianne and Columbia respectively; it is the only one of the three commemorative ABMC monuments to honor that joint cooperation in such a manner.

Historian: Catherine C. Lavoie, 2016

CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 3)

PART I. HISTORICAL INFORMATION

A. Physical History:

1. Date of erection: The monument was constructed between 1928 and 1930. However, the process began in October 1926 with the submission by Paul P. Cret of three design schemes.1 Final approval for “Scheme A” was made on October 18.2 Bids for construction were received and a contractor selected in June 1928.3 Work began by August when the first in a series of construction photos were taken of the foundations under excavation.4 The foundation was largely completed by April 1929. By June the columns were beginning to take form and by September they were all in place and work begun on the entablature. The general form was completed in January 1930, with the terrace, carving of the statuary and inscriptions, and other details to follow. The monument was completed in September 1930.

2. Architect: Chateau-Thierry Monument was designed by French-born American architect Paul Philippe Cret, one of the most influential designers of classically inspired Beaux Arts civic and monumental architecture of the first half of the twentieth century. Cret is perhaps best known for his minimalist treatment of Classical design, which he referred to as “New Classicism.” He was the lead proponent of the style in the United States, which eventually came to be known as “Stripped Classicism.” In this mode, Cret adapted classical motifs to meet the design aesthetic and technological innovations of the modern era. He created a delightful blending of art, architecture, and engineering, often in collaboration with professionals in all three related disciplines. Cret won numerous high- profile architectural competitions throughout his lifetime that helped to establish his reputation as a great architect including a Gold Medal from the Paris Salon and a Gold Medal and Fellows award from the American Institute of Architects.5

While internationally renowned, Cret was particularly influential in Philadelphia, where he practiced architecture and taught design at the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Architecture. Among others, he partnered with Philadelphia architects Albert Kelsey;

1 Paul P. Cret to Maj. X.H. Price, 6 October 1926, re: sending by Mr. Wharton three preliminary sketches for the Chateau-Thierry memorial, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. 2 Proceedings of the American Battle Monuments Commission, Meeting #20, 18 October 1926, Entry 7, Box 13, RG 117, National Archives, College Park [hereafter referred to as NARA II]. 3 Extract of Letter, Maj. X.H. Price to General John J. Pershing, 19 June 1928, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. 4 Construction photographs, taken by Enrhard Photographs of Chateau Thierry, are located on site at the Aisne- Marne World War I American Cemetery. The earliest images are dated, 31 August 1928. 5 ABMC Annual Report, 1926 lists those projects and awards that became the basis for each architect’s selection. For Paul Cret is listed the following projects: Pan American Union Building, Washington, D.C. (Organization of American States Building); Valley Forge Memorial, Pennsylvania; Indianapolis Central Library, Indiana; Delaware River Bridge, Philadelphia, PA; Detroit Institute of Arts, Michigan; and the Barnes Foundation Museum, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 4)

Zantzinger, Borie & Medary; and (former students) John Harbeson, William J.H. Hough, and William Livingston. Cret helped bring Parisian-style Beaux Arts elegance to Philadelphia and made major contributions to the advancement of its City Beautiful movement though his designs for museums, parks, bridges and other civic sites and structures. He is thus credited with having spurred the colonial city into the realm of modernism, an undertaking that he achieved in other cites as well.6 Cret’s legacy includes his position as an influential and well respected professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Architecture. He taught at the university from 1903 to 1937, interrupted by his military service during World War I, and continuing as professor emeritus until his death in 1945. Cret transformed the university’s architecture program into an American version of the French École des Beaux Arts to make it the most influential design program in the nation.7

Paul Cret received his own architectural training at the École des Beaux Arts in Lyon and in Paris. The École’s creative approach to classical design instruction informed both Cret’s work and his approach to teaching. As was characteristic of the École’s philosophies, Cret believed that civic and memorial structures constituted the highest form of architecture. Thus his work comprises numerous exemplary illustrations of such forms. Prime among them are the Pan American Building, later known as the Organization of American States (1910), Rittenhouse Square (1913), National Memorial Arch at Valley Forge (1917), the Indianapolis Central Library (1917), the Barnes Foundation (1925), Benjamin Franklin Bridge (1926), Detroit Institute of Arts (1927), Rodin Museum (1929) and the Folger Shakespeare Library (1932). Also key among his civic involvement is his work for the American Battle Monuments Commission as its supervising architect, and architect for structures including Chateau-Thierry, Bellicourt, and Gibraltar monuments, and the chapel at Flanders Field American Cemetery.

The selection of Paul Cret as Consulting Architect responsible for directing the ABMC’s commemorative program was clearly based upon an unparalleled combination of the skills, temperament, and background needed for the job. In fact, Cret was so successful that he held the position from 1925 until his death in 1945. He was appointed at the recommendation of Charles Moore, Chairman of the Commission of Fine Arts. Under Moore’s direction, the CFA endeavored to set a proper course toward a highly artistic commemorative program before the ABMC was even formed.8 Once it was established, the CFA was granted final design approval. Cret’s reputation in Washington, D.C as a civic architect in the tradition of the Beaux Arts was made years prior with his celebrated design for the Organization of American States building, completed in 1910 (Figure 1). Moore commented that the OAS “has taken a place in American architecture by reason of

6 Inga Saffron, “He Nudged Philadelphia Toward the Future,” Philadelphia Inquirer, 14 July 2006, p.E1. 7 Inga Saffron, “He Nudged Philadelphia Toward the Future.” 8 The Battle Monuments Board, a precursor to the ABMC that was formed by the War Department on June 11, 1921, developed the early plan. The Board was created at the suggestion of the CFA, whom the War Department initially engaged in 1920 to assist in the development of its European military cemeteries. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 5)

appropriateness and charm.”9 Claiming that the Commission’s work was “of such scope and importance that it is deserving of the very best talent available for the work,” Moore believed that under Cret’s leadership, “The memorials will be a credit to the Government of the United States and an inspiration to the countless persons who will visit them in future years.”10 General Pershing concurred, personally indicating his approval for Cret’s appointment stating that “It is a matter of gratification to all of us [at ABMC] that we are to have the services of an architect of your ability and experience in this work.”11

Other significant factors contributing to Cret’s selection as Consulting Architect were his French heritage and his service in World War I. Cret’s background meant that he understood French language, culture and customs. He could easily communicate with French government officials, contractors, and craftsmen working on the ABMC projects, which were located largely in France. Cret served in the armed forces during the World War, initially for France and once the U.S. entered the war, as a liaison officer between the two countries.12 Thus he was sensitive to the temperament of the times and to the desire to commemorate the Great War in a manner evocative of the heroism and sacrifices of those involved.

In addition, prior to his service for ABMC, Cret was engaged in the design of monuments in France for the State of Pennsylvania that they found impressive. In fact, it was among the few designs created outside their realm with which the ABMC approved. The CFA, having been in the position to review one of the Pennsylvania monument designs, concurred with that assessment going as far claim it as the primary reason for his appointment. According to the CFA, Cret’s Pennsylvania memorials “were found to have such exceptional merit as to lead this commission to recommend him as the general advisor of the American Battle Monuments Commission.”13

9 Commission of Fine Arts, The National Commission of Fine Arts, Eleventh Report, January 1, 1926-June 30, 1929 (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1930), 83. 10 Charles Moore, Chairman, Commission of Fine Arts to Senator Reed, ABMC, 17 January 1925; Entry 7, Box 16, WWI Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. According to Moore, “In order to attain the best results, the Commission of Fine Arts do not favor the selection of a group of artists for the work at this time, but recommend to the American Battle Monuments Commission the appointment of Mr. Paul P. Cret, Architect, 112 South Sixteenth Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as Supervisor of Designs and Construction of these Memorials.” It is interesting to note that the ABMC sought permission from the Civil Service Commission in order to hire Cret without competition and at a rate of $50 per day. Major X.H. Price to “Gentlemen,” Civil Service Commission, 17 March 1925, Entry 13, Box 143, Architects & Draftsmen, RG 117, NARA II. 11 John J. Pershing, Chairman, ABMC to Dr. Paul P. Cret, 23 March 1925; Entry 7, Box 16, WWI Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. 12 Francis S. Swales, “Craftsmanship and Architecture as Exemplified by the Work of Paul P. Cret,” Pencil Points, Vo. IX, No. 11 (November 1928): 703. Cret first served as a private and then as an officer in the reconnaissance division. 13 Commission of Fine Arts, The National Commission of Fine Arts, Eleventh Report, 83.

CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 6)

With regard to his leadership skills, Cret was well versed at guiding a design team. Likely a reflection of the cooperative nature of the Beaux Arts system of education and his own teaching experience, Cret was sensitive to the creative temperament and self-esteem of the architects under his direction. He was able to guide their work without appearing overbearing. Citing the embarrassment that they might feel by being restricted to preliminary designs he created, as suggested by ABMC, he focused his attention on familiarizing himself with each site and gathering the information needed to form the basis for preliminary designs, so that he could “advise intelligently.”14 Cret expressed his desire to create a team spirit typically associated with the design of World’s Fairs such as those recently held in Chicago, St. Louis, and San Francisco.15 The analogy was significant as a reference to the role of Chicago’s 1893 Columbian Exhibition and its gleaming “White City” in formally introducing the American public to the Beaux Arts design being applied to ABMC’s commemorative projects.

Paul Philippe Cret was born in Lyon, France on October 24, 1876. His father, Paul Adolphe Cret, died when he was only five years of age, leaving his mother, Anna Caroline Durand, to raise him on her own. Anna made her living as a tailor and dressmaker, working together with her younger sister. Anna and young Paul soon moved into her sister’s home, where she lived with her husband, a local merchant. Paul was provided a fine liberal arts education, attending the Lycee Lalande in Bourg-en-Bresse, a well-respected private school. He was a part of the baccalaureate program that included studies in languages and science, and was able to pursue the drawing classes that provided the foundation for his later studies at the École des Beaux Arts. As luck would have it, his uncle’s younger brother, Joannes Bernard, was an architect and member of the prestigious Societe Academique d’Architecture de Lyon (SAAL). Cret developed a close relationship to Bernard, who proved to be a major influence in his life. In fact, Cret left the Lycee Lalande prior to graduation in order to enter the École des Beaux-Arts in Place des Terraux to train as an architect, in 1893.

Cret flourished under the educational system at the École des Beaux-Arts, which he later characterized as free of conventional constraints. While focused on classical design precedents, the École eschewed the slavish copying of forms, preferring instead to cultivate their budding architects’ creative abilities. Cret later professed the belief that architects need to be “acutely aware when it was proper to discard Roman examples and give free rein to their own creative talent as modern architects.”16 He attended the École while working part time in Joannes Bernard’s architectural office, further enriching his

14 Paul P. Cret to General John J. Pershing, 11 April 1925; Entry 13, Box 143, Architects & Draftsmen , RG 117, NARA II. 15 Paul P. Cret to General John J. Pershing, 11 April 1925; Entry 13, Box 143, Architects & Draftsmen, RG 117, NARA II. 16 Paul P. Cret. “The Ecole Des Beaux Arts and Architectural Education,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vo. 1, No. 2 (April 1941): 8. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 7)

understanding of the principles of architectural design. Likewise, Cret had the benefit of studying under a number of particularly talented professors, beginning with Eugene Huguet, an innovative thinker who later founded the Workshop, Lyon’s first school of architecture, in 1907. Cret then studied for seven years at the École in Paris, in the popular and well-respected atelier of architect Jean-Louis Pascal. Pascal established a method of intervention by which he helped his students to develop and execute their own works, a method that Cret emulated while teaching at the University of Pennsylvania.17

Cret won numerous awards at both institutions, including the coveted Prix de Paris, which allowed him to enter the Parisian École. He won the Rougevin Prize and the Grand Medal of Emulation in 1901, second prize at the Concours Chenavard, and the Gold Medal at the Salon des Champs Elyees in 1903. The awards helped Cret to finance his studies, while also bringing him recognition and the ability to later secure a coveted teaching position. Cret graduated in 1903, after having completed his classwork and the required year spent on a construction site to better comprehend design’s practical application. He was also required to produce his own building plans; perhaps tellingly, he chose to design a nursery school for the children of working parents.

Upon graduation, Cret was offered a teaching position within the School of Architecture at the University of Pennsylvania, in 1903.18 The École de Beaux Arts was highly influential to American architectural education of the times. The university was anxious to retain Cret so that so that they might join “those elite schools that could boast of a French patron.”19 Cret proved to be a tremendously popular and influential professor, remaining at the university until his retirement due to poor health, in 1937. It was later said of Cret that perhaps “his greatest contribution was not of stone but of spirit, his influence on the young architects of today.”20 Cret taught design in the manner of the French ateliers, also teaching the philosophy of architecture and art history.21 He contributed significantly to period debates about the theory of architecture and architectural education through lectures and publications. At the same time, Cret was a patron of a local atelier sponsored by Philadelphia’s T-Square Club, where his students

17 Elizabeth Greenwell Grossman, The Civic Architecture of Paul Cret (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 8. 18 Asked to “seek out a supremely competent teacher, a man gifted in design” the school’s alumni selected Paul Cret. John Harbeson, “Forward” in Theo B. White, editor, Paul Philippe Cret; Architect and Teacher (Philadelphia: The Art Alliance Press, 1973), 13. to John Harbeson was Cret’s former student turned design partner and eventual successor to his position as Consulting Architect for the ABMC. 19 Elizabeth Grossman, The Civic Architecture of Paul Cret, 19. 20 “Memorial Service to Paul Phillippe Cret at his Home, September 11, 1945,” The Federal Architect, Vol. 14, No. 2 (1946), 20. The article went on to say “An inspiring teacher, he impressed on several generations in his charge a vivid appreciation of the meaning of architecture, guiding each student to the development of his own powers of expression.” 21 “Atelier” is the French word for workshop or studio. It refers to a system of apprenticeship for artisans that date to the Middle Ages. In the context of the École des Beaux Arts, it was a manner of teaching design under the tutelage of a master architect. Here, the master and students worked together to produce architectural designs. For more information about this practice see: Paul P. Cret, “The École des Beaux Arts and Architectural Education.” CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 8)

excelled in national competitions, taking the Paris Prize administered by the Society of Beaux-Arts Architects four consecutive years, beginning in 1911.22 Cret maintained a private architectural practice as well, collaborating with other architects on the design of civic buildings and city planning projects.

Cret’s first major commission, his 1907 design for the headquarters building of the Organization of American States (OAS), won him instant acclaim. Working with Philadelphia architect Albert Kelsey, the commission was awarded through a national competition. Completed in 1910, the OAS is still considered among the most successful Beaux Arts buildings within Washington, D.C., a city known for such designs. At OAS Cret combined Beaux Arts styling with an eclectic mix of decorative details in motifs indicative of the various Central and South American countries represented by the organization’s membership. It was the first of many influential buildings that Cret designed for the nation’s capital. In fact, he was among a handful of prominent architects that helped set the architectural tenor of the city during a hey-day of classically influenced building construction, sparked by the implementation of the McMillian Plan and the establishment of the Commission of Fine Arts.23 Other Cret designs in Washington include the Folger Shakespeare Library (1932), Klingle Valley Bridge (1931), Central Heating Plant (1934), Duke Ellington (Calvert Street) Bridge (1934), and the Federal Reserve Building (1937).

At the same time, in Philadelphia Cret was embarking on the first of many significant designs for civic sites and structures in the tradition of the Beaux Arts and the City Beautiful movement to help create “an American Paris.”24 His work began with a comprehensive plan sponsored by the Fairmount Park Commission for the Benjamin Franklin Parkway, developed in 1909 in collaboration with architects Clarence C. Zantzinger and Horace Trumbauer. The parkway was envisioned as the Beaux Arts gateway to Fairmount Park and the planned Philadelphia Art Museum, bridging it with the governmental heart of the city, City Hall, at its opposing end. The plan was later expanded by French architect and city planner Jacque Greber and finally begun in 1917. Over the next decade or so, a world-class civic and arts district was created along the parkway, complete with park reservations, fountains, and outdoor sculpture gardens. The parkway represented one of the earliest urban renewal projects in the country, creating a grand boulevard in the manner of the Avenue des Champs-Élysées in Paris.

In 1913 Cret developed a plan for another of the Philadelphia’s most significant twentieth century landscapes, Rittenhouse Square. Begun as one of William Penn’s five planned

22 Oxford University Press, American National Biography Online, “Cret, Paul Phillippe,” published online February 2000, http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.1700188. 23 Known for its chairman, Senator James McMillian, the 1902 report called for comprehensive planning for the city’s park and monumental center, including the transformation of the National Mall and the design and construction of classically styled monuments and other civic structures along its two axes and surrounding areas. 24 Caroline Tiger, “Consumed,” Philadelphia Inquirer, 19 August 2011, p. D4. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 9)

squares for his “greene country towne” and yet never properly developed, Cret transformed the open space into one of American’s finest urban parks. Shaded by large trees and a lush understory, the six acre park is comprised of diagonal walkways that converge on an oval-shape center plaza that includes a reflecting pool ringed by circular paths. The spaces are defined by features such as stone balustrades and decorative urns and include a number of significant sculptures. The park remains today as the vibrant center of the Rittenhouse community.

In 1914, following the success of the OAS, Cret won another important design competition, this one for the Indianapolis Public Library in which he partnered with the Philadelphia firm of Zantzinger, Borie & Medary. At the time of its completion in 1917 it was considered one of the most outstanding library buildings in the country.25 The library design represents among the first of many of Cret’s characteristic uses of the classical colonnade. According to architectural historian Richard Etlin, “Throughout his career, Cret used the architectural orders to great advantage at dramatically different scales and with varied proportions . . . ranging from assisting in the creation of une grande architecture to imparting human scale.” 26 The library encompasses a processional entry with broad stair, fully articulated Doric columns, broad frieze with triglyphs and metope ornamented by traditional motifs such as rams’ heads, garlands, and governmental seals; and stringcourses of modillions and Greek key patterns. These elements point to a more archeologically correct design indicative of Cret’s early work prior to the development of his more staid “New Classicism” aesthetic.

Shortly thereafter, Cret was in France where he spent the next five years fighting in World War I. Following his move to Philadelphia, Cret and his wife Marguerite Lahalle Cret routinely spent their summers with her family in France. They were in fact in France when the war broke out and Cret immediately entered the French army as a private. He was eventually awarded the Croix de Guerre for his service and made an officer in the Legion of Honor. As the first of many commissions for the design of World War I memorials in France, the Roosevelt family asked Cret to design a memorial to their son Quentin near the site where he was killed, in Chamery. Cret next designed the monument in Varennes, France for the state of Pennsylvania. Completed in 1927, it foreshadowed his later design work for ABMC, including the use of a free-standing colonnade, a motif more fully developed at Chateau-Thierry.

Interestingly, in 1910 Cret had designed a memorial to the officers and soldiers of the American Revolution, the National Memorial Arch at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. The

25 It was one of three libraries featured in Masterpieces of American Architecture, a publication that resulted from polls taken of well-known architects of the day, who identified the best recent buildings in numerous categories. Edward Warren Hoak and Willis Humphrey Church, Masterpieces of American Architecture, New York: C. Scribner’s Sons,1930. 26 Richard A. Etlin. Symbolic Space: French Enlightenment Architecture and its Legacy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press (1994), 70. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 10)

earlier monument stands in stark contrast to Cret’s later designs for the ABMC. A far more traditional Beaux Arts composition, the Arch was modeled after the Arch of Titus in Rome. It was dedicated, in 1917, while Cret was serving in World War I (Figure 2).27

Returning to Philadelphia after the war, Cret continued to contribute significantly to the modern civic landscape of the city. At the same time, Cret began his work for the ABMC and undertook his path-breaking design for the Folger Shakespeare Library located in the nation’s capital. It was during this seminal period in Cret’s career that he fully refined his New Classicism design aesthetic, and that he joined forces with engineers to bring modern construction technology to his design work. Among his best-known achievements in this area was the Benjamin Franklin Bridge, the first of many bridge designs that Cret produced in collaboration with engineers.

