Ernest Coe and the Fight for Everglades National Park Chris Wilhelm

Home , Everglades National Park, Harriet Bedell, North Florida, Old Rhodes Key, Pork Chop Gang, Robert Sterling Yard

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2010 Prophet of the Glades: Ernest Coe and the Fight for Everglades National Park Chris Wilhelm

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

PROPHET OF THE GLADES: ERNEST COE AND THE FIGHT FOR EVERGLADES

NATIONAL PARK

CHRIS WILHELM

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of History in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded: Summer Semester, 2010 The members of the committee approve the dissertation of Chris Wilhelm defended on March 24, 2010.

______Fritz Davis Professor Directing Dissertation

______Anthony Stallins University Representative

______Ron Doel Committee Member

______Jennifer Koslow Committee Member

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My family, especially my parents Margann and Jim Wilhelm, deserve enormous thanks. I can only imagine what went through their minds when their oldest son told them he was going to study history for a living. Despite this impractical decision, they have been extremely supportive, both emotionally and at times, financially. Aimee Griffith was present in my life for most of my graduate school career. She was frequently the emotional crutch I leaned upon when I studied for my comprehensive exams and when I faced the daunting task of writing the first words of this dissertation. Beth Woodward helped me in the final months of this project, often reading and critiquing the manuscript and offering encouragement. Although she was unable to oversee this dissertation, I owe Elna Green an enormous debt of gratitude. For five years Elna was my advisor at FSU, and my development as an historian, thinker, and writer bears her indelible mark. She was always available when I needed assistance, but was never overbearing or too involved in my own work. Elna gave me the exact amount of guidance and independence that I needed from an advisor. Fritz Davis graciously stepped in to guide this dissertation to its conclusion shortly after I began writing. He was enthusiastic about my topic, supportive of my ideas, and gave me much needed criticism at key points throughout this process. Ron Doel also read some early versions of this manuscript and served on the dissertation committee. Tony Stallins and Jen Koslow also served on this committee and their criticisms of this manuscript benefited me immensely. I would also like to thank Jack Davis, who lent me research materials and discussed the Everglades with me over a lunch break while I was conducted research at University of Florida. Angie Martinez, Scott Shubitz, and Angie Tomlison proofread early chapters and Cindy Ermus and Abe 'Froman' Gibson patiently listened to me babble away about the Everglades on more than one occasion. I would also like to thank some individuals at various archives and libraries who enabled the research that went into this dissertation possible. Nancy Korber at the Fairchild Tropical Garden Archives; Caroline Harzewski, and Koichi Tasa at University of Miami's Richter Library; David T. Jones at The Kampong; Bonnie Grysko, Dawn Hugh, and Nancy Russell at the South iii

Florida Collection Management Center at Everglades National Park; Marian, Boyd, Josh Youngblood, and Holly at the Florida State Archives; James Cusick and Flo Turcotte at P.K. Younge Library at University of Florida; and Reggie at Strozier Library at FSU. I also received two generous research grants without which this study could not have been completed. The Cecilia L. Johnson Grant for Visiting Graduate Scholars allowed me conduct extensive research at P.K. Younge Library at the University of Florida, and the Franklin and Elanor Roosevelt Institute provided me with funds to conduct research at the Roosevelt Library in Hyde Park, New York. Much of this dissertation was written at two local Tallahassee establishments: All Saints Cafe and Fermentation Lounge. I would like to thank my All Saints family members; Isaiah Ley, Aaron Ley, Alisha Feldman, Meghan Scherwitzki, Adam Bunn, Philip Bufkin, James Tompkins, Lauren Harris, Kyle Woodward, Ouikut Dion, Arnold Francisco, Chelsea Fox, Samson Roeber, Daniel Kavanagh, Mike Rosen, Rachel Kaufman, and Dave, and the bartenders at Fermentation Lounge; Rachel Davenport, Tyler Owen, Trevor Bond, Forest Lee, and Melissa Franklin. Some very old and very good friends also deserve mention here. Marton Cavani and Alison Garcia-Monde gave me a couch to sleep on while in Washington D.C. Another very old friend, Fabian Khan, who works in Everglades National Park, was enthusiastically supportive of my work, and not only showed me around the Daniel Beard Center, where I conducted historical research, but also humored my ramblings about my own research and patiently answered my own questions about his work and the state of the park today. Thanks are due to Jack Tyndall, the manuscript clearance advisor at FSU. Jack's professionalism, courteousness and positivity made dealing with the bureaucratic aspects of this dissertation a pleasure rather than a chore. Chris Pignatelli and Anne Kosar in the FSU history department also made the university's bureaucracy navigable to this student, whose head was usually somewhere in the Everglades.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iii TABLE OF FIGURES ...... v ABSTRACT ...... vi INTRODUCTION ...... 1 LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 10 1. THE IDENTITY OF THE EVERGLADES ...... 25 2. ERNEST COE AND THE EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK ASSOCIATION ...... 83 3. TOURISM IN THE EVERGLADES...... 102 4. PARK POLITICS ...... 127 5. DEVELOPMENT AND WILDERNESS IN EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK ...... 157 6. THE EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK COMMISSION ...... 192 7. BOUNDARIES AND CONTROVERSY ...... 212 CONCLUSION ...... 245 APPENDIX: IMAGES ...... 254 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 261 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 273

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Ernest Coe's map of development in Everglades National Park ...... 217

Figure 2 Map Key for Figure 1...... 218

Figure 3 Daniel Beard...... 219

Figure 4 National Park Service officials on their 1930 trip into the Everglades...... 220