Completed in time for the city’s 1926 Sesquicentennial, the Benjamin Franklin Bridge was then the longest suspension bridge in the world. Perhaps most significant was Cret’s ability to forge alliances between the architecture and engineering disciplines in an era marked by division. Advancing the use of modern structural steel, bridges were then largely the domain of the engineer. Architects remained fixated on the architecture of the past, with engineers pointing to their inability to develop modern styles as proof of their regressive tendencies. The battle over which profession should have control over bridge design in particular played out in the architectural and engineering journals of the time. In fact, in 1921 Cret delivered a lecture titled “Modern Architecture” in which he spoke of the divide between the professions, arguing that “when there is a divorce between the two [architecture and engineering], it is the work that suffers.”

Cret’s forward thinking, collaborative instincts and past participation in many of Philadelphia’s significant civic design work were among his qualifying abilities. He held positions within city planning agencies, including the Committee on Comprehensive Plans, and had gained a valuable reputation through his designs for Rittenhouse Square and the Benjamin Franklin Parkway. For the Benjamin Franklin Bridge, Cret worked with engineers Montgomery and Clement Chase, Allston Dana, and Leon Moisseiff to merge state-of-the-art technology with traditionally derived architectural forms to project an image of modernity still in harmony with the city’s historic roots. According to Jonathan Farnham, “For Cret, the new classicism would not be characterized by a nostalgic recollection of forms but instead would derive from a dynamic integration of remembering and forgetting, and past and present, achieved by the harmonious collaboration of architect and engineer.”28

Innovative, flexible steel was used to produce the tall, free-standing cable supports intentionally left bare rather than clad in stone to emphasize the bridge’s modernity. At

27Cret later designed World War I monuments in Frankford, Pennsylvania and in Providence, Rhode Island. 28 Jonathan E. Farnham, “Staging the Tragedy of Time, Paul Cret and the Delaware River Bridge,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, vol. 57, No. 3 (Sept., 1998): 264. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 11)

the same time, stone-faced concrete abutments and gateway towers appearing as medieval bastions tie the bridge to traditional forms. With the success of the Benjamin Franklin Bridge, Cret followed up on his earlier dialogue with an article in Architectural Forum in 1928 titled “The Architect as Collaborator with the Engineer.” Here Cret argues for both reconciliation between the two disciplines and for the conscious role of history in the design of modern structures, reflecting once again his ideas about New Classicism.29 Cret designed other bridges in Philadelphia, Tacony Palmyra (1928), University Avenue (1930), Henry Avenue (1932), and Market Street (1932); as well as the Connecticut Avenue/Klingle Valley (1932) and Duke Ellington (1935) bridges in Washington, D.C.

Returning to the Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Cret designed the Rodin Museum and sculpture garden in 1926, one of many significant institutional and civic structures built to enhance the grand boulevard. The design, which harmoniously melds art, architecture and landscape, was undertaken in concert with French architect, Jacques-Henri-Auguste Gréber, who also served as supervising architect for a number of ABMC projects. The site consists of a classical Beaux Arts museum building with a temple front façade that serves as the gateway to the sculpture garden and reflecting pool that mediates between it and the museum proper. The Rodin Museum houses the largest collection of the works of Auguste Rodin in the world and the largest collection of French sculptures outside of Paris. The museum opened in 1929 and remains one of the city’s most iconic buildings and landscapes. It was among Cret’s many successful contributions to Philadelphia’s architectural landscape that won him the city’s Bok Award in 1931 for “long, modest, and incomparable service to planning ordered beauty for Philadelphia.”30

Among Cret’s most celebrated buildings is the Folger Shakespeare Library, an innovative design that marked a major turning point in the evolution of his design style from more tradition Beaux Arts to his austere “New Classicism” (Figure 3). The fact that period articles claim “no formal style has been followed” reflect both its originality and the emergence of Cret’s mature design aesthetic.31 Upon its completion in 1932 the Library was already hailed as a “true work of art,” the “gem in the crown” of Capitol Hill’s many celebrated governmental and civic structures, and “one of the noblest small buildings in the world.”32 It drew attention in part because it represented a refreshing change from the conventional Neoclassical buildings of Washington; its style was deemed “neither European nor America, old or new” but “classically modern.”33 It serves as an interesting

29 For more information on the topic see: Jonathan E. Farnham, “Staging the Tragedy of Time, 258-279. 30 The Federal Architect, “Paul P. Cret,” [Memorial Issue dedicated to Paul P. Cret], Vol. 14, No. 2, 1946. 31 Ada Rainey, “Library Declared True Work of Art,” p. MS 1. 32 Ada Rainey, Art Critic, The Washington Post. “Library Declared True Work of Art; Critic Finds Folger Temple to Shakespeare Appropriate in All Ways,” The Washington Post, Magazine Section, 23 April 1932, p. MS 1. Fawcett, James Waldo. “Folger Library Called Gem of Architecture,” The Washington Post, Magazine Section, 23 April 1932, p. MS 1. 33 Sibilla Skidelsky, “Tendency to Plagiarizing Seen as Habit in Capital; Shakespearean Folger Library Applauded as Most Interesting Public Building in City and Welcome Relief from General Lack of Creative Art,” The Washington Post, 12 July 1936, p.AA5. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 12)

counterpoint to Cret’s design for the Detroit Institute of Arts, completed in 1927, which combines Beaux Arts with Italian Renaissance styling in a far more traditional design. More recent architectural scholars have called the Folger Library “a lyrical blending of Beaux Arts Classicism and Art Moderne often referred to as Stripped Classicism” or, more lightheartedly, as “Greco Deco.”34

As with the majority of Cret’s designs, the Library combines art and architecture to include sculptural depictions from nine of Shakespeare’s best-known plays, crafted by John Gregory. Perhaps most notable is the merging of the columns of the classical colonnade with a plain, broad frieze; a similar treatment as appeared in the Chateau- Thierry Monument. The fluted columns separate the bays of the façade, with the sculptural reliefs appearing as spandrels. Interestingly, Cret’s original plan depicts the “columns” as free-standing pilasters topped by sculptural figures. Likewise, there is no projecting entablature, frieze, or cornice. The austere, modern interpretation of Beaux Arts design so artfully displayed in the Folger Library came to define Cret’s work hereafter. This includes the Chateau-Thierry Monument, designed concurrently and also considered among Cret’s first true New Classical structures. Moreover, the Folger Library foretold of coming trends in the nation’s capital, the development of an austere modern aesthetic characteristic of the buildings created by the federal government during the Post-World War I, “New Deal” era.

A prime example of Cret’s later work as well as the impact of the New Deal aesthetic in the nation’s capital is the Federal Reserve Bank Building (now known as the Marriner E. Eccles Building), completed in 1937. The building design was overseen by the CFA and the Federal Reserve Board, who called for a building of monumental character yet of staid design. Its beauty and dignity are derived through its proportion, scale, and purity of line rather than through decorative features such as columns, pediments, and the like.35 It is pure New Classicism, and as indicative of Cret’s work, includes bas reliefs by John Gregory, a sculpture by Sidney Waugh, and ironwork by Samuel Yellin.

Similarly styled is Cret’s Federal Reserve Building in Philadelphia, completed in 1935. The building features a modern treatment of the classical colonnade as seen at Chateau- Thierry; the columns appear as squared piers that are left plain, but are of monumental proportion. The plain frieze and austere cornice are also starkly modern. Ornamentation is expressed primarily through the use of bas reliefs undertaken by Alfred Boitteau, who

34 Paul Goldberg, “A Blend of Architectural Grace and Eccentricity; An Appraisal,” New York Times, 5 February 1983. Goldberg states, “Its [the Folger Shakespeare Library] architect was Paul Cret, the Philadelphian who succeeded batter than any of his peers at mixing Beaux Arts classicism and Art-Moderne panache, and the building’s façade is perhaps Washington’s most lyrical essay in that style of simple, stripped-down classicism that was so popular in the 1930s. Benjamin Forgey. “The Building Blocks of Washington,” The Washington Post, 18 March 1994, p. 6. Forgey call the Library “the best of its breed.” 35 Mary Anne Goley, “Architecture of the Eccles Building,” www.federalreserve.gov; archived from the original on 2002-06-12. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 13)

created the sculptures and other decorative elements for Chateau-Thierry Monument. As with the Folger Library, the reliefs appear in the spandrels beneath the window openings.

During his long career, Cret designed an incredibly wide array of building forms. Although he is probably best known for his civic structures, he did not believe in specialization. According to Cret, a good architect has the ability to analyze the needs and functioning of certain building types, has a firm knowledge of construction methods, and the training to give “beauty to form” no matter the building type. In addition to the sites and structures already mentioned, Cret contributed to the planning of university campuses and the design of academic buildings, hospitals, commercial, and industrial structures, and even designed luxury railroad cars for the Pennsylvania and Santa Fe railroads.

Cret served at the University of Texas for fifteen years as consulting architect, collaborating on twenty buildings including the signature tower building, and also designed buildings at the University of Pennsylvania, West Point, and the U.S. Naval Academy. As a member of the Planning Committee for Chicago’s Century of Progress Exposition of 1933, Cret was responsible for the design of its Hall of Science. Among Paul Cret’s last notable works is the Texas Memorial Museum in Austin (1939), and Building 1 of the National Naval Medical Hospital in Bethesda, Maryland (1944).

In addition to his academic awards already mentioned, Cret received many professional awards including the Medal of Honor of the Architectural League of New York (1920), Philadelphia’s Bok Award (1931), the Gold Medal of the Pan-American Exposition and the Grand Prize of Paris (1937), the American Institute of Architect’s Gold Medal (1938), and the award of Merit of the General Alumni Society of the University of Pennsylvania (1940). Cret also received honorary degrees from the University of Pennsylvania (1913), Brown University (1929), and Harvard University (1940). Cret’s influence was summed up by Ralph Walker who gave the address during AIA Gold Medal awards ceremony in New Orleans. According to Walker:

He [Paul P. Cret] has brought to the land of his adoption the sound sense, the clear logic, the discrimination taste that belong to the classic tradition of an older civilization. Thus armed he has met and mastered with outstanding skill those problems that are inherent in new materials and a new world. As his designs are acclaimed for their beauty, order, and character, so is he loved for his modesty and humor. Once again, as in the days of [George] Washington, our architectural heritage is enriched by the presence of a distinguished Frenchman.36

Paul Cret died of heart failure on September 8, 1945.

36 American Institute of Architects, The AIA Historical Directory of American Architects, Paul Phillippe Cret (1876-1945), Gold Medal File, available online at: http://public.aia.org/sites/hdoaa/wiki/AIA%20scans/C- E/CretPaul_AIA%20Gold%20Medal.pdf, accessed 1 September 2016. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 14)

3. Original and subsequent owners, occupant, uses: The property is owned by the French government which leases it in perpetuity to the United States government through the American Battle Monuments Commission, who maintains the site [see Appendix A].

4. Builder, contractor, suppliers: Architect Paul P. Cret was represented by architects Lahalle & Levard who oversaw the operations in the field. The general contractor was Dumont & Besson, whose responsibilities extended to the construction of the platform, entry pylons and the access road. Other known contractors and suppliers were as follows:

Models: Dernis & Berson

Sculptor: Alfred-Alphonse Bottiau, from Valenciennes, France

Sculpture: L. Raynaud

Stone: Fevre & Company

Orientation table/engraving maps: Louis Barillet

Inscriptions and Gilding: E. Laperlier

Lightning protection: P. Haegel

Ground clearing and road work: Charles Certoux

Road and platform surveying and tarring: Service des Ponts & Chaussees

Planting: Moser & Fils

5. Original plans and construction: Chateau-Thierry Monument was erected according to plans fully developed by Paul P. Cret in 1927 and retains its appearance as completed. It is interesting to note, however, the changes made in the design from Cret’s somewhat schematic “Scheme A” as presented is his original sketch dated March 19, 1926 and the final working drawing completed in August 1927 (Figures 4-6). Most noteworthy are the changes in the columns or piers. The original sketch depicted them with articulated capitals, albeit of a simple Doric order. The capitals were eliminated from the final working drawings, an indication of Cret’s metamorphosis toward his New Classicism aesthetic. This change allowed the columns to meld with the overall composition to create its realized, abstract monolithic form, perhaps the monument’s most defining feature. Likewise, the frieze of large medallions interspersed with exuberant swags that appear in the sketch, by 1927 had evolved into a simpler, more linear pattern of oak and olive leaf metopes and triglyph-like acanthus leaves.

CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 15)

Another significant change to occur between the sketch plans and working drawings was the inclusion of the allegorical figures of America and France on the rear elevation of the monument. The original sketch included the sculpted figure of the American eagle alone. A preliminary sketch of the opposing side indicates that Cret originally planned for an inscribed tablet, including perhaps a dedication. The Commission immediately suggested that the proposed figure of the eagle be replaced by “a group or other sculpturing” that expressed the friendship and collaborative operations between the French and American militaries.37

The idea for the inclusion of the allegorical figures of Columbia and Marianne, representing liberty and freedom for the United States and France respectively, may have developed over difficulties in first obtaining the site for Montfaucon Monument. Here the desired site at the butte of the hill was occupied by the ruins of the former village and German bunkers or “vestiges de guerre,” which the French government sought to retain as both a memorial and an object lesson about the destructive nature of war. It was suggested that including a tribute to the French at Montfaucon might help ease tensions. Lieutenant North of the ABMC recommended that one of the commemorative monuments contain “a graceful compliment to the French achievements, cooperation and sacrifice.” However, he suggested Chateau-Thierry as the most appropriate choice rather than Montfaucon, since the latter was “entirely an American Battlefield” while the Aisne- Marne offensive represented a Franco-American effort.38

Also missing from the original drawings are the locations and content of the inscriptions. As with the other monuments, these were worked out while the monument was under construction. This was done by the architect in concert with the ABMC and their Historical Division, which was responsible for the accuracy of the text for all the monuments (as well as the publication of an official history of the American Expeditionary Forces during World War I). Much thought and back-and-forth discussion went into determining the locations and content of the inscriptions.

Cret’s own outline for the original plan for the monument written in September 1927 as construction was just getting underway was as follows:

The monument rises sixty feet above a platform, its twenty-four pillars silhouetted against the opening of the valley, in a situation similar to the picturesque setting of some Greek theatres. In the center of the colonnade, a colossal group typifies

37Maj. X.H. Price to Paul P. Cret, 20 October 1926, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. The idea was also evidently discussed in an ABMC meeting, the minutes of which record “The Commission expressed itself in favor of replacing the figure of the eagle by some other appropriate sculptured figure or group.” “Record of the Proceedings, Twenty-first Meeting, American Battle Monuments Commission, 18 October 1926, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. 38 Lieut. Thomas North to Secretary, ABMC, Memorandum, Subject: Monument at Montfaucon, 25 May 1926, Entry 13, Box 153, Construction and Maintenance, RG 117, NARA II. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 16)

the fraternity in arms of the American and French armies who shed their blood in the defense of the river.

Passing the staircases which give access to the colonnade, the visitor reaches the first terrace, extending four hundred and twenty feet in length and surveying a panorama of the winding river, of the city spreading on both banks and of villages of historical fame.

On this face of the monument, which overlooks the battlefields, the central part is occupied by an eagle supporting the coast-of-arms of its United States, and by inscriptions commemorating the units who fought in the sector. An orientation table will enable the visitor to locate the points of interest [text crossed out]. A broad flight of steps then leads to a minor road of approach, by which pedestrians can make a shorter itinerary to the city.

The architecture of the monument, though inspired by a Greek simplicity of treatment, is not, however, an archeological adaptation, be follows, rather, the American traditions of the post-colonial period, and develops them in the spirit of our own times. The restraint of the general composition, the severity of the decoration, and the simplified outlines of the sculpture, are expected to attain an effect harmonious with the open site visible for several miles along the valley, and to express the sterness [sic] of the task so nobly fulfilled by the American Army.39

The original plans called for space under the monument that encompassed a large unfinished area with a smaller finished section to the south. In this section was planned an entrance hall, a “garde” or caretaker’s office, “toilet rooms” for men and women, a large “depot” or storage/tool room, and a large “musee” or museum (Figure 7). Cret and/or the ABMC had already changed their minds about a museum as the monument was beginning construction; crossed out of Cret’s above text was written “while under the terrace will be found a small Museum, containing the maps of the operation in the region, flags, war trophies, etc.”40 This space was instead used as a “reception room” with some artifact display.

6. Alterations and additions: The monument received only minor alterations, largely in response to maintenance issues. Problems with drainage resulted in numerous resurfacing of the terrace and the alteration and eventual closure of the finished space in the basement

39 “United States Monument Near Chateau-Thierry, France” prepared by Dr. Cret, 30 September 1927, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. 40 Paul P. Cret, “United States Monument Near Chateau-Thierry, France,” 10 September 1927 (draft text), Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Monuments, RG 117, NARA II. The labels in quotations are those that appear on Cret’s 1927 working drawings. Capt. Boatner, Report of the American Battle Monuments Commission, Inspection Visit of June 11 to August 11, 1936, Visit to Chateau-Thierry, July 3, 1936; Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. Extract from Memorandum, Officer in Charge to Chairman, with comments by the Secretary, 12 January 1938, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 17)

intended for the caretaker’s office, reception room, and public restrooms. In January 1933, Major X.H. Price, ABMC Secretary and Dispersing Officer, first reported problems with the ceilings in the restrooms, hall, and caretaker’s office, which developed large damp spots. The problem was attributed to the expansion of the terrace that cracked the concrete and permitted water to enter.41 In addition, it was determined that the bed of sand laid under the brick surface became saturated during rain storms allowing water to bleed through. It was suggested that cement mortar be laid in those areas of the terrace affected.42 The drainage problems did not abate, however.

To help alleviate the impact of these leaks on the plasterwork, in January 1938 work began on the installation of false interior walls and ceilings of hollow tile in the caretaker’s office and the entrance hall. As noted, this was to be done “in the same manner as had recently been done with the restrooms” (date unknown). The same treatment was applied to the “reception room.” A tile and parquet floor was also laid in superintendent’s office in April.43 The abandonment of the large “reception room” and storage room was then suggested, although they remained in use.44

In 1947, more repairs to the terrace were required due to water damage and the expansion and contraction of the main terrace causing broken joints in the masonry and damage to some of the stonework. The ongoing water problems were attributed this time to tears in the waterproofing membrane that required the removal and relaying of the entire brick surface of the terrace. Gutter stone, border stones and dalles were cracked or spalled. It was suggested that damaged stone be replace with a similar yet more durable alternative; Vaurion rather than the original Artiges stone was selected.

In April 2016, work began once again to replace the brick surface of the terrace. Also currently scheduled is the installation of a plumbing system to eliminate the need for the cistern that resides within the internal area of the monument, between the two sculptural figures. Problems with water supply at the time of construction led to this alternative. Likewise, electricity will be supplied to the monument for the first time, eliminating dependence on a generator. As part of the current repairs and renovations are the removal of the original 1930 bathroom tile and fixtures and the installation of new restroom facilities. As of late 2016, construction is underway in the basement of the monument for a new visitor contact station and a climate-controlled storage facility for ABMC’s collections. This project is scheduled to be completed in early 2017.

41 Extract of Letter, Maj. X.H. Price to Paul P. Cret, 31 January 1933, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Monuments, RG 117, NARA II. 42 ABMC Paris to ABMC Washington, Western Union Telegram. 1933 43 Extracts of Letters, re: projects; 3 January 1938, 1 April 1938 & 31 April 1938, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Monuments, RG 117, NARA II. The installation of hollow tile also occurred in the reception room, which is now exposed in some areas due to deterioration of the wall surface around the windows, which were left open to the elements. 44 Extract from Memorandum, Officer in Charge to Chairman, with comments by the Secretary, 12 January 1938, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 18)

B. Historical Context:

The American Expeditionary Forces Offensives and the Aisne-Marne Offensive

The United States entered World War I in 1917, declaring war on Germany on April 6th. While the war began three years prior, during the late summer of 1914, the U.S. initially maintained a neutral stance on foreign intervention. Americans did, however, provide substantial resources to the Allies in the form of loans, food aid, equipment and weaponry. As the war progressed, American public opinion regarding neutrality began to turn towards engagement. News of German atrocities, resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare against U.S. maritime interests, and a German effort to induce Mexico to collude against them pulled the country into the conflict in April 1917. General John J. Pershing, Commander-in-Chief of the American Expeditionary Forces (AEF), landed in France on June 13, 1917, followed by the U.S. First Division on June 26. After almost a year of training and preparation, the AEF assisted the French in the Second Battle of the Marne. American reinforcements were timely, and brought much needed relief to the hard-pressed Allies.

The Aisne-Marne Offensive, in which French and American forces drove back the German Army from the Marne River, occurred in the late spring and early summer of 1918 and marked a significant turning point in the war. Having already defeated the Russians and attacked the British army in Northwest France and in Belgium during the spring of 1918, the Germans launched an offensive against the French along the Aisne River. Following a massive surprise attack on May 27th the Germans crossed the Aisne, pushed through French defenses, and advanced on the Marne River with Paris as the ultimate goal. As the seat of French government and the location of its main munitions factories, the capture of Paris would have been a devastating blow to the allied forces, potentially even resulting in German’s victory of the war. The German army planned to approach Paris via the Paris-Metz highway that followed the north bank of the Marne River from Chateau-Thierry to Meaux. They launched their attack on May 27, 1918. Aided by American troops, the French army was able to stop them from crossing the Marne near Chateau-Thierry.

Although halted in their advance on Paris, the Germans had pushed thirty miles into the heart of the French defenses, driving a deep salient into Allied territory roughly defined by Reims, Chateau-Thierry, and Soissons. Although initially gaining ground, the Germans were ultimately unable to achieve victory. The timely arrival of the U.S. 2nd and 3rd divisions enabled the Allied forces to hold their position. The 3rd Division was the first to action at Chateau-Thierry, protecting the bridges along the Marne River from an enemy advance and occupying the south bank for 10 miles between Chateau-Thierry and Dormans. The 2nd Division was deployed the next day beginning an intensive 25 days of fighting. They recaptured a number of important positions in June, including Bouresches, Belleau Wood, and Vaux. To divert German forces from the Aisne-Marne, Pershing proposed an attack near Reims to the northeast. The Germans attacked first, as they were eager to capture the city and its railway facilities and expand their CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 19)

Aisne-Marne salient. The Allies were prepared for this attack, however, and the German Army was badly defeated. The 3rd and 28th divisions fended off the last German offensive on the western salient on July 15-17.

Taking advantage of the weakening German situation and the increased strength provided by the American army, Allied Commander-in-Chief Marshal Ferdinand Foch directed a counter- offensive against the Aisne-Marne Salient. On July 18, a major Franco-American attack was launched against the whole of the German salient. Four-fifths of the troops in the initial main attack were Americans. The Allied forces made critical advances, including a victory at the famed Second Battle of the Marne, in which the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 26th, 32nd & 42nd divisions of the AEF played a prominent role. The German army was thrown back, beginning a deliberate withdrawal from this region on July 19th. American and French troops were particularly successful attacking south of Soissons, the site of a valuable railroad depot, thus enabling the allies to cut German lines of supply and communications between there and Chateau-Thierry and leaving them stranded. As the German retreated, attacks on other enemy positions such as Ourcq, forced their withdrawal. After successive assaults the Allied troops reached the Vesle River between Soissons and Reims.

By August 6, the enemy was driven beyond the Vesle River. The region was finally restored to French control following desperate fighting along and north of the Vesle in which the 4th, 28th, 32nd & 77th American divisions and parts of the 3rd & 93rd participated. Paris was no longer threatened, and critical railroads were secured for Allied use. The Germans were forced to retreat eastward. Later that month, the Allies launched a series of coordinated attacks along the entire Western Front. The AEF contributed to the Allied victories in the Somme and Oise-Aisne offensives, which forced further German withdrawals. In September, General Pershing launched the Meuse-Argonne Offensive. The American-led attack, together with other Allied victories along the front, brought Germany to the negotiating table and led to the Armistice. The Aisne- Marne Offensive involved 270,000 Americans, including two corps headquarters, eight divisions and parts of another, air units, artillery, and support units. U.S. forces suffered more than 67,000 casualties in the region (Figure 8).45

The American Battle Monuments Commission and the Development of Commemorative Monuments to World War I

Chateau-Thierry Monument was part of a larger program of commemoration created by the ABMC, led by Chairman General John J. Pershing and Consulting Architect Paul Philippe Cret in concert with the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts (CFA). Together with World War I cemeteries and chapels, built between 1923 and 1934, the monuments embody an imposing and artistic scheme that constitutes a comprehensive approach to commemoration never before realized by

45 For this and other information regarding the Aisne-Marne Offensive see: American Battle Monuments Commission, “Chapter 11, American Operations in the Aisne-Marne Region,” in American Armies and Battlefields in Europe (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1938), 29-104. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 20)

the federal government. It reflects the determination of the government to ensure the quality and integrity of the monuments as representative of the United States, exemplifying “the very best of American art.”46 A cohesive, federally lead initiative based on a hierarchy of importance was also necessary to prevent the potentially distorted interpretation of events through the unregulated construction of monuments by states, private organizations, and individuals. By playing a lead role in commemoration, the ABMC presented the American war effort with an emphasis on national unity and sacrifice. Moreover, it marked the first major attempt to employ art and architecture as a symbol of international diplomacy abroad, demonstrating America’s emerging place within the new world order of the post-World War I era.

To ensure the architectural quality and enduring relevance of the monuments, ABMC employed classically inspired architectural motifs. The CFA, who was given final design approval, was a strong proponent of the Beaux Arts, believing that memorials should adhere to Classical and Renaissance ideals of aesthetic design and proportion. Consulting Architect Paul Cret expressed similar sentiments, stating that “the most appropriate memorial is that which may best withstand the changes of centuries, and by the beauty and dignity of its design arouse to attention and respect the heedless mind of the wayfarer and that of the wayfarer still to come.”47 Paul P. Cret was among numerous architects of his generation that trained in the École des Beaux Arts, which significantly impacted architectural training in the United States. While favoring architectural principles derived from Greek and Roman antiquity, the CFA sought a more modern interpretation indicative of emerging stylistic trends. The CFA and ABMC found particularly appealing Cret’s austere, modern interpretation of Classical design, which seemed more appropriate to the American experience. This design approach became a prerequisite of the architects that Cret selected for the ABMC’s memorial projects.

As a further means of ensuring quality designs that adhered to Beaux Arts traditions yet with a modern American sensibility, the ABMC non-competitively hired preeminent architects well- versed in such forms. As Consulting Architect, Paul Cret took a lead role in this process. Cret undertook the design of Chateau-Thierry Monument himself, and assigned the design of the two other “commemorative” monuments to well-known American architects John Russell Pope (Montfaucon) and Egerton Swartwout (Montsec). Cret suggested for the designs of the eight more modest “historical” monuments, promising up-and-coming architects such as Arthur Loomis Harmon and George Howe. Concurrent with monument building was the enhancement of the eight military cemeteries established by the War Department in 1922, where the remains of those soldiers who were not repatriated to the U.S. were interred. Here, the ABMC oversaw the construction of non-sectarian chapels and other support structures in the Classical, Renaissance, and Medieval styles. In addition to the Chateau-Thierry Monument, Paul P. Cret designed the ABMC monuments at Bellicourt and Gibraltar and the chapel at Flanders Field

46 This phrase appears in a draft letter that was sent to potential architects in an effort to solicit their participation. Maj. X.H. Price to “My dear Mr.,” October 16, 1925, Entry 13, Box 153, Construction and Maintenance of Cemeteries and Monuments [hereafter referred to as Construction and Maintenance], RG 117, NARA II. 47 Paul P. Cret, “Memorials—Columns, Shafts, Cenotaphs and Tablets,” The Architecture Forum, Vol. XLV, No. 6 (December 1926), 333. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 21)

American Cemetery. Prior to this, Cret designed a monument at Varennes, France and a bridge at Fismes for the State of Pennsylvania, and a monument to Quentin Roosevelt, son of former president Theodore Roosevelt, at Chamery.

Although the ABMC decided that large “commemorative” monuments would be “the nucleus of the entire project,” the initial plan developed by the War Department’s Monuments Board called for the creation of approximately 150 tactically located relief and sketch maps.48 Erected of bronze and mounted on stone piers scattered throughout the battlefields of Europe, the maps were intended to convey the definitive history of the operations of the American Expeditionary Forces. The relief maps would illustrate the operations of the divisions in all places where significant territory was lost or gained. Similar in design to the relief maps, the sketch maps would present a larger picture of the occupied sector with the intent of representing the contributions of each and every army division. The newly established ABMC reconsidered this plan after visiting the cemeteries and monuments under construction by their European allies including England, France, Belgium, and Italy, during the summer of 1924. Impressed with the striking appearance of grave markers, the artistic designs of the cemetery structures and monuments, and the establishment of strict design principles, they began formulating a new plan.

Instead of maps and markers a far more imposing and artistic commemorative scheme was developed, with each monument being commensurate in size and complexity to the significance of the events they were to memorialize. Three large commemorative monuments honor the services of all American forces in the areas most important to their operations. Because these three monuments alone were inadequate to cover the extensive areas in which Americans had fought, it was determined that additional “historical” monuments of more modest design be built to “mark the fact of American participation.” The latter would be erected in important but less crucial campaign areas and those executed under allied command to indicate America’s widespread involvement. Whereas the original commemorative plan was intended to present an accurate portrayal of American participation rather than to honor American sacrifice, the new plan could accomplish both.

Another decisive factor in the change of plan was the fact that the areas where the most significant battles were fought were not ones generally visited by tourists. It was therefore decided that the memorials would have to be “sufficiently imposing” if they were to lure visitors to those locations.49 While the commemorative and historical monuments would be more striking, their limited numbers would also be less intrusive. The Committee acknowledged the inappropriateness of undue representation within the commemorative landscape of foreign

48 ABMC, Annual Report, 1925, 60. While the ABMC approved the relief map project in theory, this report indicated that final approval had been withheld pending their visit to the battlefield sites. 49 ABMC, Annual Report, 1926, 26. According to the report, “The battle-field region of France is one of the most unattractive areas of that country. In the near future, when the evidences of the war have disappeared, this region is not likely to be visited by many travelers, and memorials erected there will be seen by few unless they are made sufficiently imposing so that people will make special trips to inspect them.” CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 22)

nations, particularly considering that American losses were far less than those of its allies.50 In that context, at their meeting on March 29, 1926 the Commission discussed at length the issue regarding existing monuments built by various states, individuals and organizations, most of which they deemed unbecoming to America’s character and reputation.51 It was eventually decided to prohibit the erection of all but a handful of memorials it considered “useful” to the communities in which they were to be located, such as civic buildings, bridges, fountains and the like.52 The ABMC believed that their new commemorative program would be “complete in itself” and that the erection of other memorials would “not help the general plan of commemoration, but only detract from it.”53

The battles fought in the Aisne-Marne region constitute one of three major offensives involving the American Expeditionary Forces that, due to their importance, merited the erection of a grand “commemorative” monument. In addition to Chateau-Thierry, they were built at Montfaucon and Montsec. The monument at Montfaucon commemorates the most definitive battle of the AEF, the extraordinary victory of the Americans and their allies in the forty-seven-day-long Meuse- Argonne Offensive, beginning on September 26th and culminating in the Armistice of November 11, 1918. The Montsec Monument commemorates the capture of the Saint-Mihiel salient by the U.S. First Army and the subsequent operations of the U.S. Second Army and other American divisions here and in Alsace and Lorraine. The Saint-Mihiel Offensive, which began on September 12, 1918, was the first World War I operation carried out by an independent American Army. AEF Commander-in-Chief General John J. Pershing commanded the U.S. First Army in this operation, which led to the closing of the salient on September 16th. Eight smaller “historical” monuments commemorate American fighting units involved in engagements outside the three major offensives, as well as naval, and service support units. These monuments include Sommepy, Bellicourt, Cantigny, Audenarde, Kemmel (Vierstraat), Brest, Gibraltar, and Tours.

[For a more detailed account of the development of the ABMC’s commemorative program see Montfaucon Monument, HABS US-2.]

The Design and Construction of Chateau-Thierry Monument

The design and construction of the ABMC monuments, including Chateau-Thierry, began with Paul Cret’s initial survey of potential monument sites conducted on behalf of the ABMC during the summer of 1925. Prior to his departure on May 15th, Cret sent a letter to General Pershing

50ABMC, Annual Report, 1926, 26. As was later articulated, “The comparative scarcity of French, Belgian, and Italian monuments on these battle fields would tend to make even a moderate number of American memorials conspicuous. An excessive number, under the circumstances, would be of doubtful good taste and would create an entirely erroneous impression of the American object in erecting them.” 51 ABMC, Annual Report, 1925. The better monuments included: The Missouri monument at Cheppy; four Tennessee monuments, “like the one near Bellicourt;” five First Division monuments in the form of a shaft with an eagle on top; the Third Division monument at Chateau-Thierry, and three Forth Division monuments. They did, however, suggest that the ABMC maintain only a handful of the more substantial existing monuments. 52 ABMC, Annual Report, 1926, 25. 53 ABMC, Annual Report, 1926, 26. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 23)

listing noteworthy architects to be considered for the design of the Commission’s monuments and cemetery chapels that included Cret himself.54 Cret had not yet been officially appointed Consulting Architect although he likely anticipated it. As part of his survey, Cret visited fourteen sites in and around the prominent town of Chateau-Thierry, which was located near the center of the battle area. Although the hilly terrain made it impossible to view the entire operational sector from one site, Cret felt that a “naturally prominent” site “commanding an extensive expanse of country” was preferable to a monument in a town square. In his final report filed in September 1925, Cret limited his recommendations to five of the proposed sites. He suggested for Chateau- Thierry a “bold hillside treatment,” possibly consisting of “a composition with the rampart and its two corner towers as base and sight-seeing platform” foreshadowing his eventual design.55

Interestingly, a commemorative monument at Chateau-Thierry was not originally planned; when first envisioned in 1921 the plan was for the construction relief maps and markers, with the possibility of commemorative monuments to the offensives at Meuse-Argonne and St. Mihiel.56 Of course, at that time the ABMC had not yet been formed; that occurred on March 4, 1923. By the tenth meeting of ABMC, November 21, 1924, a monument at Chateau-Thierry had been added.57 Its addition may have been encouraged by a fall 1923 proposal suggesting that the American government fund the ornamentation of a new bridge that was to be built at Chateau- Thierry. The new bridge was to replace a famous stone bridge that stood prior to the war. Having limited funds, the French intended to build only a simple cement structure. The idea, proposed by a Dr. Julian S. Wadsworth with the support of General J.M. Palmer, was to have the American government fund the ornamentation of the bridge, selecting its own architect if desired.

As it was proposed, the ornamentation project “would afford an excellent opportunity for the Americans to have at Chateau-Thierry, the most conspicuous object in the whole city, as its commemorative monument or memorial of the Battle at this place.”58 The proposal was in keeping with the popular notion that commemorative structures be in some way useful. A debate waged in the United States during the post-World War I era about the nature of memorials; while many felt that memorials should serve a utilitarian purpose, others believed that they were more

54 Paul P. Cret to General John J. Pershing 10 May 1925; Entry 13, Box 143, Architects & Draftsmen, RG 117, NARA II. 55 X.H. Price, Major, Corps of Engineers, Secretary ABMC to Dr. Cret, Memorandum: Monuments in Europe, 3 April 1925; Entry 13, Box 143, Architects & Draftsmen, RG 117, NARA II. 56 Plan of the Battle Monuments Board, 12 December 1921, pg. 2, Entry 13, Decimal Subject File Concerning the Construction and Maintenance of Cemeteries and Monuments, Box 153, RG 117, NARA II. Chateau-Thierry does appear, however, by 1924, in the Minutes of the Tenth Meeting of the ABMC, held 24 November 1924. 57 Interestingly, when the ABMC’s Annual Report for fiscal year 1924 was submitted to the President just a day prior, on November 20, 1924, the plan still called for markers rather than memorials. 58 Julian S. Wadsworth to Hon. Richard Yates, from Chateau-Thierry, 4 November 1923, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. In his letter, Wadsworth claims that General Palmer was very interested and had forwarded Wadsworth’s proposal along with blue prints. He also claims that Palmer was to be involved in the ABMC but declined due to service in Panama. Richard Yates, U.S. Congress, House of Representatives to Major X.H. Price, 4 January 1924, Entry 7, Box 13, RG 117, NARA II. Dr. Julian Wadsworth was undertaking social work in Chateau-Thierry after the war and was involved in the Methodist Memorial in Chateau-Thierry. The Christian Advocate, Vol. 97 (1 June 1922): 668. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 24)

effect if purely artistic. The ABMC discussed the bridge enhancement proposal during their ninth meeting, on September 4, 1924. However, being of the latter mind the Commission decided to decline the offer, stating in December 1924 their belief that a bridge did not constitute a suitable government-sponsored memorial to American troops. Price did indicate, however, that ABMC was inclined to approve a “suitable design submitted by private parties.”59

While the decision to build their own memorial at Chateau-Thierry was in keeping with later policies controlling the construction of all American memorials abroad, they had not yet formalize their plans for commemoration. At that time, ABMC did not have the authority or funding to maintain monuments abroad, even their own, likely adding to their hesitancy. Perhaps not coincidently, the same minutes record their intention to “seek legislation at the next session of Congress which would permit the War Department to maintain such memorials now or hereafter erected by Americans in Europe as the Commission might decide worthy of this care.”60 As the plans evolved from markers to monuments, the Aisne-Marne offensive was clearly among the three sites deemed worthy of a commemorative monument, to be located at Chateau-Thierry.61

A list of architects paired with their prospective monument commissions was ready by November 1925. The contracts for the three most important “commemorative” monuments were awarded to the most prominent architects on the list, with Chateau-Thierry assigned to Paul P. Cret.62 Cret presented three preliminary design sketches on October 6, 1926. All three include a long viewing platform and elevated base in order to take advantage of the vista overlooking the city of Chateau Thierry and the Marne River Valley. The other two designs, however, include monuments with a much smaller footprint than the scheme that was ultimately selected. One appears as a free-standing portico with an immense entablature (Figure 9-11). The other design more closely resembles a cenotaph or burial monument. A form popular in Europe during the Renaissance, this scheme features a tall block-like structure ornamented by a colossal figure of an American eagle rising above a high plinth that includes an entry into the structure (Figure 12). The designs for a smaller footprint likely reflect Cret’s concerns about the irregularity of the site

59 Major X.H. Price to Julian S. Wadsworth, Chateau-Thierry, France, 2 December 1924, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. 60 ABMC, Minutes, ninth Meeting, September 4, 1924, Entry 2, Box 1A, ABMC Proceedings, RG 117, NARA II. 61 No documentation was found as to when and why Aisne-Marne/Chateau-Thierry was elevated to the level worthy of a commemorative monument. Because there is no discussion and it appears on lists made early in the process, it may have merely been an oversight that Aisne-Marne was not initially named. 62 ABMC, Minutes, Fifteenth Meeting, November 16, 1925, Entry 2, Box 1A, ABMC Proceedings, RG 117, NARA II. In turn, each architect was to select a European representative to see to the execution of the final design on site (selection subject to the approval of ABMC). A fee of ten percent of the total cost of construction was awarded to each architect, which included the cost of their local representative, with an additional allotment of $2,000 assumed adequate to cover the cost of two trips to the site. For Montfaucon, John Russell Pope was selected. Pope had recently made a name for himself with the design of the Scottish Rite Temple in Washington, D.C., which won a Gold Medal of the Architectural League of New York. Gilbert was originally selected for the design of Montsec, but was later replace by Egerton Swartwout. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 25)

and potential difficulties in acquiring the land (held by multiple owners) that might limit the monument’s size.63

Numerous extant sketches indicate that Cret had early on contemplated a few other design options or variations. One alternative design combines the colonnade and the eagle cenotaph schemes to comprise a lower, simpler colonnade with a central monolith that includes an eagle and raises to a height about three times that of the colonnade (Figure 13). Various studies of the eagle depict it at varying scale and in some appearing imbedded in the stone to resemble a totem. A number of sketches depict a fortification-like structure, and another resembles Cret design for Bellicourt at a much larger scale (Figure 14). While all the preliminary designs include a terrace, some are more elaborate, rising in tiers or projecting forward in a U-shaped configuration. Also extant are a number of sketches of the final design in various settings (Figure 15).