Figure 5 Dade County Izaak Walton League's Map...... 221

Figure 6 Ernest Coe on Cape Sable………………………………………...... ….222

Figure 7 Ernest Coe...... 223

ABSTRACT

This dissertation examines the creation of Everglades National Park and specifically focuses on the actions of Ernest Coe, the primary historical actor in this narrative. It places this fight in its larger historical context and examines the relationship between the fight for the park and the emergence of modern environmentalism. This park was the first established for ecological reasons and was the first that explicitly protected an area as a wilderness. Both ecology and a concern for wilderness were major elements of modern environmentalism. This study also focuses on how park advocates perceived nature in general and the Everglades specifically and on how these perceptions of nature affected the social and political aspects of the park’s creation.

vii

INTRODUCTION

Geological features were central to the identity of America's first national parks. Parks like Yellowstone, Yosemite, and the Grand Canyon were created to preserve features like mountaintops, canyons, and valleys. These stunning geological monuments were tourist attractions, and contributed to the creation of America's cultural identity. These parks were created to preserve scenery for the benefit of humans, and were not part of an impulse to preserve ecosystems, wildlife, or flora. These parks influenced and reflected American perceptions of nature. The nature in these parks was seen by Americans as embodying the highest and purest qualities of the natural world and was mostly composed of forests and mountains. Everglades National Park is entirely different from these first parks. Its creation heralded changes within the national park system, and broader changes relating how Americans perceived and interacted with the natural world. Its creation challenged ideas about the identity of national parks, and more broadly, the identity of nature in America. The Everglades is a subtropical wetland, not a temperate forest or mountain landscape. There are no dramatic geological features or culturally significant monuments in the Everglades. This park is less a tourist attraction than any other park of similar size, and more of a wilderness than any park not in Alaska. Most importantly, this park was the first ecological park. It was not created not preserve geology, but to preserve an ecosystem and the biota of that ecosystem. This dissertation examines the creation of Everglades National Park. The fight for the park lasted from 1928 to 1947, but this study focuses on the actions of Ernest Coe, who from 1928 to 1937 was the central figure in creation of the park. This study is concerned with how perceptions and understandings of the natural world influenced the political and social aspects of the park's creation. It explores the politics of the park as broadly construed, and focuses on placing the fight for the ENP within its historical context. Politics in the 1930s, the rising importance of ecological science, the burgeoning wilderness movement, and changing perceptions of wetlands were contemporary developments that all influenced the park's creation. The park's creation also contributed to some of these developments. Everglades advocates an

ecological rationale for preservation and argued that the Everglades' biota had an inherent value and should be preserved for its own sake. These advocates also advanced an ecological rationale for wilderness that was radically different than that of contemporary wilderness advocates. This study focuses on the 1930s, a decade that is central to the emergence of environmentalism in the United States. During this decade ecology and other sciences altered the way Americans saw nature and in turn conservationists reconsidered their methods and underlying assumptions. Understanding these developments in the 1930s is central to understanding how American conservationists moved from Progressive Era conservation to the post-war modern environmental movement. Progressive Era conservationists were largely concerned with issues related to resource exploitation and the preservation of scenically and culturally significant landscapes, like the first national parks. By contrast, modern environmentalism is concerned with much broader issues relating to the quality of life and the health of ecosystems. Ecology and other sciences underpin much of this modern understanding of the environment. These two movements are also characterized by different methods of political activism. Progressive Era conservationists were typically elite white men who benefited from relatively easy access to political power. Environmentalists in the modern era, however, face a much more torturous route to meeting their goals. Environmentalists rely heavily on grass-roots activism and form broad coalitions of diverse groups to create change. The fight for Everglades National Park foreshadowed modern environmentalism and illustrates how the concept of biological rights underpinned this new environmental movement. This fight was also a transitional campaign characterized by the traits of both modern environmentalism and Progressive conservation. The fight for Everglades National Park is central to the environmentalism in the 1930s. This decade represents an environmental moment when many of the underlying ideas and concerns of environmentalists first emerged, only to fade away during the liberal consensus of the 1940s and '50s. The expanding role of science in American politics and society is central to many aspects of this narrative. In the 1930s, ecology as a scientific disciple was still in its infancy, yet this new science was already impacting the way Americans saw nature. Park advocates used ecological arguments to make their case for the park and ecology provided the

underlying rationale for the park. The insights of ecology and the belief that nature had value outside of the human world challenged Progressive Era views of nature as resources. Ecological perspective also caused Americans to reconsider the worth of wetlands. A major hurdle to the park's creation were the prevailing negative perceptions of wetland environments. Challenging these perceptions was one of the primary tasks park advocates faced. Opponents of the park argued that the Everglades was a worthless landscape, that it was infested with snakes and mosquitoes, and that it had none of the scenic value found in other national parks and hence no value as a park. Park advocates pointed to the biological value of wetlands as one way of overturning these negative perceptions. They utilized ecological arguments to advance a new identity for the Everglades, an identity based on the biological and botanical diversity of the area. These competing perceptions of the Everglades, one positive and based on scientific perspectives, the other negative and based on old perceptions of wetlands, is central to the park's creation. The idea of wilderness was also entwined in the fight for Everglades National Park. Wilderness advocates founded the Wilderness Society in 1935 and challenged the way the park service and forest service managed public lands. They fought against the construction of roads and other facilities on these lands and argued that areas free from any human artifice needed to be preserved in a wilderness state. These ideas about wilderness impacted the fight for Everglades National Park and in turn park advocates offered a new rationale for wilderness. While wilderness advocates were concerned with the quality of tourism in these natural areas and discussed wilderness in terms of its value as a consumer commodity, Everglades advocates had a very non-human rationale for wilderness. These activists wanted the Everglades preserved as a wilderness to better protect the Everglades' flora and fauna. This wilderness would not exist as a place for humans to escape society, but rather as a place that would offer the complete protection of an ecosystem's biota. These ideas and concerns also manifested themselves within the National Park Service. In fact, the fight for Everglades National Park was at the forefront of these trends within the park service. During the 1930s the NPS reconsidered its methods of park management. Influenced by wilderness advocates and biologists they reconsidered their emphasis on catering to tourism

and moved towards a ecological system of park management that focused on the needs of the parks' biota. The park service also discussed the preservation of wilderness in existing parks and made wilderness a bigger priority in the establishment of new parks, like the ENP.

The central figure in the fight for Everglades National Park was a New England landscape architect named Ernest Coe. Coe was born in New Haven, Connecticut in 1867 and did not move to Florida until 1925 in a failed attempt to take financial advantage of the Florida land boom. When the boom went bust in 1926 Coe was ruined, but soon found a new calling in life and began his tireless work to make Everglades National Park a reality. Coe had a bristly personality. He was frequently abrasive towards his allies and insulting and derogatory to his enemies. He lacked tact and was bad at dealing with other people. Many of the controversies concerning the park were directly caused by Coe's own actions. By 1937, when the fight for the park entered a dormant period, Coe had alienated and angered allies and enemies alike. Landowners and Florida politicians wanted nothing to do with Coe, and even the National Park Service had begun to see Coe as a nuisance. Yet Coe is directly responsible for all the park's progress between 1928 and 1937. When the park was established in 1947 Coe was called the 'papa' of the park, and everyone recognized that Coe, more than any other individual, was the person most responsible for the park's creation. He had a limitless passion for the Everglades' nature and worked relentlessly to convince anyone who would listen that the area needed to protected as a national park. He lobbied politicians and worked with National Park Service officials, but Coe was primarily a promoter for Everglades National Park. His zealous love for the Everglades and the almost evangelical methods he used to promote the park illustrate why Marjory Stoneman Douglas, the Everglades’ most famous advocate and the author of The Everglades: River of Grass, called Coe a prophet. Although by 1937 the prospects for the park's creation were dim, Coe had an enormous amount of success before that date. He traveled to Washington D.C. in 1928 to discuss the park with the national park service and with them, formulated a plan for the park's creation. He lobbied state lawmakers and worked to pass several pieces of park-related legislation. Coe also successfully convinced the federal government to formally authorize Everglades National Park in

1934. Most importantly Coe laid the ideological foundation for the park's creation and convinced important groups and individuals that the park needed to be created. Even though the park had failed by 1937, landowners, conservationists, politicians, and businessmen in Florida all believed that the park should be established and by 1937 little actual opposition to the park existed. To establish the park, Coe knew that he had to first overturn older, negative perceptions of the Everglades. To do this he utilized ecological arguments about the worth of the Everglades' biota. Coe connected the identity of the Everglades to its flora and fauna, and argued that the area had biological and botanical value. He discussed the diversity of the Everglades, and its uniqueness, as well as the tropical character of much of its biota. Coe's main argument for the park's creation was that the park would protect this biota. However, when speaking to local audiences, especially those composed of businessmen and landowners, he emphasized the economic benefits the park's creation would bring to Florida. Coe used tourism to bolster support for the park amongst Florida's politicians and business community. Although the fight for Everglades National Park pointed forward to modern environmentalism, it was still rooted in the values of Progressive conservation. Coe was a man of the Progressive Era, yet embraced a scientific perspective of the Everglades, advanced a non-human rationale for wilderness, and spoke convincingly about the right of nature to exist regardless of any human-centered arguments about resources or aesthetics. He had an intimate knowledge of the Everglades' nature and was heavily influenced by two generations of scientific experts who studied the Everglades. These scientific perspectives were supplemented by Coe's frequent trips into the Everglades where Coe gained first-hand knowledge about the area's flora and fauna. Coe had a sophisticated understanding of the Everglades' nature, yet at the same time, his understanding of ecology was rudimentary. Coe was vocal about the need to preserve most of the park as a roadless wilderness, yet also used tourism to promote the park. Although Everglades National Park was the first ecological park, Coe himself was a transitional figure who was rooted in the values of the Progressive Era, yet embraced a new scientific rationale for preservation rooted in the values of ecology.

Chapter One of this dissertation focuses on Coe's attempts to present the Everglades as a biologically diverse ecosystem. In order to convince people that the Everglades should be made a national park, he first needed to convince them that the Everglades was not a dangerous and diseased swamp. Coe used scientific perspectives of the area's flora and fauna to argue for the positive worth of the Everglades. He directly connected the identity of the Everglades to its biology and botany. This chapter also discusses Coe's broader views of nature and argues that Coe's perceptions of the Everglades and his use of science indicate an ecological perception of nature. Chapter Two discusses Coe himself, his activities, and his organization, the Everglades National Park Association (ENPA). This organization was a platform that enabled Coe to promote Everglades National Park through letter writing campaigns, lecture tours, and the use of various media. Coe tried to influence popular opinion about the Everglades and the ENP, but focused primarily on the citizens of Miami and important Floridian businessmen, boosters, politicians, conservationists and Everglades landowners, as well as politicians and conservationists outside of Florida. Coe's democratic strategy had much in common with the strategies of later modern environmentalists who also tried to change influence public opinion. Coe's status as a modern environmentalist is challenged in Chapter Three. Reminiscent of Progressive Era conservationists, Coe touted the economic benefits that the park's establishment would bring Florida. He wrote that millions of tourists would visit the park a year, enriching Florida. He also argued that the Everglades would inspire tourists to reconsider their perceptions of nature and their relationships with the world around them. Coe's use of tourism created a great deal of controversy among wilderness advocates. These debates, as well as George Wright's Fauna of the National Parks, the first study of wildlife in the national parks, influenced Coe's ideas about tourism and wilderness in Everglades National Park. Coe argued that tourism in the Everglades would only exist in specific areas and that the vast majority of the park would not be developed for tourists. The aquatic nature of the park would also limit tourism. Most tourists would stick to the few roads and trails and although boat travel would likely be popular in the park, most of the park would be completely inaccessible. Chapter Four discusses the state and federal legislation needed for the park's creation and