Once Cret submitted his three proposed schemes, both the CFA and the ABMC quickly and unanimously voted for “Design A” (Figures 4 & 5).64 The as-built design appears largely as Cret had originally intended with a few exceptions as previously noted, including the addition of the allegorical figures of Columbia and Marianne, as “a graceful compliment to the French achievements, cooperation and sacrifice.”65 The Commission voiced its desire to have the expression of the American and French armies on the entrance side of the monument, with the eagle facing the town of Chateau-Thierry, the monument’s true front facade.66 Along with the early changes, the Commission determined to reduce the size of the Chateau-Thierry Monument as much as possible without disturbing the general effect. General Pershing was concerned that the Chateau-Thierry Monument as planned would be more imposing than the one at Montfaucon; Pershing felt very strongly that Meuse-Argonne was “by far our most important operation and the memorial to commemorate it should be the most imposing.”67

In response, Cret submitted revised drawings in late December, including a sketch showing how the monument would appear from a distance.68 This may have been Cret’s subtle way of suggesting that a reduction in size would undermine the monument’s impact, as it appeared

63 Cret’s initial site plan included two potential locations with the explanation that “It will be almost impossible to get a regular shape for the land acquired. It will probably extend in some parts and be shorter in some others than the rectangles shown. Paul P. Cret to Maj. X.H. Price, 12 April 1926, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. In the letter accompanying his designs Cret stated, “I hope, however, that the studies of the memorial will help the Commission to decide the type of monument that they fins most suitable for this location.” Paul P. Cret to Maj. X.H. Price, 12 April 1926, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. 64 Maj. E.H. Price to “Gentlemen” of the National Commission of Fine Arts, 12 October 1926, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. The vote was also recorded in: “Record of the Proceedings, Twenty- first Meeting, American Battle Monuments Commission, 18 October 1926, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. 65 Lieut. Thomas North to Secretary, ABMC, Memorandum, Subject: Monument at Montfaucon, 25 May 1926, Entry 13, Box 153, Construction and Maintenance, RG 117, NARA II. 66 Paul P. Cret to Maj. X.H. Price, 15 November 1926, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. 67 Maj. X.H. Price to Paul P. Cret, 20 October 1926, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. 68 Maj. X.H. Price to Gentlemen, National Commission of Fine Arts, 30 December 1926, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 26)

barely noticeable. The site selected had been used as a strategic military outlook during the war known as “Hill 204.” It was the scene of intense fighting and a pivotal line held by regulars and National Guard troops from New England and Pennsylvania during July and August 1918.69 It commanded a panoramic view of the surrounding countryside visible from the town and from the Paris-Nancy-Metz Railroad Station from which visitors to the monument would likely arrive. Ensuring the monument’s prominence was critical to its design. While Cret expressed willingness to acquiesce, Officer-in-Charge, Major Price was not in favor of a reduction.70 Likewise, the CFA firmly believed that it would be a mistake to reduce the size of the monument, which in their view “is none too large to be effective in the landscape.” The CFA went as far to say that if the ABMC decided that the monument of the size previously approved was not to be built then an entirely new design should be submitted.71 Cret quickly suggested that the monument be raised to an average size between the original and the revised designs, which the Commission then approved.72

By April, Cret developed a preliminary cost estimate for Chateau-Thierry Monument that included a price from a Paris sculptor with whom he had previously worked, among others. That same morning, General Pershing requested that working drawings be prepared as soon as possible.73 At some point between his initial submission and the completion of the working drawings, Cret created a colored-pencil rendering of the monument. It shows the monument as it later appeared, but shows a slightly different layout for the terrace to include returns to either end, with pylons and a sculptural feature (Figure 16). Cret submitted the contract drawings and specifications in August 1927 (Figures 6, 17-19).74 By September a requisite scale model of the monument was prepared so that its effectiveness and proper proportions could be assessed by the architect as well as the ABMC and CFA (Figure 20 & 21).75

When the bids for the construction of Chateau-Thierry Monument were finally received in June 1928 they were found to be $80,000 over the amount allotted. With the increasing cost of construction in France the ABMC took it as an indication of what could be expected of all the monuments. They planned to advise Congressman Wood and Senator Reed as commissioners of the ABMC of the situation, likely suggesting that they be prepared to persuade Congress of the need for more funding. The ABMC was determined not to risk compromising the character of the work by imposing cost reductions, nor were they willing to sacrifice some of the designs for

69 “Monuments To The Deeds Of The A.E.F.; Chapels and Battle Memorials Will Soon Mark the Sport Were the Americas Fought,” New York Times, Sunday Magazine, 17 July 1927, SM 14-15. 70 Proceedings of the American Battle Monuments Commission, Twenty-second Meeting, 21 December 1926, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I. Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. 71 Charles Moore, Chairman, The Commission of Fine Arts to Major Price, 11 January 1927, Paul P. Cret to Maj. X.H. Price, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. 72 Paul P. Cret to Maj. X.H. Price, 10 January 1927, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. 73 Paul P. Cret to Maj. X.H. Price, 20 April 1927, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. 74 Paul P. Cret to Maj. X.H. Price, 10 August 1927, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. 75 Paul P. Cret to Maj. X.H. Price, 2 September 1927, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. The entry comprises a cover letter and photographs of the model, which appears to be as it was constructed. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 27)

others of higher priority, or to start over with new designs—all of which were discussed.76 General Pershing was in complete agreement, feeling confident that he could obtain the funds required and even more if needed. Pershing was adamant that the materials and workmanship of the monuments be of the highest quality. Likening them to the “Rock of Ages” he expressed the hope that the monuments “stand for the rest of time.”77 Moreover, Pershing insisted upon being involved in the review process to ensure quality results. As Cret said of Pershing’s oversight, “Of anything that is done, he has knowledge. He is the boss. During the construction of the chapels and the memorials, nothing was done until it had his approval, and his approval was never [just] the rubber stamp.”78

With the general form of the monument determined, work could finally begin on construction. In June 1928 contracts were let to both the contractor for the erection of the monument and to a sculptor for the figures and decorative details. The general contractor for the monument was Dumont & Besson, whose responsibilities extended to the construction of the platform, entry pylons and access road. Dumont & Besson also undertook the construction of the Montsec Monument. They were apparently well versed in reinforced concrete construction and later won competitive government bids for the prefabrication of large reinforced concrete building components and the construction of efficient housing to meet the shortages that followed World War II.79 The first of the construction photographs record the early excavation of the site in August 1928 (Figure 22). The foundations were a combination of rubble stone and reinforced concrete (Figure 23). Work on the foundations and base of the monument proceeded into the next calendar year. Cret’s representative on the project in France was the architectural firm of Lahalle & Levard, of former of who was his brother-in-law.

French sculptor Alfred Bottiau (1889-1951) was responsible for the allegorical figures on Chateau-Thierry Monument. Bottiau was from Valenciennes, France, where he undertook his early studies and where many of his works can be found. Bottiau later studied in Paris under the direction of Jean Antoine Injalbert, and like Cret, served in the French Army during World War I. Bottiau worked with Paul Cret on a number of projects for the ABMC. He undertook the sculptural elements within the chapel at Aisne-Marne American Cemetery, with which the Chateau-Thierry Monument is associated, as well as the chapels at Meuse-Argonne and Flanders Field. Bottiau also worked with Cret on the World War I monument at Bellicourt to create the allegorical figures “Valor” and “Grief” that appear on its principle façade. The ABMC was immensely pleased with Bottiau’s work. In fact Major X.H. Price said of him “There is no man who had worked for the Commission whom we admire more than Mr. Bottiau and if there is any

76 Extract of Letter, Maj. X.H. Price to General John J. Pershing, 19 June 1928, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. 77 Extract of Letter, General John J. Pershing to Maj. X.H. Price, 7 July 1928, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. 78 John M. McCullough, “Cret Lauds Pershing’s Peace Duty; Hails Loyalty to American War Dead,” xx Paul P. Cret Papers, University of Pennsylvania. 79 Jean-Claude Croize, Department of Architecture, University of Cambridge, “A Time When France Chose to Use Prefabricated Panel Construction Systems: the ‘4 000 Logements de la Region Parisienne Programme (1952-1958), http://www.arct.cam.ac.uk/Downloads/ichs/vol-1-877-886-croize.pdf, accessed 11 July 2016. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 28)

way in which I can help to secure for him the Legion of Honor or any other reward of that nature I will be very glad to do so.”80 Bottiau later traveled with Paul Cret to the United States in 1932 to sculpt the eagle and allegorical reliefs that appear on the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia and other works. He ended his career as the director of the École Academiques de Valenciennes, where he served from 1946 until his death in 1951.

ABMC let a contract in June 1918 to Bottiau for the preparation of the models and the execution in Senonville Marble of the two allegorical motifs featured on the monument. Bottiau agreed to prepare sketches of the statuary figures, to supervise their rough execution by figure-carvers on the spot, and then to undertake the completion of the finer details or the “finishing-off” as he referred to it. His work also included the execution of the three full-size plaster models for the elements featured in the frieze and the lion’s head in the upper entablature.81 Bottiau oversaw their final execution in stone by contractors. The statuary was projected to take eight months to complete while the plaster models for the detail features were to be prepared within five months.82

Bottiau’s models, as with the overall model of the monument, were needed to determine the effectiveness of the final execution. They were available for inspection by mid-July 1928 and were deemed “very satisfactory.” A few modifications were called for, however. It was decided that the figure representing the United States should hold the sword held by the French figure, rather than the shield as then depicted. The ABMC’s rationale for the change was that the American operation at Chateau-Thierry was one of aggression and not defense. France, on the other hand, could be seen as defending her country from a foreign invader, making the shield more appropriate. In actuality, the American figure was originally intended to hold the sword; the switch had been made by the local representative Levard out of concern that the French might take offense if America was depicted as a war-like nation.83 Cret himself merely saw the shield as an opportunity to identify the figure intended to represent the United States by placing on it the nation’s coat-of-arms. The figure of France could be recognized, at least by the French people, by her traditional Phrygian cap. It was suggested that the American figure could instead be distinguished by a star-spangled scarf or by an eagle embroidered on her breast; the former was selected (Figure 24).84

80 Maj. X.H. Price to Paul P. Cret, 15 January 1932, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Monuments, RG 117, NARA II. 81 The original casts were currently being stored in the basement of the Chateau-Thierry Monument, along with those of the allegorical figures, but have been moved to the Paris region due to the current construction. 82 L. Bottiau to “Gentlemen” of the American Battle Monuments Commission, 16 June 1928, re: conditions under which Bottiau agrees to perform the work of executing statuary for the monument, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. 83 Maj. X.H. Price to General John J. Pershing, 17 July 1928, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. 84 Paul P. Cret to General John J. Pershing, 3 August 1928, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. In addition, the serpent motif original used as the border for the egidium draped across the breast of Marianne was removed. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 29)

While the work progressed, the ABMC’s attention turned to the location and content of the inscriptions. Beginning with the east-facing front of the monument, a number of inscriptions and other features appear around the eagle motif. Just below the eagle the original idea was to inscribe “Justice – Liberty – Right.” There was much discussion about this inscription and how it might be perceived, whether it would be associated with the eagle above it or the map below. Cret suggested as an alternative “E Pluribus Unum” meaning “out of many, one.” It eventually appeared as: “TIME WILL NOT DIM THE GLORY OF THEIR DEEDS.” That text was first proposed as: “Time passes but deeds endure” and was to appear to either end of the monument; however both General Pershing and Paul Cret rejected it.85 While the final wording has been attributed to General Pershing, it is only known that he rejected the original.

It was determined that a map of the battleground operations appear on the plinth below the eagle. Cret originally conceived of the map appearing in a “small museum” under the terrace, along with flags, war trophies, etc. Indeed, a space in the basement was created as a reception area where some war relics were displayed until sacked by the Germans during World War II.86 To the front of the eagle, elevated on the terrace floor, would appear an orientation table indicating the directions toward the principle points of interest, regardless of their visibility from the monument.

To the corresponding west façade, seen when approaching from the access road, flanking the figures of Columbia and Marianne was planned an inscription in both French and English stating the monument’s purpose, to commemorate the services of the troops of both nations fighting together. While the pedestal was first suggested as the location for this inscription, Cret felt that it would look too crowded and should instead be left blank so that the focus remain on the statuary itself. Above both the statuary figures to either side of the monument is carved the year of the Aisne-Marne Offensive (1918) in Roman numerals.

It was decided that the names of the ten American divisions that fought in this region be placed on the east front facade of the monument, along the top of the wall of the base. General Pershing suggested that the names of the French divisions that took part also be inscribed, but ultimately they were not included.87 Cret initially suggested that the division names appear at the north and south ends of the monument, perhaps along with the dates of their operations.88 However, it was

85 A copy of a memorandum regarding the inscriptions for Chateau-Thierry Monument with notations by General Pershing indicates that “Dr. Cret does not like this and I agree with him. We think that it should be omitted.” Maj. X.H. Price to Chairman, ABMC, Memorandum, 31 October 1928, Subject: Inscriptions for Chateau-Thierry Monument, Entry 7, Box 13, RG 117, World War I Monuments, NARA II. 86 Paul P. Cret, “United States Monument Near Chateau-Thierry, France,” 10 September 1927 (draft text), Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Monuments, RG 117, NARA II. In the draft document Cret has crossed out the reference to the “small museum” under the terrace. 87 Maj. X.H. Price to Chairman, ABMC, Memorandum, 31 October 1928, Subject: Inscriptions for Chateau-Thierry Monument, Entry 7, Box 13, RG 117, World War I Monuments, NARA II. 88 It was originally intended that these names be displaced larger, but it was decided that years from now the division names would mean nothing to the average visitor and thus be of little interest. Maj. X.H. Price to Chairman, ABMC, CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 30)

determined that the dates alone would be misleading, since, as it was put, the best fighting was often done in the shortest time. It was later decided to add below each division’s name its insignia. The inset surface of both the lettering and accompanying insignias was gilded, later replaced with the current vermillion colored paint.

Numerous alternatives were proposed for inscriptions on the walls that served as the terminus of the two inner areas of the colonnade. Cret proposed that each include a polished stone with an inscription, or perhaps a flag, as a point of interest. Other suggestions for an inscription here included the date of the final dedication, names of the presidents of each republic, and/or a list of the members of the ABMC. Ultimately it was decided that a summary of the Aisne-Marne Offensive and those involved be inscribed. The inscription reads:

In late May 1918 the German Army made a surprise attack along the Aisne River and advanced rapidly toward the Marne. Allied reinforcements were hurriedly brought up, including the 2nd and 3rd American Division which went into position directly across the German line of advance toward Paris. After severe fighting these divisions definitely stopped the progress of the attack on their front and the lines stabilized. The German forces having driven a deep salient, roughly defined by Reims, Chateau-Thierry and Soissons, into Allied territory.

The last great German offensive of the war, on July 15, included an attack in the eastern part of this salient and there the 3rd American Division and elements of the 28th were important factors in the successful defense of the Allied positions.

On July 18 the Allied troops began a general counteroffensive against the whole salient in which the 1st, 2d, 3d, 4th, 28th, 32d and 42d American Divisions, most of which served under the I and III American Corps, took a brilliant part. This offensive was a complete success and by August 6 the enemy was driven beyond the Vesle River. Later the 4th, 28th, 32d and 77th American Divisions and elements of the 3rd and 93rd played a prominent role in the desperate fighting on and north of the Vesle.

Of the 310,000 American soldiers who fought in these operations, 67,000 were causalities.

It was determined that the names of the places in which “especially intense fighting” occurred be inscribed on the monument. While it was declared that forty or fifty places names could be readily supplied, ultimately only sixteen names emerged. Great care was taken to give equitable commemoration to the units that fought and to geographic distribution when deciding which place names would appear on the monument; General Pershing expressed his belief that the

Memorandum, 31 October 1928, Subject: Inscriptions for Chateau-Thierry Monument, Entry 7, Box 13, RG 117, World War I Monuments, NARA II. Maj. X.H. Price to Chairman, ABMC, Memorandum, 31 October 1928, Subject: Inscriptions for Chateau-Thierry Monument, Entry 7, Box 13, RG 117, World War I Monuments, NARA II. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 31)

names ultimately selected were “very fair to everybody” involved. It was felt that these names not only added interest to the monument, but indicated the vast area covered by the fighting. While the first thought was to locate these names below the columns or along the terrace wall, they were ultimately placed along the top of the monument, just below the frieze.

At the end walls of the base of the monument, read vertically, was to appear “Valor” and “Truth” at one end, and “Faith” and “Honor” at the other. However, both Paul Cret and General Pershing felt that these inscriptions should be omitted, with Pershing expressed the opinion that “such words seem out of place on a monument.” Ultimately, this area was left blank. The final inscription to be considered was the name of the architect. Cret proposed that the architect’s name be inscribed on all the monuments and chapels for historical reference; the ABMC agreed. Although they determined that it be the only proper name used, they added “American Battle Monuments Commission” and the date of construction, which appears on each monument and cemetery chapel.89

Construction photographs recording the monument’s progress indicate that by April 1929 the foundation and base of the monument were largely complete and its outer walls were in the process of being sheathed in stone (Figure 25). A crane that ran along tracks was erected to lift the heavy stones and other building materials into place (Figures 26 & 27). By May the foundation was ready to receive the columns and by June they were beginning to take form (Figure 28-30). Although the work was progressing well through the summer, some delays were caused by lack of materials. According to a July progress report, “The Chateau-Thierry monument is rapidly taking form. We have been having considerable trouble in securing a regular supply of suitable stone but if this can be solved the stone work on the monument itself will be finished and the roof can be placed this year.”90

By September all the columns were in place and construction begun on the horizontal entablature that joins them. The terrace, likewise, was taking form and the stone surface was being applied to the walls of the monument’s base (Figure 31). On October 10, 1929 it was reported that “the main part of the Chateau-Thierry monument is completed and the roof will be put on in a few days” and that the carvers were at work on the sculptural features. It was then predicted that the monument would be “entirely completed” by next summer.91 By late October, ABMC Secretary and Dispersing Officer Major Price reported that the work was progressing very rapidly.92 This included progress on the frieze, and Cret was able to report that he was pleased with its

89 Maj. X.H. Price to Paul P. Cret, 7 August 1928, and Paul P. Cret to Maj. X.H. Price, 28 August 1928; Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. 90 Memorandum for the Commission, Subject: Progress of the Commission, American Battle Monuments Commission, Paris Office to Commission, 8 July 1929, Entry 13, Box 153, RG 117, NARA II. 91 Memorandum for the Commission, Subject: Progress of the Commission, American Battle Monuments Commission, Paris Office to Commission, 10 October 1929, Entry 13, Box 153, RG 117, NARA II. 92 Maj. X.H. Price to Paul P. Cret, 26 October 1929, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. Price added that” the contractor is in a better humor and the only troubles are with the Pouillenay stone.” CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 32)

appearance. He specified that there be a difference in color between the stone used for the metopes and the alternating palm leaf motif used in place of triglyphs.93

In late November, these detail elements were photographed in situ and by December, the scaffolding began to come down, exposing the completed entablature and roof structure (Figure 32). The figures of Columbia and Marianne were well underway and photographs taken of their sculpted faces as an indication of the progress made. It was reported in January that the work on the sculptures would have to be postponed until warm weather, “as the work requires great precision, which is not possible when the workmen are too cold.”94 By that time the stone work on the terraces was finishing up and the grading of the grounds immediately around the monument was then three-quarters complete.95

By February the overall form of the monument was complete enough that the scaffolding could be taken down (see Figure 33). Many of the significant detail features of the monument were still to be done, including the carving of the statuary and inscriptions, the map and orientation table, and the terrace surface and stairways. The sculptures were scaffolded and work resumed in March, while at the same time work was underway to lay the brick surface of the terrace (see Figures 34 & 35). Major Price reported that “the monument looks very well indeed” and that its final form would be “entirely suitable and will answer all expectations.” In the meantime, a planting contract was let in the hopes that the landscape be largely in place by spring.96 In April it was reported that “the monument proper is finished except for some of the inscriptions, the map, the orientation table and the sculpturing work on the eagle.” It was then predicted that the main terrace be completed that month. Most of the planting and grading was accomplished as well and so it was too optimistically predicted that “unless something unexpected occurs the monument will be ready in June of this year.”97

The work on the monument was winding down by late summer. Major Price reported to General Pershing on September 18, 1930, that “The monument at Chateau-Thierry is to all intents and purposes finished” although a few “finishing touches” were still required (Figure 36). As an indication of its completion, Price reported that they were withdrawing the clerk-of-works and that a caretaker would be in place by the end of the month. Price noted that the grading and planting and other finishing touches made since his last visit added considerably to the overall

93 Paul P. Cret to Maj. X.H. Price, 11 January 1930, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. 94 Memorandum for the Commission, Subject: Progress of Commission’s Work, 10 January 1930, Entry 13, Box 153, RG 117, NARA II. 95 Memorandum for the Commission, Subject: Progress of Commission’s Work, 10 January 1930, Entry 13, Box 153, RG 117, NARA II. 96 Maj. X.H. Price to General John J. Pershing, 5 February 1930, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. Memorandum for the Commission, Subject: Progress of Commission’s Work, 10 January 1930, Entry 13, Box 153, RG 117, NARA II. The report also lists the entrance pylons as yet to be done. 97 Memorandum for the Commission, Subject: Progress of Commission’s Work, 10 April 1930, Entry 13, Box 153, RG 117, NARA II. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 33)

appearance. In summary, Price stated that “The monument, in my opinion, is a great success.”98 The last tasks to be accomplished were the completion of the access road and the construction of the entry pylons, which were done in October 1930 and January 1931 respectively (see Figure 37). Photographs of the completed monument (including aerial views) taken two years later record its splendor, which by then was inclusive of its maturing plantings (see Figures 38-45).