various trips into the Everglades by National Park Service (NPS) officials, conservationists, and important legislators. The most important of these was a trip by NPS officials in 1930 to determine if the Everglades measured up to national park standards. Scientists played an important role on this expedition and the NPS used scientific criteria to determine the area's worth. This chapter also discusses the political debates surrounding the federal authorization of the park. Republicans in the House of Representatives, motivated by partisan politics, a conservative political ideology with regards to federal spending, and older perceptions of wetlands, successfully delayed the park's authorization from 1931 until 1934. In 1934 when the park was authorized, an amendment was attached to the bill mandating that the park remain a wilderness, marking the first time the federal government explicitly endorsed the idea of wilderness in federal lands. This amendment and the idea of wilderness in the Everglades is discussed in more detail in Chapter Five. Coe and the NPS supported keeping this new park mostly wilderness. However, the rationale for this wilderness was radically different than that of contemporary wilderness activists. These activists were concerned about the quality of tourism and wanted wilderness to provide humans with a place to escape civilization. Coe and the NPS, however, wanted the Everglades protected as a wilderness to better protect the area's biota. This ecological concept of wilderness is different than the human-centered concept of wilderness supported by the Wilderness Society. Although he supported wilderness in the park, Coe also promoted development in the park to accommodate tourism. His ideas about wilderness and preservation were conflicted, reflecting the transitional nature of Coe's status as a environmentalist. Chapter Six discusses the creation of the Everglades National Park Commission and the New Deal's role in the fight for the park. David Sholtz, the Governor of Florida from 1934 to 1937, and a founding member of the Everglades National Park Association, appointed the ENPC in 1935. This commission was led by Ernest Coe, and was composed of other members of the ENPA, the representatives of large land-owning interests in the park area, Florida businessmen, and members of women's clubs who had long been active in fighting for the Everglades. Although the New Deal played no direct role in the park's creation, both Coe and Everglades land owners looked to the federal government for aid and assistance. Coe requested and received

Federal Emergency Relief Agency and Works Progress Administration funding for a project that tried to determine land ownership in the park area. Many landowners supported the park because they saw it as a New Deal-style relief program that would enable them to trade their worthless Everglades real estate, most of which was purchased at high prices during the Florida land boom of the 1920s, for much needed cash during the Great Depression. Chapter Seven discusses the debates over the park's boundaries within the ENPC and the temporary end of the fight for the park in 1937. Between 1935 and 1937 the Commission mostly fought amongst itself over the park's boundaries. The representatives of Everglades landowners wanted to exclude a few small areas with potential economic value from the park. However, Coe clung to the largest boundaries possible and refused to compromise at all concerning this matter. As a result he angered these landowners and alienated many of his other allies. His failure as chairman of the ENPC also contributed to the decision by the newly-elected Governor of Florida, Fred Cone, to end the ENPC's activities in 1937. Cone was also motivated by a desire to balance the state's budget, and saw spending money on a national park during a period of economic depression as wasteful spending. Between 1937 and 1944, the prospects for Everglades National Park's creation lay dormant until they were resurrected by outgoing Governor Spessard Holland and Miami Herald editor John Pennekamp. In 1947 the park became a reality after more than 20 years of devoted action from a variety of passionate individuals. After 1937 Coe became a counterproductive nuisance in the fight for the park, and the locus of activity shifted from Coe's ENPA to the offices of the Miami Herald, the National Park Service, and the Governor's mansion in Tallahassee, where Governor Holland and his successor Millard Caldwell both fought for the park's creation. Between 1947 and 1958, the NPS and Spessard Holland, now a U.S. Senator, worked to expand the park's boundaries until they largely encompassed what they are today. The creation of Everglades National Park shows how science altered American attitudes towards nature in the 1930s. The creation of the park also illustrates the transitional nature of environmental activism in this decade and shows that ecology played a central role in creating these transitions. Ecological insights challenged Progressive Era views of nature as resources and provided new rationales for preservation that did not focus on the aesthetic or spiritual value

of nature. The fight for the park was at the forefront of the idea that nature had an inherent worth and needed to be preserved for its own sake. This park also heralded changes within the National Park Service. This park was the first ecological park and the strategies used to create and manage the park reflect the service’s new concern with wilderness, wildlife, ecology, and science.

LITERATURE REVIEW

This study seeks to contribute to the historical literature concerning environmental politics, perceptions of wetlands, and the history of the Everglades. The 1930s is a pivotal decade with regards to all these topics. The fight for the park occurred during the 1930s, and marks an important transition in the history of the Everglades. During this decade, environmental politics and perceptions of wetlands were also in transition. Due in part to the growing importance of ecology, modern environmentalism slowly emerged during this decade and Americans began to reconsider the value and identity of wetlands. Samuel Hays in Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency argues that the conservation movement was concerned with the efficient use of resources. Previous to this book, published in 1959, many historians had assumed that the conservation movement was a grass-roots movement of people who fought against the exploitation of nature. Hays shows that there was little democratic about conservation. Rather conservationists were experts, technocrats, and elites. They did not fight against the use of nature, but rather wanted to use and exploit nature more efficiently.1 John Reiger also discusses the roots and impulses of the first American conservationists in American Sportsmen and the Origins of Conservation. He argues that the origins of the conservation movement can be found by examining sportsmen concerned with vanishing game. These elite hunters advocated for hunting regulations, the protection of natural areas, and a sportsmen's code, all designed to preserve game species and increase their numbers. This ironic impetus for the conservation of natural areas has much in common with conservationists concerned with the efficient use of resources. Both groups were concerned about the overuse of natural resources and advocated that these resources be used more efficiently. Both hunters and technocrats were largely elite white men and neither group was motivated by democratic desires or ecological perspectives of nature.2 Reiger and Hays are concerned with the utilitarian wing of the conservation movement,