Chateau-Thierry Monument was dedicated on October 7, 1937, the last ABMC monument to be so honored. The event was held later than the other dedications so as to coincide with the American Legion Pilgrimage made to France and Italy.99 A speaker’s platform festooned with bunting was placed to the west facade of the monument to the front of the figures of Columbia and Marianne, with an American Flag draped over the top as a backdrop. As the participants and guests assembled, the Miami Drum and Bugle Corps played popular wartime tunes. Those assembled included many veterans of the battles of the Aisne-Marne and members of the American Legion as guests of the French government. General John J. Pershing gave the welcoming address, noting the particular interest with which many view this region as the point where the enemy was permanently stopped from advancing on Paris. Pershing noted the battles at Belleau Wood and Chateau Thierry, and the July 18 attack at Soissons that make the enemy’s position in this region untenable. He also emphasized the fact that the monument stood for all those who fought, American and French alike.

Pershing’s remarks were followed by an introductory address given by the National Commander for the American Legion, Daniel Doherty. He reminded the audience that they were gathered “on soil made sacred by those who gave their lives that liberty might live.” Doherty was followed by General James Harbord’s dedicatory address that spoke of the intent to uphold the values for which so many at Aisne-Marne had died, reiterating the notion that “Time will not dim the glory of their deeds.” According to Harbord, “The men whose deeds we commemorate fought in the belief that nations as well as individuals are subject to moral law; that sacred promises must not be broken and that the rights of others, even to the smallest and humblest, must be respected.”100 Lastly was the National Commander of the French War Veterans, Mr. Rivoli, who expressed the gratitude of the French veterans for the sacrifices made by their American compatriots, and for the shared ideals for which many Frenchmen had also perished. Likewise, French General Jacques Lheritier, a commander of the French soldiers who fought here with the Americans spoke of the monument as a symbol of their collaboration, but added “we wish that it meant something higher still. None of us in France wished war to reappear, but comrades, American

98 Extract of letter, Maj. X.H. Price to General John J. Pershing, 18 September 1930. Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. The first caretaker was a Mr. Dillion, the former clerk of works at Fere-en- Tardenois. Maj. X.H. Price to Paul P. Cret, 22 November 1930, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. 99 “U.S. Will Dedicate 13 War Memorials; Pershing to Finish His Biggest Peace Time Job in October at Chateau Thierry; Ceremonies in August; Principle One Next Month Will Be That of Monument at Montfaucon,” New York Times, 4 July 1937, p.A6. 100 “Memorial Marks Chateau-Thierry; Monument to American War Victims Dedicated by Gen. Harbord at Ceremonies; Rights of Weak Stressed; General Pershing Pays Tribute to Conduct of Soldiers in Their First Great Test,” New York Times, 8 October 1937, p. 7. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 34)

Veterans, let us be united in peace as we were united in war.”101 As the ceremony came to its conclusion, the American national anthem played as the flag was slowly raised to unveil the statuary figures of the Columbia and Marianne.102

Chateau-Thierry Monument Post-Construction

The completed Chateau-Thierry Monument was well received. General MacArthur visited with Major Price in September 1931, proclaiming it “perfect in every particular.” In the same report, Price commented that he was informed by the caretaker that a number of high-ranking French officers had visited and read the inscriptions, with which they were quite pleased. They indicated that it was a good presentation of events.103 Upon an inspection of the monument on November 18, 1935, ABMC Vice-Chair Robert Woodside declared it a “pre-eminent work of architecture.” Woodside noted that the caretaker, Mr. Moore, was in uniform and kept a register of visitors, housed in the reception room in the basement of the monument. He reported that while he was inspecting he memorial, two buses with French students stopped to look it over. Mr. Moore informed him that the majority of visitors to this memorial were indeed French.104

Mr. Moore, a veteran of the war, was assigned to the monument, undertaking routine inspections and maintenance in cooperation with the Officer-in-Charge from the Paris office of ABMC. General maintenance encompassed upkeep of the landscape, cleaning of the monument (including periodic application of a protective surface) and waxing of the marble surfaces of the maps, inscriptions, and inside walls of the colonnade; periodic painting of the ceilings of the colonnade, and re-gilding of the rosettes and inset inscriptions.

While the monument on the whole remained in good condition, it was plagued for decades by water penetration from the terrace into the basement, including the finished spaces at the east end comprising an entry hall, restrooms, caretaker’s office, and the two larger reception and storage rooms. The leaks ultimately led to the public closure of these spaces. The cause was largely attributed to the expansion of the concrete due to weather changes and the subsequent cracking of the surface of the terrace that permitted water to leach into the ceilings of the basement rooms. The restrooms were particularly impacted, with some damage to the entry and office space; luckily no leaking was report in the reception room.105 Cret was asked to study his drawings and make recommendations for adjustments to the stonework to compensate for the expansion.106 Cret defended his position indicating that provision for expansion had been made in the form of double posts at the four points of the terrace, corresponding to the joints in the concrete above.

101 “Memorial Marks Chateau-Thierry; Monument to American War Victims Dedicated by Gen. Harbord at Ceremonies,” New York Times, p. 7. 102 “Chateau-Thierry American Monument Dedication, 1937, 117.1_R-8, NARA II (available online at: https://www.abmc.gov/multimedia/videos/chateau-thierry-american-monument-dedication-1937). 103 Price to Pershing, 28 January 1931, Entry 13, Box 153, Construction and Maintenance, RG 117, NARA II. 104 Extract of Inspection Report, Robert G. Woodside, period of inspection November 13 to December 4, 1935; Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. 105 Price to Cret, 31 January 1933, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. 106 Price to Cret, 12 June 1933, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 35)

He believed that the posts were improperly set by the contractor under the supervision of the local representative.107 The problems persisted despite various attempts to resurface the terrace and provide for better drainage.

In July 1936, Captain Boatner, then Officer-in-Charge, suggested while repairs to the terrace sufficed for now, a more permanent fix was needed. Boatner indicated that the ultimate solution was the creation of an air space between the outside wall and the partitions of the rooms, which had not been done initially for reasons of economy. He suggested that hollow tile partitions be built to serve this function.108 However, the construction of false interior walls and ceilings in the restrooms and later the entry and superintendent’s office in 1937-38 eventually failed as well. Also of concern was the exterior wood door that provided entry into this area, which was deteriorating due to exposure to the prevailing winds. It was decided that it be replaced by a bronze door to be designed by Paul Cret.109

In 1940, during World War II, Chateau-Thierry Monument was the scene of a brief German attack and subsequent occupation, which was the cause for evacuation on May 18. ABMC Paris office representatives Mr. Balfour and Mr. Trewin reached Chateau-Thierry by the middle of the day to deliver the orders for an immediate evacuation. The wife of Superintendent Moore was reluctant to leave until a flight of sixteen German planes fired machine guns over the town. The roads were crowded with refugees and military personnel, and most of the shops and restaurants in the area were closed. German planes continued to fly overhead in the immediate vicinity of Aisne-Marne Cemetery and the monument, although they did not fire on them.

Major Holle of ABMC returned first to the monument about mid-day on July 8 to find it intact, although some machine-gun damage was reported, including thirty-two places where bullets had chipped the stone.110 The most significant shell damage included an area in the inscription to the left of the allegorical figures, the second column from the northwest, and eight holes in the west front façade, which were repaired with dutchmen.111 One of the entrance pylons also sustained damage and had to be repaired.112 The reception room/museum space in the basement was ransacked and the papers and artifacts scattered about. A German observation post had been mounted atop the monument. Two French graves were dug in the lawn to the west and one

107 Cret to Price, 12 July 1933, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. 108 Capt. Boatner, Report No. 8, Report of the ABMC, Covering Inspection Visit June 11 to August 11, 1936; Visit to Chateau-Thierry, July 3, 1936,” Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. 109 Extract of Memorandum, Officer in Charge to the Chairman, 23 October 1937; Extract of Letter, re: Projects, 3 January 1938; and Extract of Letter, 1 April 1938, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. 110 Maj. Holle, Extracts from Diary, 22 May 1940, 20 July 1940, 24 August 1940, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Monuments, RG 117, NARA II. Extract from letter, Maj. Holle to General Pershing, 24 august 1940, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. 111 Col. Walter Krueger, Jr., Officer-in-Charge to Secretary ABMC, 10 February 1947, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Monuments, RG 117, NARA II. Pingat was assigned to do the work. 112 This occurred in 1947, although the first attempt at repair through the insertion of a Dutchmen was poorly done and had to be redone. Noted by Mr. Harbeson, Chateau-Thierry Monument, visited 14 September 1947, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Monuments, RG 117, NARA II. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 36)

German grave at the base of the monument (see Figures 46 & 47). The superintendent, Mr. Moore, returned by private automobile on July 20.

In 1947, significant repairs to the monument were called for, including those intended to address perennial problems with the drainage from the terrace, as well as repairs due to damage sustained during World War II that they had yet to attend. In January, architect John Harbeson, Paul Cret’s successor, reported that “the cost of repairs to the terrace is great.” Considerable movement due to expansion resulted in broken joints in the masonry and subsequent damage to some of the stonework. Leaks in the terrace indicated that a waterproofing membrane installed to help deal with the reoccurring leakage problem had likely torn, requiring the removal and relaying of the entire brick surface of the terrace. Again, leakage from the terrace was disintegrating the plaster walls in the restrooms.

Drainage from the monument was also a problem and it was suggested that the slope of the gutters be increased to prevent standing water. Additional downspouts were called for, to be installed below the parapet wall. Many of the gutter and border stones were cracked and spalled. There were cracks in the steps from the terrace and failing stones in the terrace, roof and parapet walls, in addition to the damage caused by machine-gun fire. The ceiling of the colonnade needed repainting, the rosettes re-gilding, and the colors on the orientation map needed brightening. Beginning with contracts for dutchmen repairs to the stonework in January, the work continued into the following calendar year.113 In January 1949 the landscape at Chateau- Thierry was reported to be “below our standards elsewhere,” but given some attention, within a few years was reported in “good appearance.”114

With the beginning of fiscal year 1952, the original superintendent at Chateau-Thierry Monument, Mr. Moore, retired. Moore had served as superintendent since the monument’s completion with four years of war service prior to that. It was decided in late 1949, when Moore’s retirement was first anticipated, that the number of American tourists to the monument did not warrant an American superintendent. Instead, the hiring of a French caretaker was discussed.115

In summer 1952, settlement was reported in the cellar near the eagle monument. Possible explanations included the undermining of the area through the burial of German soldiers during World War II. Col Krueger reported that during the occupation, numerous Germans were buried and that he had removed several from the entrance forecourt. He believed that others, perhaps

113 Extracts of Reports No. 5 through 18, between 31 January 1947 and 18 May 1948, Entry 7, Box 13 and Box 14, World War I Monuments, RG 117, NARA II. 114 Krueger to Secretary ABMC, Memorandum, Subject: Plantation, Chateau-Thierry Monument, 31 January 1948. Harbeson to North, Memorandum, Subject: Chateau-Thierry visit 16 July 1952, Entry 7, Box 14, World War I Monuments, RG 117, NARA II. 115 A.T. W. Moore, Officer in Charge to Secretary ABMC, Memorandum, Subject: Superintendent Chateau-Thierry Monument, 17 November 1949, Entry 7, Box 14, World War I Monuments, RG 117, NARA II. North to Officer in Charge, Memorandum, Subject: Superintendent Chateau-Thierry, 29 November 1949, Entry 7, Box 14, World War I Monuments, RG 117, NARA II. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 37)

French soldiers killed by the Germans, may have been buried in the cellar space. Settlement of earth fill against the front wall behind the statue was also suggested as the cause. Krueger lamented the fact that problems with leakage continued, stating “The perennial trouble with seeping water at Chateau-Thierry cannot be allowed to plague us continually.” He determined to take the matter up with Harbeson, “whose firm, by the way, designed this monument.” Despite problems, Harbeson reported following his visit in the summer of 1952 that “The site, as always, is magnificent. It was well chosen, with the result [that] the monument will always be imposing.”116

At some point thereafter, the restrooms and other areas of the basement were closed due to perpetual leaks and the removal of a superintendent or caretaker on-site was instituted. The restroom fixtures currently remain in situ, although plans for their removal and the construction of new restrooms are underway. Also currently underway are the installation of plumbing to replace the water supply up to this point provided by a cistern located within the core of the monument, and electricity. The brick surface of the terrace will be replaced as part of the overall construction project that will include a new visitor’s contact station and a climate-controlled storage facility. The work is scheduled to be completed in early 2017. The monument and surrounding site otherwise remain in good, well-maintained condition.

Greek Colonnades and Stripped Classicism: the Design of Chateau-Thierry Monument

The Chateau-Thierry Monument is a modern interpretation of the classical colonnade of Greek antiquity. Its design is reminiscent of the Greek Stoa, an elongated covered portico or colonnade either attached to the front of a building or left free-standing.117 Often appearing as the double colonnade that became a symbolic feature of classical Greek architecture, the colonnade or stoa provided a protected space open to the out-of-doors for public gatherings and other civic purposes. Chateau-Thierry is not, however, a colonnade in the traditional sense. Whereas the colonnade is formed by classical three-part columns supporting an entablature, Chateau-Thierry appears as a modern abstraction. Stripped of its articulated base, shaft, and capital, the columns at Chateau-Thierry are actually square-shaped, channeled piers that meld with the entablature and base in a monolithic form affectionately referred to by locals as “The Radiator.”

Architect, Paul Phillip Cret, readily acknowledged that although inspired by Greek architecture, his design for Chateau-Thierry Monument was not an “archeological adaptation,” but was

116 Harbeson to North, 11 August 1952, Entry 7, Box 14, World War I Monuments, RG 117, NARA II. Harbeson to North, Memorandum, Subject: Chateau-Thierry, visited 16 July 1952, 23 July 1952, Entry 7, Box 14, World War I Monuments, RG 117, NARA II. 117 According to William Dinsmoor, the stoa is defined as follows: “In Greek architecture a term corresponding to the Latin porticus, a building with its roof supported by one or more rows of columns parallel to the rear wall.” It is among the structure characteristic of sanctuaries and of public places such as the agora, affording protection from the rain. Dinsmoor uses the term colonnade and stoa interchangeably. Dinsmoor define a colonnade as “A range of columns” with reference to a portico. William Bell Dinsmoor. The Architecture of Ancient Greece; an Account of its Historic Development (New York: Biblo and Tannen, 1973), 396, 118. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 38)

instead intended to reflect “the spirit of our own times.”118 As the primary proponent in the United States of an architectural style that has since been referred to as “Stripped Classicism,” Cret advocated for an interpretation of Classical forms that was more relevant to the modern era. Chateau-Thierry Monument was designed and erected at a time when the rise of international Modernism threatened to overshadow the prevailing Classical and Beaux Arts traditions. In fact, Chateau-Thierry is one of Cret’s earliest ventures in the pursuit of what he termed “New Classicism.” Characteristic of Cret’s designs, at Chateau-Thierry he provides a visual reference to time-tested Classical forms, maintaining the basic proportions and symmetry, yet rejecting the finer stylistic details.

Stripped Classicism is generally viewed today as either an expression of the avant-garde International style of architecture or as a reaction to it.119 It is perhaps for this reason that Stripped Classicism as a style does not often appear within the generally accepted narrative of the Modern Movement in architecture. Cret, however, actually saw Classicism in the tradition of the Beaux Arts as linking architecture to both the past and the future. He believed that New Classicism could “bridge the end of Beaux-Arts historicism and the rise of modernism.”120 Like the modernist, Cret reacted against the overly fussy details indicative of the historical revival styles of the previous era. Moreover, he sought to place greater emphasis on structure or as he phrased it, the “constructive system as a keynote of composition.” However, Cret rejected the modernists’ emphasis on functionalism and machine technology, arguing that civilizations are measured by their ability to rise above mere usefulness. Cret saw the modernists’ repudiation of architectural traditions of the past as disingenuous, particularly considering that most were academically trained and well versed in classical forms. He perceived modernists to be overly concerned with the idea of simply creating something entirely new.121

Taking the middle ground, Cret urged that “we must no more be hypnotized by the desire to be original than by the complex to be archaeologically correct.”122 At the hands of a good practitioner, Cret saw potential for new interpretations or revisions of classical design.123 This could be achieved primarily by focusing on the overall form rather than the ornamental details that were the focus of the old design philosophy based upon historical styles. As he articulated it

118 “United States Monument Near Chateau-Thierry, France” prepared by Dr. Cret, 30 September 1927, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. 119 For more information on the topic, see: Brittany Paige Bryant, “Is Stripped Classicism Modern or Anti-Modern?” “Reassessing Stripped Classicism within the Narrative of International Modernism in the 1920s and 1930s,” Master’s Thesis, Savannah College of Art and Design, June 2011. 120 Noted in a review of Cret’s work at the University of Texas, Austin, “Paul Philippe Cret (1876-1945),” by Christopher Long, as http://www.utexas.edu/toursmainbuilding/people/Cret.html (2009); as cited in Lisa Budreau, Bodies of War, 151. Also see: Paul Philippe Cret, “Ten Years of Modernism,” The Architectural Forum, (August 1933): 91-94. In this article, Cret discusses the “new Classicism.” Interestingly, many American architects criticized John Russell Pope in his later years for clinging to Classicism in an era of that saw the rise of Modernism, see: Bedford, John Russell Pope, 152-156, 194-200, 215-222. 121 Cret, “Ten Years of Modernism,” 92, 93. 122 Cret, “Ten Years of Modernism,” 94. 123 Cret professed that “I do not believe that the forms of beauty are exhausted, and I await the appearance of new ones.” Cret, “Ten Years of Modernism,” 92. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 39)

“We may, after casting aside a good many of the genuine antiques that we are incorporating in our buildings—columns and cartouches, buttresses and ogives, battlements and gargoyles— discover in our system of structural construction more possibilities than we have seen in it so far.”124 In short, Cret believed that through New Classicism architectural beauty could be achieved by simplification, focusing on the basic forms and proportions circumscribed by classical models rather than on their “picturesque detail.” It was not regressive, as the modernist contended, but rather Classicism for the modern era. As Cret explained, “If in the conception of a work, the study of its expression in form and decoration is your own and not a dull copy, you need not be concerned with being modern; you cannot be anything else.”125

Cret was among the first to advance what became known as Stripped Classicism. The style developed in the aftermath of World War I as an interpretation of Classical architecture suitable to a post-industrial society. It was most popularly used during the years between the First and Second World Wars, often by national governments to construct monumental civic architecture. Unfortunately, Cret’s visionary interpretation of Classical forms was later adopted by totalitarian governments, such as Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, interested in developing an official state architectural style as a means of imposing conformity to nationalistic policies. In fact, Albert Speer, the architect of Adolph Hitler’s Third Reich, directly referenced Cret in the development of his own designs.126