1 Samuel Hays, Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959. 2 John Reiger, American Sportsmen and the Origins of Conservation, New York: Winchester Press, 1975. 10

but this movement had another wing that was concerned with the preservation of areas with superb aesthetic and spiritual value. These preservationists wanted specific areas set aside and preserved as untouched paragons of the natural world. Historians have generally seen John Muir as representing this movement, in the same way they see Gifford Pinchot as representative of utilitarian conservationists. Several biographies of these two men have been written, including Micheal Cohen's The Pathless Way: John Muir and American Wilderness, Char Miller's Gifford Pinchot and the Making of Modern Environmentalism and Donald Worster's A Passion for Nature: the Life of John Muir.3 Muir and Pinchot were once close friends, but eventually parted ways over plans to dam the Hetch Hetchy valley to generate electricity. This valley was in Yosemite National Park and Muir thought that this temple of nature should remain untouched by humans. Muir thought the valley had inspirational, spiritual, and aesthetic value, but Pinchot thought the valley's natural resources could be used more efficiently for the benefit of humans. A dam would create electricity for San Fransisco and could supply water to the city and surrounding agricultural areas. The controversy over the Hetch Hetchy dam is a major event in the history of American conservation and many historians see it as representative of the dualities in this movement. This controversy exposed the fundamental disagreements between utilitarian conservationists and aesthetic preservationists. Robert Righter in The Battle over Hetch Hetchy, challenges this traditional narrative about the dam. He sees it less as a controversy between use and preservation and more as a controversy between different types of use. Righter points out that preservationists have in some ways been misunderstood by historians. These preservationists did see these natural areas as having a use, specifically they wanted to use these areas to cater to tourism. Hetch Hetchy was part of a national park and these activists argued that the valley had the power to inspire and awe tourists. Its value as a monument, they argued, was higher than its value as part of San Francisco's public utilities. Righter shows that both utilitarian conservationists and preservationists both saw nature through the lens of human use. The non-human value of nature

3 Michal Cohen, The Pathless Way: John Muir and American Wilderness, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1984; Char Miller, Gifford Pinchot and the Making of Modern Environmentalism, Washington: Island Press, 2001; Donald Worster, A Passion for Nature: The Life of John Muir, Oxford University Press, 2008. 11

was not yet considered by either of these groups of activists, both of whom saw nature in terms of its value to humans.4 Conservationists were thus concerned with either the efficient use of resources, or with preserving natural areas for their inspirational and spiritual value. Modern environmentalism, by contrast, is seen by historians as more concerned with ecosystems, pollution, and issues related to the quality of life, and is seen as more democratic in nature than its Progressive Era predecessor. Samuel Hays examines modern environmentalism in Beauty, Health and Permanence: Environmental Politics in the United States, 1955-1985. He argues that environmentalism emerged out of a concern for issues related to the quality of life. Americans, experiencing rising standards of living after World War II, became concerned about pollution, the aesthetics of the world around them, the health of their families and communities, and the stability of their lifestyles. Hays sees environmentalism as a consumerist impulse. This movement is not driven by the concerns of experts, but rather by the concerns that everyday citizens have about their everyday experiences. Other historians and scholars have identified and defined environmentalism in different ways. Robert Gottlieb, in Forcing the Spring, argues that urban grass-roots reformers concerned with pollution were the central environmentalist actors in the U.S. These environmentalists were not concerned about rural nature or wilderness, nor were they middle-class Americans who had experienced rising standards of living. They were more typically women, minorities, and working-class and utilized small grass-roots organizations to advocate for change. Mark Harvey examines another dam controversy that historians have compared to Hetch Hetchy. While Hetch Hetchy is used to show the dual nature of the conservation movement, Righter uses the controversy over the proposed dam in Dinosaur National Monument to examine modern environmentalism. In A Symbol of Wilderness Harvey shows how a broad and diverse coalition of preservationists successfully fought against this dam. These preservationists argued that the canyon had value as a wilderness and that it was an important site for recreation. They also showed that the construction of this dam would harm the ecology of the valley. These

4 Robert Righter, The Battle of Hetch Hetchy: America's Most Controversial Dam and the Birth of Modern Environmentalism, New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. 12

preservationists were allied with scientists and used scientific data to argue against the dam's creation. Although scientists were important to this fight, a large number of small organizations and grass-roots groups also fought against the dam. The dam opponents also used sophisticated publicity techniques to sway public opinion, such as films and organized trips into the canyon. The fight to preserve Dinosaur National Monument was thus more democratic, more scientific, and more concerned with ecology and wilderness than the fight for Hetch Hetchy.5 Most historians agree that science has played a large role in shaping the concerns of modern environmentalism. Ecology specifically provided the movement with an underlying perspective of how the natural world operates, and how humans are part of nature and relate to the natural world. Most historians would also agree that the modern environmental movement is more democratic than its Progressive Era predecessor, and more concerned with broader issues like pollution and climate change. Environmentalism also sees specific landscapes in different ways. Rather than seeing natural areas as natural resources or scenery, environmentalists see these areas as ecosystems composed of plants and animals that are dependent on a diverse array of environmental factors. The preservation of wilderness is also a major concern of environmentalists seeking to preserve the Earth's pristine areas. Historians have recently begun to study the period between these two movements, specifically the period between the 1920s and 1950s. Paul Sutter's Driven Wild discusses the creation of the Wilderness Society in 1935, an organization that would later be central to environmentalism. Sutter argues that four important conservationists, Benton McKaye, Aldo Leopold, Bob Marshall, and Robert Sterling Yard all came to embrace the idea of wilderness after witnessing the damage that automobiles and roads had caused to natural areas. They saw automobile tourism as a infiltration of society into natural areas. They wanted natural areas that were completely free of any human artifice so that nature enthusiasts could escape society and experience a purer quality of tourism. These advocates were concerned with the quality of tourism in natural areas and saw wilderness as a commodity that was rapidly disappearing. The preservation of wilderness became an important element of modern environmentalism as