Co-opted by such governments, Stripped Classicism became tainted by association. However, historian Carter Wiseman distinguishes between Cret’s skillful application of the style and search for fresh variations on traditional forms from the “purposeful banality” of its later totalitarian government-based practitioners.127 Nevertheless, all of its practitioners sought to invoke Classicism’s association with the cultured civilizations of Greece and Roman in a new but equally enduring manner. Cret himself professed, “There is no time-worn theme, but only time- worn ways of treating it as well as methods which are fresh and new.”128

The American government was no exception to the prevailing use of Classical forms of architecture. As earlier discussed, the CFA and ABMC both were strong proponents of a design aesthetic that embraced Classical and Renaissance era models. Created by Congress in 1910, the

124 Cret, “Ten Years of Modernism,” 91. 125 American Institute of Architects, The AIA Historical Directory of American Architects, Paul Phillippe Cret (1876-1945), Gold Medal File, available online at: http://public.aia.org/sites/hdoaa/wiki/AIA%20scans/C- E/CretPaul_AIA%20Gold%20Medal.pdf, accessed 1 September 2016. 126 Witold Rybczynski, “The Late, Great Paul Cret,” New York Times Magazine, 21 October 2014. According to Rybczynski, Cret’s New Classicism was widely studied in Germany in the 1930s. After being appointed the official architect of the Third Reich in 1935 Albert Speer designed a colonnade of square piers atop the Zeppelinfeld stadium, directly referencing Cret. The stadium became the model for Germany’s National Socialistic architecture. 127Carter Wiseman. Twentieth-Century American Architecture; the Buildings and Their Makers. (New York: W.W. Norton, 2000), 298. 128 Paul P. Cret, “Memorials—Columns, Shafts, Cenotaphs and Tablets,” Architectural Forum Vol. 45, No. 6 (Dec. 1926), 331-336. Paul P. Cret, “Memorials—Columns, Shafts, Cenotaphs and Tablets,” Architectural Forum Vol. 45, No. 6 (Dec. 1926), 335. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 40)

CFA was the first federal agency established to give advice on the aesthetic quality of proposed designs for public art and architecture within the nation’s capital.129 The CFA favored classically inspired motifs for the design of government structures as symbolic of federal authority and adopted a similar approach with the first such initiative abroad. While Chateau-Thierry Monument overtly aligns with Paul Cret’s New Classicist vision, all of the ABMC’s monuments used classically inspired architectural motifs to symbolize American presence, while also safeguarding the monuments’ relevance over time.130 Thus the ABMC’s commemorative program can be understood as an expression of American national identity introduced to the landscape of its European allies through the use of art and architecture.131

Like Paul Cret, the CFA preferred a more modern interpretation indicative of emerging trends; they were keenly aware of the rise of international Modernism and aspired to create designs that were relevant to the current era. As Consulting Architect, Paul Cret applied these ideas as his guiding principles, carefully selecting architects that would follow suit. Cret’s New Classicism was particularly relevant to civic and monumental structures, which like most proponents of Beaux Arts design, Cret felt represented the highest form of architecture. Aside from its beauty and dignity, Cret believed that the application of Classical motifs was the best means by which to ensure the enduring relevance of the monuments over time.132 Classicism was also particularly appropriate for use by a nation that aligned itself with the political ideals of Greece and Rome. According to Cret, its use served as a “symbolic affirmation of America’s traditional democratic ethos” thus creating an “artistic idiom for representing a sense of continuity with the past.”133 Through Classicism, the ABMC endeavored to place America’s World War I battle victories within the timeline of important events in world history.

Cret’s preference for simple lines and austere interpretations of Classical design is particularly well suited to the Chateau-Thierry Monument, as it would be commonly be viewed from a great distance at which intricate details would be lost. Moreover, Cret felt that the starkness of the design was more in keeping with the deeds of those it was intended to honor. As Cret explains it, “The restraint of the general composition, the severity of the decoration, and the simplified outlines of the sculpture, are expected to attain an effect harmonious with the open site visible for several miles along the valley and to express the sterness [sic.] of the task so nobly fulfilled by the American Army.”134 Chateau-Thierry Monument demonstrates the sparse use of detail and the incorporation of sculptural forms that came to characterize Cret’s mature style. Cret’s incorporation of sculpture into his design for Chateau-Thierry, as well as numerous other

129 The CFA had already played a significant role in the design of the World War I cemeteries. 130 While many of the other “historical” monuments and cemetery chapels were also classical in form, they were not restricted to it, but often took on historical forms such as Renaissance Revival and Medieval. 131 For more information regarding architecture as political symbol see: Ron Robin, Enclaves of America: The Rhetoric of American Political Architecture Abroad, 1900-1965. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992. 132 Paul P. Cret, “Memorials—Columns, Shafts, Cenotaphs and Tablets,” The Architecture Forum, Vol. XLV, No. 6 (December 1926), 333. 133 Robin, Enclaves of America, 55; as cited in: Budreau, Bodies of War, 151. 134 “United States Monument Near Chateau-Thierry, France,” extract of an account written by Dr. Cret, September 1927, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Monuments, RG 117, NARA II. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 41)

monuments and buildings, serves as a means of expression not readily conveyed by the inscriptions alone. Historian Witold Rybczynski describes Cret’s ABMC memorials as being “among the most evocative commemorative structures ever built.”135

In fact, along with the concurrently constructed Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C., Chateau-Thierry Monument is recognized as one of Cret’s first fully developed New Classicist designs. They demonstrate the transformation from purely Beaux-Arts motifs to Cret’s simplified New Classicism. The consulting architect for Henry C. Folger, Alexander B. Trowbridge, prompted Cret to more fully indulge his penchant for streamlined design. In a letter to Cret, Trowbridge expressed the desire for “architecture of a modern flavor but retaining the classic spirit” by eliminating details such as columns, pilasters and cornices in favor of sculpted ornament and low relief.136 Both structures exhibit these tendencies to an extent that Cret had not previously imposed.

Like the Folger Library, Chateau-Thierry Monument is undeniably modern in both architectural expression and building technology. The monument incorporates the use of up-to-date construction technology such as reinforced concrete to achieve its massive scale. While sheathed in cut stone and classical ornamentation, an examination of the interior of the base of the monument reveals its immense concrete beams and support posts. With regard to the site, Cret likened it to “the picturesque setting of some Greek theatres” further referencing the Classical origins of its design.137 The monument’s extensive east-facing terrace provides a viewing platform that also serves to root it within the surrounding landscape. Chateau-Thierry Monument embraces modern design and construction while at the same time evoking the spirit of classicism.

PART II. ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION

A. General Statement:

1. Architectural character: Chateau-Thierry Monument is a modern abstraction of the Classical colonnade of Greek antiquity. It consists of a massive double colonnade of twenty-four channeled columns or piers rising sixty feet above a high platform and viewing terrace. As a modern interpretation of the Classical colonnade, its columns are stripped of details to meld with the entablature and continuous base to form a monolithic structure. The monument is a prime example of the use of Stripped Classicism, a style that was used primarily for governmental, civic and commemorative structures during the period between the two World Wars. As was

135 Witold Rybczynski, “The Late, Great Paul Cret.” 136 Elizabeth Greenwell Grossman, The Civic Architecture of Paul Cret (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 168. 137 Paul P. Cret, “United States Monument Near Chateau-Thierry, France,” 10 September 1927 (draft text), Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Monuments, RG 117, NARA II. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 42)

characteristic of the style, Chateau Thierry Monument maintains the basic form, proportions, and symmetrical balance of Classical architecture but is void of the finer details associated with it.

The monument is instead ornamented by massive sculptural figures that appear to the center of the longitudinal east and west facades, and by its inscriptions. To the west is a grouping of two allegorical female figures or representations of liberty; “Columbia” signifies the United States while “Marianne” signifies France. To the opposing east side of the colonnade is an equally outsized sculpture of an American eagle perched above an incised stone map depicting the sites of battle campaigns. The entablature of the colonnade is ornamented by a frieze in which an alternating pattern of acanthus leaves and either oak or olive leaves are depicted. Other forms of ornamentation that convey its function as a commemorative monument are the incised names of the divisions involved in the battles, along with their insignias, the place names of the most significant battle sites, and various inscriptions and informational panels.

Although rising to a height of 60’ the monument is grounded in the landscape by an expansive 420’ long terrace accessed by broad, gently rising staircases. The terrace overlooks the city of Chateau Thierry and the Marne River Valley. Views can also be obtained from the area between the double colonnades accessed from enclosed stairways to either side.

2. Condition of fabric: The monument is well-maintained and in overall good condition.138

B. Description of Exterior:

1. Overall dimensions: The colonnade is 187’ in width, 20’ in depth and stands 60’ in height. The terrace is 420’ in length and 30’ in depth to the east front of the monument, extending to either side to meet stairways from the west facade. The monument is slightly banked into the hill so that basement level is visible from the east elevation.

2. Foundations: The monument sits on a high basement/foundation constructed of rubble stone and reinforced concrete. Banked into the hillside, the exterior walls of the east front and north and south side walls of the foundation are overlaid with rough-faced irregular ashlar blocks with smooth-faced stone borders.

3. Walls, ceiling: The exterior west wall and paralleling interior support wall are constructed of rubble stone, while the walls to the east, north and south are of reinforced concrete. The exterior walls of the monument above the foundation level that form the

138 At the time of the field visit on 25 April 2016 work was underway to replace the brick surface of the terrace and work was about to begin to remove asbestos from the basement area. The finished spaces within the basement are currently unused and in need of renovation. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 43)

base of the monument and the monument proper are faced with a veneer of light-colored, smooth-faced ashlar stone cut into large sections (see “Columns”). The walls along the base and frieze of the monument, and the walls at the termination of both sections of the colonnade are inscribed and sculptural figures appear to the center of both the primary east and west elevations (see “Decorative features”).

The ceilings in the areas between the columns of the double colonnade are coffered. A pattern of receding squares with gilded rosettes to the center alternates with narrower rectangular insets. Every other rosette is set against a black background that is actually a grilled ventilator. The squares form a slightly elongated octagonal pattern with triangular insets at each corner.

4. Structural systems, framing: The structural system is of reinforced concrete, poured to form posts, beams and buttressed walls. The exception is the west wall and an interior support wall that parallels it, which are constructed of rubble stone. The structural system for the terrace includes double posts at each corner to support the beams, corresponding to joints in the concrete above.139

5. Columns: The “columns” or piers are integral to the base and entablature of the colonnade. They are squared and fluted, but are otherwise unornamented and without capitals.

6. Terrace, interior colonnade: A large terrace extends outward to either side of the monument and to the east to provide a viewing platform that looks out over the city of Chateau-Thierry and the Marne River Valley. It is surrounded by low stone walls. The surface of the terrace is covered by sections of red brick laid in a herringbone pattern and framed by light-colored stone slabs. The center of each brick section is ornamented by a large alternating inset stone circle or square. Benches set into the wall appear at intervals along the terrace at the base of the colonnade. To the base of the eagle statuary that terminates at the terrace is an orientation table locating the various points of interest within the surrounding landscape (see “Decorative features”).

7. Stairways: Broad stairways leading to the terrace from the west-facing elevation and the approach road and parking flank either end of the monument, with a single broad stairway to the east elevation that leads from the center of the terrace to the lawn. The stairways are of reinforced concrete faced with stone and defined by low walls. Enclosed stairways also appear to either end of the colonnade leading up to the passageways between the double rows of columns.

8. Decorative features and inscriptions: These include sculptural figures, inscriptions, an inlaid map, and an orientation table. The monument is ornamented by two colossal

139 Paul P. Cret to Maj. X.H. Price, 22 July 1933, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 44)

sculptures that appear to the center of the primary west and east facades. To the west elevation, visible from the approach road and parking area, is a sculptural grouping of two allegorical female figures, both of which represent freedom for their corresponding countries, the United States of America and France. The allegorical female figures representing the cause of liberty include America’s “Columbia” and France’s “Marianne” standing side-by-side, hands joined in friendship. Columbia, on the left is identified by her star-spangled sash and the sword that she holds in her right hand. The sword is meant to symbolize the offensive position held by the American forces in their counterattack against the German foe. Marianne is distinguished by her Phrygian cap and the shield that she holds in her left hand. The shield is ornamented with the coat-of-arms of the Republic and is meant to signify France’s defense against a foreign invader.140

To either side of the grouping is inscribed text in both English and French, corresponding with each figure. The inscription reads:

THIS MONUMENT HAS BEEN ERECTED BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO COMMEMORATE THE SERVICE OF HER TROOPS AND THOSE OF FRANCE WHO FOUGHT IN THIS REGION DURING THE WORLD WAR. IT STANDS AS A LASTING SYMBOL OF THE FRIENDSHIP AND COOPERATION BETWEEN THE FRENCH AND AMERICAN ARMIES.

The inscription is inset against a vermillion-colored background.141

140Paul P. Cret to General John J. Pershing, 2 August 1928, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. There was much debate over which of the figures should be holding the sword verses the shield. It seems that Cret had intended Columbia to hold the shield and Marianne to hold the sword. The reason was twofold; he did not wish to convey the impression that America was a war-like nation and he planned to ornament the shield with the stars and stripes to distinguish Columbia as American. ABMC wanted Columbia to have the sword as they saw America’s position as aggressive/offensive rather than defensive. Maj. X.H. Price to General John J. Pershing, 17 July 1928, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. 141 This inscription and the division insignias were originally set upon a gilded background; deemed too expensive to maintain the backgrounds are currently painted. Capt. Boatner in 1936 commented that “When the gold lead is dull, the shining which makes reading sometimes difficult will disappear and the natural weathering will make the boucharding unnecessary.” While Price indicated that he liked the gilding, it was eventually dispensed with. Capt. Boatner, Report of the American Battle Monuments Commission, Inspection Visit of June 11 to August 11, 1936, Visit to Chateau-Thierry, July 3, 1936; Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. A report following a 1936 inspection suggests that “The letters could be left without regilding.” It was felt that the letters were legible as they are and that regilding was expensive. The report states that this suggestion applies to the inscriptions on the entrance side as well. A handwritten notation by “H.P.” (X.H. Price?) states, “I like the gilding.” Capt. Boatner, Report of the American Battle Monuments Commission, Inspection Visit of June 11 to August 11, 1936, Visit to Chateau-Thierry, July 3, 1936; Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 45)

On the opposing east side is a sculpture of a stylized American eagle with a shield of stars and stripes set between his haunches. His feathers are beautifully articulated and his talons are outstretched. He sits on a high plinth upon which is inscribed: “TIME WILL NOT DIM THE GLORY OF THEIR DEEDS.” Below the plinth extending from the wall of the monument along the terrace is an incised map that, according to the inscription, depicts the “Aisne-Marne Salient, Showing Ground Captured by American Divisions After July 18 1918.” The place names inscribed below the monument frieze are shown, as are other key locations and features.

At the base of the map, steps extend outward to a raised orientation table that sits on the terrace floor. Inlaid metal directionals and significant places within the surrounding landscape are indicated, whether they are visible from the monument or not.

Along the top of the east wall that forms the base of the monument are incised the names of the American Army divisions that fought in the battles of the Aisne-Marne region. Below each division/corps number is the corresponding insignia inset against a background painted ox-blood red. Running east to west they read: 1ST DIVISION, 2ND DIVISION, 3RD DIVISION, 4TH DIVISION, 26TH DIVISION, 1ST CORPS, 3RD CORPS, 28TH DIVISION, 32ND DIVISION, 42ND DIVISION, 77TH DIVISION AND 93RD DIVISION.142

At the base of the colonnade, corresponding with the place names at appear to the top just below the frieze (see Frieze), is incised a row of stars.

Informational Panels also appear on the walls were the two sections of the colonnade are terminated. These give a brief summary of the Aisne-Marne Offensive.

9. Openings:

a. Doorways and doors: Ornamental bronze doorways appear to either end of the monument’s foundation/basement, framed by stone quoining. Double doors appear at the south end that enters onto the finished section. At the opposing north end is a tripartite arrangement of doors that lead into the unfinished section. This doorway originally matched the one to the south, but was widened and a third leaf added to the door in order to accommodate the passage of lawn equipment and the storage of bulky artifacts (currently being stored here are crated plaster casts of many of the ornamental features of this monument and other ABMC monuments and chapels). Each door or leaf comprises a single inset panel ornamented by three medallions with a circular pull mounted to the center one. The stiles are studded with nail-heads. The doors were originally of wood construction, but exposure to heavy rains weakened it

142 The 1st through 4th Divisions were at large, the 26th was from New England, the 28th from Pennsylvania, the 32nd from Michigan and Wisconsin, the 42nd from 26 states and the District of Columbia, 77th from New York City and vicinity, and the 93rd represented the “Colored” National Guard. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 46)

and the surrounding moldings. In 1933, it was suggested that they be replace by the current metal doors.

b. Windows: Narrow window openings appear at broad intervals, set high on the walls of the basement/foundation. They are unglazed with a single ornament iron bar in a fleur-de-lys pattern set to the center of the opening to prevent passage. A window well accommodates the larger window openings that light the finished southwest rooms, intended as office and exhibition space. These openings appear in a tripartite arrangement. The openings are unglazed and are covered by iron mullions in a pattern of four-by-seven squares. The openings are flush with the exterior wall.

10. Roof/Entablature:

a. Roof: The roof of the colonnade is flat and is covered by a metal surface.

b. Architrave: A plain, stone-face architrave is set upon the roof to form the uppermost portion of a massive entablature.

c. Cornice: A plain boxed cornice extends out beyond the architrave above and the frieze below. It is ornamented at broad intervals by sculpted stone lion’s head scuppers that protrude outward.

d. Frieze: The stone frieze is ornamented by carved metopes in an alternating pattern of oak or olive leaves with acanthus leaves in the place of the traditional triglyphs. Just below the frieze at the top of the colonnade are incised the place names of the most critical battle locations. These include, along the west elevation, running north to south: GRIMPETTES WOOD, VAUX, FISMES, MISSY-AUX-BOIS, BELLEAU WOOD, JUVIGNY, MEZY, AND NOROY-SUR-OURCQ. ALONG THE EAST ELEVATION RUNNING SOUTH TO NORTH IS: SERINGES-ET-NESLES, VIERZY, LE CHARMEL, BAZOCHES, FISMETTE, BERZY-LE-SEC, TRUGNY, AND LA CROIX ROUGE FARM. At the north end is incised TORCY and at the south end is SERGY.

B. Description of Interior:

1. Floor plans: The basement of the monument is largely unfinished, providing an open space where the structural framework can be viewed. An interior support wall runs parallel to the west wall creating an interior allee. The section of the basement to the south end is finished. Entry is into a foyer from which radiate the various rooms. To the east are single-stall men’s and women’s bathrooms. To the opposing side is a small office. Through a doorway to the north (situated behind the office) is a larger rectangular room intended to be used as a small museum or exhibition space. To the CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 47)

east of it, entered from the foyer, is another room that includes a doorway that joins it with the unfinished section of the basement. The ground level of the monument consists of a broad terrace. Stairways to either end of the colonnade lead to an interior passage between the double rows of columns that also serve as an upper viewing platform.

2. Flooring: The floors in the passages of the colonnade are of stone. The floor in the basement foyer is covered with square terra cotta tiles, in the bathroom with ceramic tile, and in the office with wood laid in a herringbone pattern. The floors in the exhibition room, unfinished space and the finished room adjoining it are of poured concrete. The exception is the space between the west wall and the interior support wall, which is hard-packed earth. The floors in the caretaker’s rooms were originally painted concrete covered with wax dissolved in gasoline to which red pigment was added. Unfortunately, the wax treatment did not adhere properly to the concrete. Cret suggested that the wax be removed and linseed oil applied and wax reapplied.143

3. Wall and ceiling finish: The interior walls of the monument in the large unfinished section are of rubble stone left bare to the west and of reinforced concrete to the east front and north side. In the smaller section to the south the walls and ceilings are plastered. In the entry foyer and the office space the plastered walls include a coved ceiling with a picture rail mounted at the turning point. In the other rooms, the poured concrete ceiling joints are exposed. The walls of the bathrooms are covered with the original white, square-shaped ceramic tile. Finish tile appears at the top and bottom to form a molded chair rail and a high, curving baseboard in bright light blue.

4. Openings:

a. Doorways and doors: Two-panel wood doors appear in the finished area of the basement, leading from the foyer to the various rooms. The surrounds are comprised of a large oversized bead with a recessed band along the inside. The doorway leading into the unfinished section, set into the stone wall, includes a paneled reveal.

b. Windows: The openings are recessed into the wall and have splayed reveals and sills.

5. Mechanical equipment:

a. Heating, air conditioning, ventilation: Ventilation for the monument is provided by grillwork located in the ceiling of the double colonnade.

143 Capt. Harris Jones to Paul P, Cret, 21 October 1930 and Paul P. Cret to Capt. Harris Jones, 1 November 1930, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 48)

b. Lighting: The site is without electricity, although lighting for the basement area can be provided by a generator as needed.

c. Plumbing: The original source of water for the monument was provided by a cistern located within the monument, in the area between the two sections of the colonnade, behind the large sculptures on the main facades. The cistern provided water for the bathroom facilities including gravity-fed tank toilets and wall- mounted sinks. Operation of these facilities ceased, probably in the 1940s, although the fixtures current remain in situ, as does the wall and floor tile. The cistern continues to provide a source of water for cleaning and the watering of plants.

In the basement, sub-base drain and pressure release copper pipes designed to collect the water and vapors build up under the terrace brick and flagstone were later installed through the concrete slabs during the reconstruction of the terrace. The copper pipes and drains collect the water that percolates through the bricks. Water or condensation trapped under the terrace surface is carried through the slope of the waterproofing toward stone gutters where the copper pipes, installed at selected low points, drain the water into the monument’s base.144

C. Site:

1. Historic landscape design: Architect Paul Cret intended Chateau-Thierry Monument to be dramatically sited, likening its final positioning to “the picturesque setting of some Greek theatres.”145 Insights into Cret’s ideas about selecting sites for the monuments were recorded in his report following his initial survey of the European battlefields in 1925. According to Cret:

These large monuments fall into two broad divisions—those on battlefields and those in cities. The first type is preferable to commemorate operation. It implies in the design of the monument some special restraint. In wide, open spaces, as the top of a hill, the design must avoid all elaboration of detail and strive for broad, simple lines easily understood from a distance. An elaborate monument set in the middle of a broad, open space looks almost like a piece of furniture forgotten in the middle of a field, whatever may be the value of its design. The use of figures must also be carefully considered. Effect will have to be sought more by judicious arrangement of approaches, steps, roads, retaining walls and planting. When it is possible, it is much preferable to use a natural height than to build an artificial mound or tower. By designing these memorials with due regard for the

144 Trip Report, Chateau-Thierry Monument, A. Moulin, 23 October 1986, Purpose: inspection of terrace project under the rain and testing of a brick waterproofing product; files on site at Aisne-Marne American Cemetery. 145 Paul P. Cret, “United States Monument Near Chateau-Thierry, France,” 10 September 1927 (draft text), Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Monuments, RG 117, NARA II. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 49)

topography, they will become to some extent part of the ground wrested from the enemy by American troops.146

These ideas are certainly manifested in Chateau-Thierry, including the application of simplified details visible from a great distance, its expansive location, and the desire to blend with the surrounding landscape. Moreover, Cret prepared a comprehensive designed landscape to create a formal garden that gives way to a vast lawn and pleasing park-like setting.

Beginning with the monument itself, an expansive terrace grounds it to the landscape, extending outward to the east and to both the north and south sides. Flanking stairways to the either end of the west elevation and to the center of the east elevation serve to further transition from site to structure. The broad staircases provide access from the parking area to the west and the lawn to the east. Cret’s sophisticated landscape plan includes a semi-circular parking area, formal plant beds and walkways laid out in a balanced, geometrical design. The formal plantings and manicured paths eventually give way to more rustic paths and trails and finally to the surrounding woodland. The monument is slightly banked into the hillside so that, when viewed from the east, it appears to rise above the tree line.

Chateau-Thierry Monument is approached from the west via a long, winding access road known as the Route du Monument that begins at the entry flanked by stone pylons. To the immediate area west of the monument is a paved semi-circular parking area defined by stone curbing. Just beyond, a gravel path lies to the center of a swath of lawn, followed by a boxwood hedge, all following a concentric circular pattern. Beyond the hedge rises a low hill where a series of stone benches sit just under the tree line, again aligned in a circular pattern and connected by a grassy path to either side of the roadway, terminating with rustic stone steps. Just beyond is a service drive that is recessed and thus hidden from view.

Returning to the western front of the monument, a stone patio provides a transitional space between the parking area and the monument and stairways to either end, running the length of the monument proper. At either end of the patio, gravel paths lead outward to the north and south along the elevated terraces. They connect to similar paths along the sides and to the front of the monument, aligning with the base of the central stair. A wide gravel path leads from the stair to far eastern end of the lawn where it joins with similar paths that form a broad arc to the far sides of the monument, heading back towards the parking area. The intersection of these paths forms a circular area that includes low stone benches from which to rest and view the monument from this angle. From here, a rustic path leads further east into the woods

146 Paul P. Cret, “The American Battle Monuments Commission Report on Survey in Europe, May 15 to August 21, 1925,” 16 September 1925, 5; Box 2, Entry 3, RG 117, NARA II [hereafter Paul P. Cret, 1925 Report]. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 50)

and eventually connects with the service road known as the Chemin des Henry (or path of the Henrys) running along the south side of the site and continuing to the east.

Formal plant beds flank the stone patio around the base of the terrace to the west. These are filled primarily by a selection of large massifs. To the east front, the lawn extends to the base of the monument and carefully pruned ivy grows along the stone walls. To either side of the monument, large plant beds are located between the gravel paths along the sides of the monument and those that encircle it. Major Price expressed his approval for Cret’s plans to improve the area around the monument to enhance the beauty and enjoyment of the site. He stated in 1926, “I like the idea of developing the space around our memorial as a sort of park which can be used by the inhabitants.”147 Following a site visit in 1935, ABMC Vice-Chair Robert Woodside reported that the planting and surround walks and terrace blend most beautifully with the monument, indicating the success of Cret’s landscape design (Figure 48).148

2. Plantings: During the winter of 1929-1930, as the construction of the monument was nearing completion, a planting contract was let to the firm of Moser & Fils.149 Much of the planting was in place and the grading around the monument completed by April.150 However, Cret’s study for the selection of additional plant specimens to be included was not completed until October, with the help of Mr. Levard, who was also making additions to the original plan for the pond-point feature in front of the monument.151

Ivy was originally planted along the east wall of the terrace. It was reported on 14 October 1931 that these plants were doing well and that in a short time would cover the entire wall. Price requested at that time that Cret prepare a sketch of how that ivy should appear on the wall so that it could be maintained as intended.152 The goal was apparently to allow enough ivy to grow to achieve the desired effect without hiding the stonework. Masses of large shrubs were planted near the edges of the monument, which in time would be moved back and smaller shrubs moved nearer to the front.153

147 Extract of letter, Price to North, 21 July 1926 re: purchase of land for Chateau-Thierry, Entry 7, WWI Memorials, Box 13, RG 117, NARA. Price also approved of “the improving of a road up from Courteau.” 148 Robert G. Woodside, Vice-Chairman, ABMC, Extract of Report, 4 December 1935, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Monuments, RG 117, NARA II. 149 Maj. X.H. Price to General John J. Pershing, 5 February 1930, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. Memorandum for the Commission, Subject: Progress of Commission’s Work, 10 January 1930, Entry 13, Box 153, RG 117, NARA II. The report also lists the entrance pylons as yet to be done. 150 Maj. X.H. Price, Memorandum for the Commission, Subject: Progress of the Commission’s Work, 10 April 1930, Entry 13, Box 153, Construction and Maintenance of Cemeteries and Monuments, RG 117, NARA. 151 Maj. X.H. Price to ABMC, 22 October 1930, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. 152 Maj. X.H. Price, Inspection Report, Chateau-Thierry, 14 October 1931, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Monuments, RG 117, NARA Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Monuments, RG 117, NARA II. 153 Maj. X.H. Price, Inspection Notes, 14 October 1931, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Monuments, RG 117, NARA II. Price comments that he will ask Cret for a sketch of how the ivy should be grown along the wall. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 51)

Captain Boatner, then Officer-in-Charge, made a report in July 1936 that includes information about the now largely mature landscape.154 Boatner reported that excellent care was being taken of the lawns and hedges. The recent planting of a semi-circle of trees framing the entrance yard was showing its shape and he felt that the overall arrangement would be strengthened when the charmille planting reached a sufficient height to receive its shaped trimmings. He recommended that the massifs to the back of the two ball-bearing posts be given better shape, rising in height at the ends nearest the posts.

At the opposing south end, where the posts were of rougher masonry, he recommended planting ivy to cover it. He urged that the massifs to the right and left of the monument against the terrace wall on the entrance side be kept low to show the continuous line of the parapet wall above the terrace. On the opposing side, Boatner felt that the ivy along the retaining wall had grown too full and that it should be cut back to show areas of the wall and coping. He recommended the planting of shrubs on the embankments of the approach road near the semi-circle to strengthen the slope and prevent erosion.155

By 1949, the planting had become somewhat overgrown and neglected. Krueger reported to the ABMC Secretary that the monument grounds were “in a state of maintenance below our standards elsewhere.” He proclaimed it the “worst state I have seen,” citing the woody appearance of the upper surface of the box hedge, having reached the proposed design height.156 Efforts were apparently made to remedy the situation and by summer 1952 it was reported that the “plantation made a good appearance.”157

3. Access Road: The construction of the access road or Route de Monument that leads to Chateau-Thierry Monument was actually undertaken by the French, specifically, the Service des Ponts et Chaussees de Department de l’Aisne in Chateau-Thierry, with supervision and reimbursement by ABMC. The road was completed and the final payment order in October 1930.158 The original tile curbing that appeared in the parking area and beyond was replaced with Belgian granite blocks in early 1933.159

154 Report of the American Battle Monuments Commission, Covering Inspection Visit of June 11 to August 11, 1936, Visit to Chateau-Thierry, July 3, 1936, Entry7, Box 13, RG 117, NARA. 155 Capt. Boatner, Report of the American Battle Monuments Commission, Inspection Visit of June 11 to August 11, 1936, Visit to Chateau-Thierry, July 3, 1936; Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. 156 Krueger to Secretary ABMC, Memorandum, Subject: Plantation, Chateau-Thierry, 31 January 1949, Entry 7, Box 14, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA. 157 John Harbeson to North, Memorandum, Subject: visit to Chateau-Thierry on July 16, 23 July 1952, Entry 7, Box 14, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA. 158 Maj. X.H. Price to ABMC, 22 October 1930, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA. 159 Maj. X.H. Price to General Pershing, 18 January 1933, 14 March 1933, and 21 April 1933, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA. In January, Price reported the work “about half complete” and in March that “the new curbing is almost in.” It was reported completed in April. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 52)

4. Entry Pylons: Last to be constructed were the pylons that flank the entry to the Route du Monument that leads from the main road referred to as D1003 up to the monument, completed in January 1931.160 The pylons are streamlined, rectangular in shape, and turned on-end so that the incised inscriptions on the inside face can be read from cars approaching from either direction. They appear as monolithic blocks with a stepped, pilaster-like configuration at either end, ornamented by stylized fluting and an American shield. The incised lettering is set against a recessed, vermillion-colored background and reads:

AMERICAN AISNE – MARNE MEMORIAL

A directional arrow appears underneath the inscription and incised banding is located to the center of the inscribed area that wraps around to the opposing face. Flat stone flagging mirrors the base of the pylons to the inside and is flanked along the curb by plain circular bollards. Stone curbing lines the roadway that winds along to conform to the hilly topography. The road terminates in a semi-circular parking area set to the west side of the monument. Cret made a study of the pylons before settling on the final design, for which he prepared a number of playful sketches (Figures 49-51).

PART III. SOURCES OF INFORMATION

A. Architectural drawings:

Athenaeum of Philadelphia, Cret Collection, American Battle Monuments Commission, Monument de Chateau-Thierry, item #CRE158C.500, 1927.

National Archives II, RG 117, Records of the American Battle Monuments Commission, Cartographic and Architectural Branch, College Park, Maryland.

University of Pennsylvania, Architectural Archives, Paul Philippe Cret Collection, LC 062.250; 062.269-062.274, PAUP01-A12, Drawings, 1928.

160 Maj. X.H. Price to ABMC, 22 October 1930, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. Extract of letter, Maj. X.H. Price to General John J. Pershing, 18 September 1930. Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. The first caretaker was a Mr. Dillion, the former clerk of works at Fere-en- Tardenois. Maj. X.H. Price to Paul P. Cret, 22 November 1930, Entry 7, Box 13, World War I Memorials, RG 117, NARA II. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 53)

B. Early views:

Aisne-Marne American World War I Cemetery Archives, File IV-34, Construction views of Chateau-Thierry Monument, 1928-1932.

National Archives II, Still Pictures, 117-MC, Records of the American Battle Monuments Commission, Prints: Photographs of World War I Cemeteries and Memorials in Foreign Countries, 1925-35; Box 2, Folders 15 & 16, Chateau-Thierry.

C. Bibliography:

Primary Sources:

American Battle Monuments Commission, “Annual Report of the American Battle Monuments Commission Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1924,” [typescript] Box 2, Entry 3, RG 117, NARA II.

______. Annual Report of the American Battle Monuments Commission to the President of the United States, Fiscal Year 1925. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1926.

______. Annual Report of The American Battle Monuments Commission to the President, Fiscal Year 1926. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, January 10, 1927.

______. Annual Report of The American Battle Monuments Commission to the President, for the Period July 1, 1926 to June 30, 1938, Entry 3, RG 117, NARAII.

______. Monthly Reports of the Paris Office, 1925-1934, Entry 10 Box 132, Record Group 117, NARA II.

______. Records of the American Battle Monuments Commission, Proceedings of the Commission, Entry 2, Box 1A, Record Group 117, National Archives II.

______. Records of the American Battle Monuments Commission, World War I Memorials, Entry 7, Chateau-Thierry, Boxes 13-14, Record Group 117, National Archives II.

______. Records of the American Battle Monuments Commission, World War I Memorials, Entry 13, Box 143, Architects, Draftsmen, etc., 1922-19, National Archives II.

CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 54)

______. Records of the American Battle Monuments Commission, World War I Memorials, Entry 13, Box 153, Construction and Maintenance of Cemeteries and Monuments, National Archives II.

Commission of Fine Arts, The National Commission of Fine Arts, Eleventh Report, January 1, 1926-June 30, 1929. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1930.

Cret, Paul P. “The American Battle Monuments Commission Report on Survey in Europe, May 15 to August 21, 1925,” September 16, 1925; National Archives, RG 117.

Porter, “Committee of the U.S. Congress on Foreign Affairs, American Battle Monument Commission,” Report No. 1504, submitted February 1, 1923, RG 117, National Archives II.

Secondary Sources:

“3 War Memorials to be Built for U.S. on Soil of France; Chateau-Thierry, Saint-Mihiel, And Meuse-Argonne Monuments Are Planned; Ruins of Montfaucon Are To Be Preserved; Old Town, Destroyed By Gun-fire, Will be Everlasting Memento,” The Washington Post, 3 July 1927, p. 4.

American Battle Monuments Commission. A Guide to the American Battle Fields in Europe. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1927.

American Battle Monuments Commission. American Armies and Battlefields in Europe; A History, Guide, and Reference Book. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1938).

American Institute of Architects, The AIA Historical Directory of American Architects, Paul Phillippe Cret (1876-1945), Gold Medal File, available online at: http://public.aia.org/sites/hdoaa/wiki/AIA%20scans/C-E/CretPaul_AIA%20Gold%20Medal.pdf, accessed 1 September 2016.

Bacon, Henry, “Six Good Memorials,” The American Magazine of Art, Vol 10, No. 7 (May 1919): 260-261.

Bruce, Morris M. and G.W. Cable, “War Memorials,” The American Magazine of Art, Vol. 10, No. 8 (June 1919): 286-289.

Brunner, Arnold W. “The Permanent Memorial,” The American Magazine of Art, Vol. 10, No. 7 (May 1919): 248-250.

CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 55)

Bryan, Brittany Paige. “Reassessing Stripped Classicism within the Narrative of International Modernism in the 1920s and 1930s,” Master’s Thesis, Savannah College of Art and Design, June 2011.

Budreau, Lisa M. Bodies of War: World War I and the Politics of Commemoration in America, 1919-1933. New York: New York University Press, 2010.

Corbett, Harvey Wiley. “The Value of Memorial Architecture,” Architectural Forum, Vol. XLV, No. 6 (December 1926): 321.

Cortissoz, Royal. “American War Memorials Abroad and Their Demonstration of Our Architectural Genius,” New York Herald, 8 November 1927.

Cret, Paul P. “American Battle Monuments, France and Belgium,” Architectural Forum, Vol. 56 (May 1932): 473-76.

______. “Memorials—Columns, Shafts, Cenotaphs and Tablets,” The Architecture Forum, Vol. XLV, No. 6 (December 1926): 331-347.

______. “Ten Years of Modernism,” The Architectural Forum, Vol. (August 1933): 91-94.

Dinsmoor, William Bell. The Architecture of Ancient Greece; an Account of its Historic Development. New York: Biblo and Tannen, 1973.

Farnham, Jonathan E. “Staging the Tragedy of Time, Paul Cret and the Delaware River Bridge,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, vol. 57, No. 3 (Sept., 1998): 258-279.

Fawcett, James Waldo. “Folger Library Called Gem of Architecture,” The Washington Post, Magazine Section, 23 April 1932, p. MS 1.

Fleisher, Wilfrid. “Our War Shafts Will Number 21; Sixteen Monuments in Europe Will Commemorate American Solider, Five Are to Record the Navy’s Work,” New York Times, 13 June 1926, p. XX10.

Forgey, Benjamin. “The Building Blocks of Washington,” The Washington Post, 18 March 1994, p. 6.

Frankenthal, L.J. “Memorials To Our Heroic Dean In France and Disintegrating,” The Washington Post, 7 June 1925, Magazine Section, p. SM 1-2.

Gillis, John R. ed., Commemorations: The Politics of National Identity. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1994.

CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 56)

Goldberger, Paul. “A Blend of Architectural Grace and Eccentricity; An Appraisal,” New York Times, 5 February 1983, p. 1.

Goldhagen, Sarah Williams. “Something to Talk About: Modernism, Discourse, Style,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 64, No. 2 (June 2005): 144-167.

Gray, Morris. “War Memorials: Utility of Spirituality? The American Magazine of Art, Vol. 10, No. 11 (September 1919): 410-412.

Grossman, Elizabeth G. “Architecture for a Public Client: The Monuments and Chapels of the American Battle Monuments Commission,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 43, No. 2 (May 1984): 119-143.

______. The Civic Architecture of Paul Cret. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Historic American Buildings Survey. “Liberty Memorial,” Kansas City, Missouri, HABS No. MO-1936. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 2000 (historical report by Cydney E. Millstein). Available at the Library of Congress.

______. “Pershing Park,” Washington, D.C., HABS No. DC-695. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., 1992.

______. “World War I Monument,” Providence, Rhode Island, HABS No. RI-387, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1987.

Johnson, David A. and Nicole F. Gilbertson. “Commemorations of Imperial Sacrifice at Home and Abroad: British Memorials of the Great War. The History Teacher, Vol. 43, No. 4 (August 2010): 563-584.

Kammen, Michael. Mystic Chords of Memory; The Transformation of Tradition in American Culture. New York: Vintage Books, 1991.

Philip Kennicott, “House of Americas’ Remains an Elegant and Confident Washington Power Player,” The Washington Post, 2 May 2010, p. E6.

MacMonies, Frederick W., Paul W. Bartlett and Hermon A. MacNeil, “Typical Memorials,” The American Magazine of Art, Vol. 10, No. 7 (May 1919): 252-257.

“Memorial Marks Chateau-Thierry; Monument to American War Victims Dedicated by Gen. Harbord at Ceremonies; Rights of Weak Stressed; General Pershing Pays Tribute to Conduct of Soldiers in Their First Great Test,” New York Times, 8 October 1937, p. 7.

CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 57)

“Memorials,” Editorial. The Wisconsin Magazine of History, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Mar. 1919): 343-345.