5 Mark Harvey, A Symbol of Wilderness: Echo Park and the American Conservation Movement, Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1994. 13

environmentalists fought to preserve wilderness and push for federal legislation that would zone and protect wilderness throughout the country.6 Neil Maher also examines the 1930s in Nature's New Deal, an analysis of the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). Maher argues that the actions of the CCC, and the debates their actions provoked, facilitated the rise of modern environmentalism. One of the major actions of the CCC was the building of recreational facilities in natural areas. Wilderness activists like Bob Marshall and others criticized the CCC for these actions, arguing that the Corps were destroying the wilderness values of natural areas. These criticisms created a nation-wide debate within the conservation movement about the actions of the CCC and the proper place of wilderness and recreation in natural areas. Other CCC actions, like reforestation and the stocking of streams and lakes with fish, also provoked criticisms that the Corps were upsetting the ecological balance of natural areas. These criticisms provoked a debate about the role of ecology in the planning and maintenance of natural areas, bringing the concerns of this new science into the broader public sphere. The CCC also introduced the ideas and practices of conservation to millions of Americans who worked in these CCC camps, thus democratizing this movement. While conservationists debated aesthetic preservation, tourism and the efficient use of resources, in the 1930s ideas like ecology and wilderness entered the debate, pushing conservationists toward a more modern, comprehensive, and scientific view of the American environment.7 National parks in America are an integral part of this larger story about environmental politics and American perceptions of nature. This political narrative about conservation and the emergence of environmentalism manifests itself in the history of national parks. National parks also play a role in the social construction of nature in American and in shaping American ideas about the identity of nature. Parks created before and during the Progressive Era reflect the values of aesthetic preservation and were managed for the benefit of tourism, while parks like Everglades National Park, created in the 1930s and later, were more reflective of the values of modern environmentalism and were scientifically managed.

6 Paul Sutter, Driven Wild: How the Fight against Automobiles Launched the Modern Wilderness Movement, University of Washington Press, 2002. 7 Neil Maher, Nature's New Deal: The Civilian Conservation Corp and the Roots of the American Environmental Movement, Oxford University Press, 2008. 14

Alfred Runte examines the idea of national parks, and the origins of the first parks in National Parks: The American Experience. Runte argues that national parks were not created out of a desire to preserve nature, but rather to facilitate the creation of American's cultural identity. Parks acted as monuments that Americans could use to create a shared culture and identity. Because of this, early parks were always composed of geological wonders, like the Yosemite Valley, the Grand Tetons, and the Grand Canyon. Runte also argues that national park were always composed of lands that had no economic use, and that these parks existed primarily as tourist attractions. He also shows how parks were connected to Progressive Era aesthetic preservationists. This movement was concerned with the preservation of scenery and geological monuments, both of which had the power to inspire Americans with both a love of nature and a connection to the larger American community. Runte argues that Everglades National Park was the first park to break with these trends. It had no value as a monument, but rather was the first national park created to preserve the biological contents of an ecosystem.8 Richard Sellars discusses the management of national parks, finding that in the period discussed by Runte, parks were managed as tourist attractions. Parks were managed to provide for human needs and desires, and the needs of wildlife and flora were ignored. Sellars finds that in the 1930s, however, the park service slowly and partially implemented scientific strategies for park management. The park service, influenced by wildlife biologists within the service and wilderness advocates outside the service, began studies of park wildlife and tailored their management strategies to protect or restore wildlife and flora. However, after World War II the park service reoriented itself back towards tourism and these scientific management strategies were largely abandoned. In the 1940s, '50s and early '60s the park service built roads, trails, lodges and other facilities to meet the recreational needs of Americans weary of war and eager to engage in consumer activities. As modern environmentalism became a force in American society in 1960s and '70s, the park service turned back towards the scientific management of parks. Sellars concludes that these two systems of park management, one aimed at pleasing tourists and one aimed at protecting ecosystems, remain in constant tension within the NPS today.9

8 Alfred Runte, National Parks: The American Experience, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1979. 9 Richard Sellars, Preserving Nature in the National Parks: A History, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997. 15

This broader narrative concerning the increasing importance of science in American society is not only present within the historiography of environmental politics and national parks, it also manifests itself within the historiography of wetlands in America. Ann Vilesis in Discovering the Unknown Landscape examines American perceptions of wetlands and argues that previous to the twentieth century, American's viewed wetlands in a negative light. Swamps were placed to be avoided or later, drained and destroyed. However this view slowly gave way to a more ecological perception of wetlands during the 1930s. During this period attempts were made to preserve and protect wetlands like the Everglades. However, this positive view of wetlands faded during the next two decades. The 1930s were a moment where ecological attitudes about wetlands briefly surfaced before fully developing in the 1960s and '70s. Modern environmentalism followed a similar pattern in the U.S. Both these developments can be partially explained by the rise of ecological science in the 1930s and its popularization in the 1960s. True to the contested status of environmentalism, Vilesis also shows how the wetlands are both protected and threatened since the 1970s.10 Joseph V. Siry, in Marshes of the Ocean Shore also explores conceptions of wetlands, although he focuses specifically on coastal estuaries. Siry's analysis of American perceptions of wetlands largely concurs with Vileisis' views, although because he focuses exclusively on marine estuaries he is able to address in more detail the status of these landscapes. Siry finds that ecological science played a central role in both creating perceptions of wetlands and in efforts to protect these areas. Ecology illustrated the importance of these landscapes and showed their economic value. The popularization of these ecological ideas, thanks in part to Rachel Carson, broadened the support for the preservation of wetlands. Siry also argues that scientists have played a large role in the political processes that resulted in the actual protection of these important coastal wetlands.11 This narrative about science, environmental politics, and changing perceptions of nature in American also manifests itself in the history of the Everglades. Because Americans saw the

10 Ann Vileisis, Discovering the Unknown Landscape: A History of American Wetlands, Washington D.C.: Island Press, 1979. 11 Joseph V. Siry, Marshes of the Ocean Shore: Development of an Ecological Ethic, College State: Texas A&M Press, 1984. 16

Everglades as a worthless and dangerous swamps, they tried to drain it during the Progressive Era. Conservationists supported these efforts. They saw the Everglades as useless, and thought this land could be used more efficiently if it were drained and converted to productive farmland. Everglades drainage was a progressive attempt to more efficiently use natural resources. Although many historians have focused on Everglades drainage, they have ignored or not paid enough attention to the creation of Everglades National Park. During the 1930s Ernest Coe and others employed ecological arguments to push for the creation of the park. Coe's campaign foreshadowed modern environmentalism, both in its tactics and in its justification for preservation and emphasis on biota and wilderness. However, during the 1940s and '50s humans again tried to alter and control the Everglades. Flood control efforts aimed at a comprehensive system of water control were undertaken by the Army Corp of Engineers. They constructed a new dike around Lake Okeechobee and a new system of canals, levees, and locks to control this water for the benefit of agriculture and the rapidly expanding urban areas in South Florida. However, by the 1970s, environmentalists became more vocal about the preservation and restoration of the Everglades. They successfully fought against a jetport in the Everglades and have been at the forefront of efforts to restore and protect the Everglades. David McCally's The Everglades: An Environmental History explains how the Everglades was created, describes the various ecosystems and processes at work in the area, and shows how humans have altered the Everglades through both drainage and flood control efforts. McCally opens this book with an examination of the geological factors that created the Everglades. Next he describes the Everglades' diverse variety of ecosystems. McCally is critical of the way Marjory Stoneman Douglas' description of the Everglades as a 'river of grass' has been used to represent the entire area. He argues that calling the Everglades a river of grass obscures the diversity of the Everglades, reducing these multitudinous landscapes to simply flowing water and sawgrass. He describes the importance of water in the Everglades, but also shows that fire and the Everglades' bedrock are important factors in maintaining and shaping the Everglades. McCally provides a detailed explanation of the various drainage schemes during the Progressive Era, all of which failed to meet their objective, discusses scientific studies of the Everglades, including Garald Parker's studies of saltwater intrusion, drainage, and water flow in

the Everglades, and discusses the post-World War II flood control efforts that gave rise to agriculture south of Lake Okeechobee.12 Micheal Grunwald, in The Swamp also describes the historic ecosystems of the Everglades and examines how humans have destroyed, protected, and attempted to restore those ecosystems. Grunwald's book is directed at a popular audience and covers much of the same ground as does McCally, however Grunwald discusses restoration efforts in the Everglades since the 1980s in detail. Grunwald briefly discusses the creation of the park, however, the full story of this important movement remains untold.13 Jack Davis examines the Everglades through the life of the area's most effective advocate, Marjory Stoneman Douglas, whose book Everglades: River of Grass popularized an ecological view of the Everglades and discussed the history of Native Americans and settlement in the Glades. An Everglades Providence is both a biography of Douglas and a history of the Everglades. Davis shows how humans have destroyed, protected and attempted to restore the Everglades. Douglas lived from 1890 to 1998 and was present for all these developments in the Everglades. Davis charts Douglas's life and the history of the Everglades side by side. He shows how Douglas's perceptions of the Everglades and the larger environment changed along with the different ways humans have perceived, exploited, and protected the Everglades. Douglas was a conservationists during the Progressive Era and supported the drainage of the Everglades along with other progressive causes like woman's suffrage. She supported the park's creation in the 1930s, although she only played a minor role in the fight for the park, and supported flood control efforts in the early 1940s. Douglas' book, published in 1947, was at the cutting edge of scientific perceptions of the Everglades and displays a sophisticated understanding of the area's ecosystems, biota, and most importantly, the Everglades' need for water. During the 1970s Douglas worked with environmentalists to fight against a proposed jetport in the Everglades and fought for the water rights of the Everglades. Later in her life Douglas spoke convincingly for the restoration of the Everglades.14

12 David McCally, The Everglades: An Environmental History, The University Press of Florida, 1999. 13 Micheal Grunwald, The Swamp, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006 14 Jack Davis, An Everglades Providence: Marjory Stoneman Douglas and the American Environmental Century, Athens and London: The University of Georgia Press, 2009 18

Although Davis' Everglades Providence and Grunwald's The Swamp discuss the creation of the park, the topic has not been addressed at length. The fight for the park has been obscured by Everglades drainage and the restoration efforts of the late twentieth century, and Ernest Coe, the central figure in the fight for the park has largely been overshadowed by Marjory Stoneman Douglas. This study offers a new element to the story of the Everglades, focusing on the creation of the ENP and the actions of Coe. This study also focuses on the Everglades during the 1930s, a crucial period in the history of the Everglades that has also largely been ignored. During this period environmentalism briefly reared its head in Florida as Everglades activists argued that the Everglades was a wetland with biological importance that needed to be protected. Although these environmental impulses were largely forgotten in Florida until the 1970s, as flood control projects that further sought human control over the Everglades' water flourished in the 1950s, this important environmental moment deserves further historical attention. This study also seeks to contribute to our understanding of modern environmentalism and how it slowly emerged from Progressive Era conservation.