“Monuments To The Deeds Of The A.E.F.; Chapels and Battle Memorials Will Soon Mark the Sport Were the Americas Fought,” New York Times, Sunday Magazine, 17 July 1927, SM 14-15.

Moore, Charles. “Memorials of the Great War,” The American Magazine of Art, Vol. 10, No. 7 (May 1919): 233-247.

“Monuments To The Deeds Of The A.E.F.; Chapels and Battle Memorials Will Soon Mark the Sport Were the Americas Fought,” New York Times, Sunday Magazine, 17 July 1927, SM 14-15.

“Pershing Arranges for War Memorials; General Announces Plans for Nine American Monuments on Battlefields Abroad,” New York Times, 26 June 1927, p.16.

Pershing, John J. “Our National War Memorials in Europe,” The National Geographic Magazine, Vol. LXV, No. 1 (January 1934): 1-36.

Piehler, G. Kurt. Remembering War the American Way. Washington, D.C: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1995.

______. “The War Dead and the Gold Star: American Commemoration of the First World War” Chapter IX, in John R. Gillis, ed., Commemorations: The Politics of National Identity. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1994; 168-185.

Pound, Charles. “American Memorials and Cemeteries in France Finally completed,” New York Times, 6 November 1938.

Price, Clare. “Our Army That Rests In France; The Story of the A.E.F. Is Written in Stone on the Monuments That Dominate The Cemeteries and the Fields on Which Men Fought and Guns Thundered, New York Times, Magazine Section, 12 November 1933, p. SM12.

Rainey, Ada, Art Critic, The Washington Post. “Library Declared True Work of Art; Critic Finds Folger Temple to Shakespeare Appropriate in All Ways,” The Washington Post, Magazine Section, 23 April 1932, p. MS 1-2.

Robin, Rob. Enclaves of American Political Architecture Abroad, 1900-65. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1992.

Root, Elihu. “The Memorial Spirit and the Future of America,” The American Magazine of Art, Vol. 10, No. 7 (May 1919): 407-409.

Saint-Gaudens, Homer. “Essentials in Memorial Art,” The American Magazine of Art, Vol. 10, No. 7 (May 1919): 258-260. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 58)

Sherman, Daniel J. Chapter X, “Art, Commerce, and the Production of Memory in France After World War I,” in John R. Gillis, ed., Commemorations: The Politics of National Identity. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1994; 186-214.

Skidelsky, Sibilla. “Tendency to Plagiarizing Seen as Habit in Capital; Shakespearean Folger Library Applauded as Most Interesting Public Building in City and Welcome Relief from General Lack of Creative Art,” The Washington Post, 12 July 1936, p.AA5.

Swales, Francis S. “Craftsmanship and Architecture as Exemplified by the Work of Paul P. Cret,” Pencil Points, Vo. IX, No. 11 (November 1928): 689-704.

Swartwout, Egerton. “Memorial Buildings,” Architectural Forum, Vol. XLV, No. 6 (December 1926): 325-330.

The Federal Architect, “Paul P. Cret,” [Memorial Issue to Paul P. Cret], Vol. 14, No. 2, 1946.

“U.S. Will Dedicate 13 War Memorials; Pershing to Finish His Biggest Peace Time Job in October at Chateau Thierry; Ceremonies in August; Principle One Next Month Will Be That of Monument at Montfaucon,” New York Times, 4 July 1937, p.A6.

“War Memorials,” The American Magazine of Art, Vol. 10, No. 5 (March, 1919):

White, Theo B., editor, Paul Philippe Cret; Architect and Teacher. Philadelphia: The Art Alliance Press, 1973.

PART IV. PROJECT INFORMATION

The documentation of Chateau-Thierry Monument was undertaken in 2016 by the Historic American Landscapes Survey (HALS) and the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) of the Heritage Documentation Programs division of the National Park Service, Richard O’Connor, Chief. The project was sponsored by the American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC), Honorable Max Cleland, Secretary. Project planning was coordinated by Paul Dolinsky, Chief, HALS. Catherine C. Lavoie, Chief, HABS undertook the fieldwork during the spring of 2016 and wrote the report during the summer 2016. The large-format photography was undertaken by Brian Grogan, working under contract for HALS. On-site assistance was provided by Shane Williams, Superintendent, Aisne-Marne American Cemetery. Thanks also to Alec Bennett, Historian ABMC, and to Shane Williams and Deputy Superintendent Constant Lebastard for their thoughtful review and comments. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 59)

Figure 1: Organization of American States building (1917), designed by Paul P. Cret Source: Photograph by author, 3 July 2016.

Figure 2: National Memorial Arch, Valley Forge, PA. (1916), northeast elevation; designed by Paul P. Cret Source: Historic American Buildings Survey, HABS No. PA-6185-5, photogrammetric image, J. Raul Vazquez, photographer, May 1995). CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 60)

Figure 3: Folger Shakespeare Library (1929), Paul P. Cret, architect Source: Photograph by author, 2016.

Figure 4: Scheme A, Elevation of (proposed) Chateau-Thierry Memorial, Paul P. Cret, architect, 1926 Source: ID# aaup.062.272, Architectural Archives, University of Pennsylvania. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 61)

Figure 5: Paul P. Cret, Scheme A, Perspective view of (proposed) Chateau-Thierry Memorial, 1926 Source: ID# aaup.062.270, Architectural Archives, University of Pennsylvania.

Figure 6: Detail of the primary East and West Facades from: Monument de Chateau-Thierry, Facades et Coupes, Paul P. Cret, architect, 19 August 1927 Source: Image 117-330/21/27-28, Cartographic and Architectural Branch, NARA II, College Park, MD.

CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 62)

Figure 7: Plan of Basement, detail from: Monument de Chateau-Thierry, Plan Du Monument Fondations, Soffite, Toit Plans Sous La Tarrasse, Paul P. Cret, architect, 19 August 1927 Source: Image 117-330/21/27-28, Cartographic and Architectural Branch, NARA II, College Park, MD.

Figure 8: Map of the Aisne-Marne Region Source: American Battle Monuments Commission, American Armies and Battlefields in Europe, inset between pages 102 & 103). CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 63)

Figure 9: Portico Scheme, Elevations of (proposed) Chateau-Thierry Memorial, Paul P. Cret, architect, 1926 Source: ID# aaup.062.270, Architectural Archives, University of Pennsylvania.

Figure 10: Portico Scheme, Elevations of (proposed) Chateau-Thierry Memorial, Paul P. Cret, architect, 1926 Source: ID# aaup.062.270, Architectural Archives, University of Pennsylvania. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 64)

Figure 11: Site plan for alternative Scheme for Portico monument Source: ID# 27-PS-158-002, Architectural Archives, University of Pennsylvania

Figure 12: Scheme C, Elevations of (proposed) Chateau-Thierry Memorial, Paul P. Cret, architect, 1926 Source: ID# aaup.062.270, Architectural Archives, University of Pennsylvania.

CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 65)

Figure 13: Alternative schemes, working toward the final design Source: Paul Cret Collection, ABMC, Chateau-Thierry, 158C, Architectural Archives, University of Pennsylvania

Figure 14: Scheme C sketch, Elevations of (proposed) Chateau-Thierry Memorial, Paul P. Cret, architect, 1926 Source: ID# aaup.062.270, Architectural Archives, University of Pennsylvania.

CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 66)

Figure 15: Paul P. Cret, Scheme Perspectives of (proposed) Chateau-Thierry Memorial, 1926 Source: Paul Cret Collection, ID# aaup.062.270, Architectural Archives, University of Pennsylvania

Figure 16: Elevation, Architect’s rendering of the proposed Chateau-Thierry Monument, Paul P. Cret, date unknown, ca. 1927 Source: Local ID #: CRE158C.500, Athenaeum of Philadelphia. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 67)

Figure 17: Monument de Chateau-Thierry; Coupes et Elevations, Details, Paul P. Cret, architect, 19 August 1927 Source: Image 117-330/21/27-28, Cartographic and Architectural Branch, NARA II, College Park, MD.

Figure 18: Monument de Chateau-Thierry, Plan de Monument, Fondations, Soffite, Toit, Pans Sous La Terrasse, Coupes, Paul P. Cret, architect, 19 August 1927 Source: Image 117-330/21/27-28, Cartographic and Architectural Branch, NARA II, College Park, MD. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 68)

Figure 19: Monument de Chateau-Thierry, Details, Elevation, Plans, Coupe, Paul P. Cret, architect, 19 August 1927 Source: Image 117-330/21/27-28, Cartographic and Architectural Branch, NARA II, College Park, MD.

Figure 20: Photograph of perspective view of the east façade of the scale model of Chateau-Thierry Monument, presented September 2, 1927 Source: World War I Memorials, Entry 7, Box 13, RG 117, NARA II, College Park, MD. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 69)

Figure 21: Photograph of the west façade of scale model of the monument Source: World War I Memorials, Entry 7, Box 13, RG 117, NARA II, College Park, MD.

Figure 22: View of excavations, just underway, 31 August 1928 Source: Image No. 2, Aisne-Marne American Cemetery Archives. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 70)

Figure 23: View of rebar for the reinforced concrete, and rubble stone foundations, 22 October 1928 Source: Image No. 5, Aisne-Marne American Cemetery Archives.

Figure 24: Photograph of model of the sculptural figures of Columbia (United States) and Marianne (France), representing liberty and freedom, showing Marianne holding the sword Source: World War I Memorials, Entry 7, Box 13, RG 117, NARA II, College Park, MD. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 71)

Figure 25: The foundation is in place and is being sheathed in stone, 5 April 1929 Source: Image No. 10, Aisne-Marne American Cemetery Archives.

Figure 26: A crane was set up for lifting stones and other heavy materials, 15 June 1929 Source: Image No. 24, Aisne-Marne American Cemetery Archives. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 72)

Figure 27: The crane runs along a track for ease of mobility, 28 August 1929 Source: Image No. 27, Aisne-Marne American Cemetery Archives.

Figure 28: The foundation is ready to receive the columns, 2 May 1929

Source: Image No. 14, Aisne-Marne American Cemetery Archives.

F

CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 73)

FigFF FF

Figure 29: The columns begin to form, 15 June 1929 Source: Image No. 20, Aisne-Marne American Cemetery Archives.

Figure 30: The columns begin to form, 15 June 1929 Source: Image No. 23, Aisne-Marne American Cemetery Archives. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 74)

Figure 31: The columns are all in place and work is underway on the entablature and roof, 28 September 1929 Source: Image No. 34, Aisne-Marne American Cemetery Archives.

Figure 32: Work is finishing on the entablature and the scaffolding is beginning to come down, 21 December 1929 Source: Image No. 46, Aisne-Marne American Cemetery Archives. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 75)

Figure 33: The scaffolding has been removed, although work is still to be done on the sculptural features. Work progresses on the terrace and the staircases, 29 March 1930 Source: Image No. 59, Aisne-Marne American Cemetery Archives.

Figure 34: The sculptors are back at work on the figures of Columbia and Marianne, 30 April 1930 Source: Image No. 65, Aisne-Marne American Cemetery Archives. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 76)

Figure 35: Work is also underway on the sculptural figure of the American eagle on the east façade, 30 April 1930 Source: Image No. 66, Aisne-Marne American Cemetery Archives.

Figure 36: For all intents and purposes, the monument is complete, 1 September 1930 Source: Image No. 76, Aisne-Marne American Cemetery Archives. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 77)

Figure 37: The entrance pylons and the access road were both completed in January1931, photograph, 1932 Source: Image 117-MC-16-5, Still Pictures Branch NARA II, College Park, MD.

Figure 38: The west facade of the completed monument with plantings, 1932 Source: Image 117-MC-16-8-0001, Still Pictures Branch, NARA, College Park, MD. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 78)

Figure 39: West façade to show the sculptural figures of Columbia (United States) and Marianne (France), 1932 Source: Image 117-MC-16-9, Still Pictures Branch, NARA II, College Park, MD.

Figure 40: East façade of completed monument, 1932 Source: Image 117-MC-16-13, Still Pictures Branch, NARA II, College Park, MD. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 79)

Figure 41: Completed monument looking south-southeast to show surrounding hardscape, 1934 Source: Image 117-MC-16-19, Still Pictures Branch, NARA II, College Park, MD.

Figure 42: Completed monument looking north-northwest to show terrace, 1934 Source: Image 117-MC-16-24, Still Pictures Branch, NARA II, College Park, MD. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 80)

Figure 43: Aerial view of the west façade of the monument, 1933 Source: Image 117-MC-16-32, Still Pictures Branch, NARA II, College Park, MD.

Figure 44: Aerial view of the east façade of the monument, 1932 Source: Image 117-MC-16-30, Still Pictures Branch, NARA II, College Park, MD. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 81)

Figure 45: Aerial view of west façade with the town of Chateau-Thierry in the background, 1933 Source: Image 117-MC-16-29, Still Pictures Branch, NARA II, College Park, MD.

Figure 46: World War II French graves from the German occupation of the monument, enclosed in letter from Major Holle to General Pershing, 24 August 1940 Source: World War I Memorials, Entry 7, Box 13, RG 117, NARA II, College Park, MD. CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 82)

Figure 47: World War II German grave from the occupation of the monument, enclosed in letter from Major Holle to General Pershing, 24 August 1940 Source: World War I Memorials, Entry 7, Box 13, RG 117, NARA II, College Park, MD.

Figure 48: Plan General du Monument, Paul Cret, 1927 Source: Image 117-330/21/27-28, Cartographic and Architectural Branch, NARA II, College Park, MD

CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 83)

Figures 49: Paul Cret, sketches of entry gates or pylons, Chateau Thierry Monument Source: Paul Cret, 158C, Chateau-Thierry, Architectural Archives, University of Pennsylvania

Figures 50: Paul Cret, sketches of entry gates or pylons, Chateau Thierry Monument Source: Paul Cret, 158C, Chateau-Thierry, Architectural Archives, University of Pennsylvania CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 84)

Figures 51: Paul Cret, sketches of entry gates or pylons, Chateau Thierry Monument Source: Paul Cret, 158C, Chateau-Thierry, Architectural Archives, University of Pennsylvania CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 85)

Appendix A:

ACQUISITION OF SITES FOR AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS

Agreement signed at Washington August 29, 1927 Entered into force August 29, 1927 Replaced by agreement of October 1, 1947 (1TIAS 1720, post, p. 1215)

Treaty Series 757 This agreement made on August 29, 1927, by and between the Government of the United States of America, represented by John J. Pershing, General of the Armies, Chairman of the American Battle Monuments Commission, party of the first part, and the Government of the French Republic, represented by Mr. Anne-Marie Louis de Sartiges, that Government's Charge d' Affaires ad interim at Washington, party of the second part, for the acquisition by the Government of the United States of lands intended as sites for monuments which the American Battle Monuments Commission is to erect in France, in accordance with and by the authority of the Act of Congress of the United States approved March 4, 1923 42 Stat. 1509) entitled "An Act for the Creation of an American Battle Monuments Commission to Erect Suitable Memorials Commemorating the Services of the American Soldiers in Europe, and for Other Purposes", witnesses that:

Article I The French Government will acquire the real estate of which the American Battle Monuments Commission whose office is at Paris, rue Molitor, 20, will have become proprietor by virtue of the authority for this purpose which it has received from the United States Government, in view of the erection of the American commemorative monuments above mentioned. This acquisition by the French Government from the said Commission will be accomplished for the sole price of one franc for the totality of the real estate necessary for each monument.

Article II When the land necessary for the erection of the American memorials in question has not been acquired by the American Battle Monuments Commission and if the United States Government expresses the wish, the French Government will proceed to acquire the said land if necessary and if such acquisition is possible; it being understood that in the case where certain organizations such as Communes or Departments do not consent to the transfer of their land, all necessary steps will be diligently pursued by the French Government in order to obtain the concession of the lots necessary to the end in view.

CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 86)

MILITARY CEMETERIES—AUGUST 29, 1927

Article III Before the French Government will undertake any procedure of acquisition or of concession of land necessary to the erection of any of the memorials in question, the authorization to erect such monument must have been given by decree in each separate case, in conformity with the procedure laid down by the Decree of November 18, 1922, and upon a request which will have been previously made by the Government of the United States.

Article IV The negotiations provided for in Article 2, which are to be undertaken by the French Government with the owners or tenants of the lands above mentioned for the normal transfer of the said land will be pursued by a representative of the French Government (Ministry of War— appropriate Engineer District) accompanied by a representative of the Government of the United States. The normal agreements signed by the owners or tenants and bearing the written approval of the representative of the United States Government will plainly state that the formalities of acquisition and of payments will be undertaken by the French Government.

Article V The French Government will grant without cost and in perpetuity to the Government of the United States the use and free disposal of the lands intended for the erection of the said monuments whether they belong at the present moment to the French Government or whether they have been acquired in conformity with the provisions of Articles 1 and 2 above mentioned. The land of which the French Government is able to obtain only a concession for a limited period will be conceded by it for the same period to the Government of the United States, but in this case, the representative appointed by the latter Government must have given his approval before the French Government definitely acquires the concession. These measures, however, can never entail the prohibition of any under takings of public works for which the public necessity will have been declared and of which the site might concern directly or not the land transferred. In this case a representative of the Government of the United States will be called upon to cooperate with the French Government in order to determine the best measures to be taken so far as the monuments are concerned.

FRANCE

Article VI In the case where the Government of the United States might later decide either not to carry out a project for the erection of a monument or to remove a monument once erected, such land as has been acquired for this purpose under the present agreement and which would then be released will be sold by the French Government and the net proceeds of such land will be paid by the French Government to that of the United States.

CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 87)

MILITARY CEMETERIES—AUGUST 29, 1927

Article VII The land acquired in conformity with the provisions of this agreement will be exempted from all rates and taxes in conformity with Articles 105 and 106 of the Law of 3 Frimaire An VII and with the Decree of August 11, 1808. By application of the provisions of Article 1 2 of the Finance Law of June 30, 1923, exemption will be granted from all taxes for stamps, registration, or mortgages, etc., for the various documents established and conveyances accomplished by the French Government having in view the acquisition or the concession of land necessary for the erection of the memorials in question.

Article VIII The French Government will settle all difficulties which may arise with adjoining owners or tenants; it will institute and pursue any suit or sustain any defense concerning the land acquired which may thereafter appear necessary. The cost resulting therefrom being repaid to it by the Government of the United States. It is agreed, however, that payment of damages caused by the personnel appointed by the Government of the United States for the maintenance and guarding of the American memorials or by the material belonging to it will be undertaken by the representative appointed by that Government.

Article IX The Government of the United States will repay to the French Government the amounts which the latter will have paid, other than those provided for in paragraph 2 of Article 1, both for actual acquisitions or concessions (indemnities to owners or tenants of the land occupied) and for all other expenses occasioned by the said acquisitions or concessions.

Article X In no case will the debts of the Government of the United States towards the French Government on account of the purchase of land necessary for the American memorials be susceptible of cancellation against any debt whatever of the French Government towards the Government of the United States.

Article XI Repayments to the French Government will be effected as soon as possible by checks, and will provide for a receipt in the following form: "The French Government acknowledges to have received from the Government of the United States the sum of ...... for the purchase of the lands described hereafter, necessary for the erection of the American commemorative monument at ...... purchase accomplished in accordance with the agreement dated ...... of which a copy is attached hereto. "Description of the property: CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 88)

MILITARY CEMETERIES—AUGUST 29, 1927

Article XII Payments for acquisitions made under the provisions of Article 1 above mentioned will be made by checks. They will provide for receipts in the following form: "The Government of the United States acknowledges that the American Battle Monuments Commission has received from the French Government the sum of one franc for the purchase of land described hereafter, necessary for the erection of the American commemorative at ...... this acquisition accomplished in accordance with the agreement dated ...... of which a copy is attached hereto. "Description of the property: In witness whereof, the date, month and year, above mentioned, this agreement has been signed in four copies, each copy having the same value and effect as an original, by the Government of the United States represented by John J. Pershing, General of the Armies, Chairman of the American Battle Monuments Commission, and by the French Government represented by Mr. Anne-Marie Louis de Sartiges, that Government's Charge d'Affaires ad interim at Washington.

John J. Pershing Sartiges

CHATEAU-THIERRY MONUMENT (Aisne-Marne Memorial) HABS No. US-4 (page 89)