1. THE IDENTITY OF THE EVERGLADES

“Off and on for those four hundred years the region now called 'The Everglades' was described as a series of vast, miasmic swamps, poisonous lagoons, huge dismal marshes without outlet, a rotting shallow, inland sea, or labyrinths of dark trees hung and looped about with snakes and dripping mosses, malignant with tropical fevers and malarias, evil to the white man.”15 - Marjory Stoneman Douglas

Introduction

If Marjory Stoneman Douglas was right about how Americans saw the Everglades before the second half of the twentieth century, then Ernest Coe and his allies on the Everglades National Park Association (ENPA) faced an arduous task. Coe needed to convince conservationists, legislators, National Park Service (NPS) officials and other important groups and individuals that the Everglades was not a series of “miasmic swamps” or poinsonous lagoons,” but was instead a valuable environment that needed to be protected as a national park. Coe had to first displace these older, negative perceptions of the Everglades with a more positive and scientifically-based identity of the area's nature to build support for the park's creation. Most of Coe's actions revolved around promoting not only the park, but also this new positive identity for the Everglades, one that was based on scientific studies of the area. Through his publicity work Ernest Coe crafted a version of the Everglades that was designed to both dispel these older myths about the Everglades, and convince Americans that the Everglades needed to be preserved as a national park. Coe presented the Everglades as a unique, diverse, strange, and tropical area. Although he emphasized the multiplicity of landscapes that existed in the Everglades, such as sawgrass prairies, hardwood hammocks, mangrove forests, and coastal areas, he focused most of his discussions on the lower Glades, specifically the area around Cape Sable and the Ten Thousand Islands. Coe presented these marine estuaries as aquatic habitats where water and land expressed itself in a variety of scenic landscapes. He was frequently lyrical in his praise of the mazy and meandering streams, rivers, lagoons, islands, and lakes found in the southern Glades. These landscapes were also habitats, and to Coe, the biota of

15 Marjory Stoneman Douglas, The Everglades, 6. 20

the Everglades was central to its identity. His main argument for the park's establishment was that it would preserve the unique biology and botany of the Everglades. This uniqueness was not just due to the existence of endemic species in the Everglades, but also because of the unique mix of tropical and temperate lifeforms. This biota needed protection from human exploitation, protection the park would provide. According to Coe, the park would protect these species and would preserve a representative portion of the Everglades as a habitat for these species. Coe was thus proposing a new type of national park, a park dedicated not to the preservation of some mountain top or valley, but of an area's biology. Historians have argued that the first national parks were established in order to provide America with a sense of cultural and national identity. The U.S., as a relatively new country primarily composed of immigrants, struggled to create a sense of culture and national cohesion. Without a long tradition of art, music, or literature, parks were seen as monuments that could create cultural symbols of national identity. The ENP, however, was an entirely new park. This park was the first modern park, established not to foster the creation of American identity, but to preserve the biological contents of a group of connected ecosystems. This park, although not explicitly a symbol of American identity does however serve as an indicator of America's changing perceptions of the environment and of the rising importance of science in American life. Coe's emphasis on the Everglades' biota and his modern rationale for the ENP connects him to modern environmentalists. His perception of Everglades' landscapes as habitats, and his insistence that these life forms needed protection from exploitation suggests a ecological rationale for national parks. To Coe, science was a tool to understand the Everglades and a resource that guided his activism. Most of Coe's thinking about the Everglades was directly influenced by scientists who were experts on the Everglades, like John Kunkell Small, Harold H. Bailey, Charles Torrey Simpson and David Fairchild. Among these, Fairchild had the largest impact on Coe's thinking and imparted to Coe the importance of the tropical nature of the Everglades. These botanists and biologists also communicated to Coe the importance of preserving this unique habitat and the life it sustained. They also guided Coe's actions and acted as political allies in Coe's fight for the park. This reliance on scientific authority is typical of modern environmentalism. Coe also explored the Everglades himself, and supplemented his

scientific knowledge with first-hand experiences in the area. Because of the promotional nature of so much of Coe's writings, it is often difficult to determine Coe's broader views of nature, and the extent to which Coe possessed an ecological understanding of the biological processes in the Everglades. He frequently used ecological terminology in his discussions of the park, argued that the park would restore nature's balance to the area. To Coe, predators, fire, and hurricanes in the Everglades were part of that natural balance. He saw fire and hurricanes, not as disasters, but as natural forces that altered and maintained the Everglades' landscapes. Coe was also critical of drainage efforts in the upper Glades, but did not recognize that drainage in these areas was limiting the flow of water south to the lower Glades. However, this is consistent with the contemporary scientific understanding of the Everglades in the 1930s. At this time scientists had not yet begun to study the hydrological system of the Everglades, hence Coe thought that rainfall determined water levels in the Everglades and did not think that drainage and agriculture north of the park would affect water levels in the park. Coe's relentless promotion of the park was successful in changing perceptions of the Everglades amongst politicians, conservationists, NPS officials, women's groups in Florida and other interested parties. These groups accepted Coe's version of the Everglades and his insistence that the area be preserved as a national park to protect the area's biota. Despite this, Coe's perception of the Everglades a series of aquatic habitats was quickly overshadowed by Marjory Stoneman Douglas's more eloquent and succinct 'river of grass.'

The Identity of the Everglades According to Ernest Coe

Ernest Coe, as director of the Everglades National Park Association, worked tirelessly throughout the 1930s to promote both the prospects of the Everglades National Park and his own version of the Everglades. These two things were related, because in order to establish the park, Coe needed to convince Americans that the Everglades was more than just a snake and disease infested wasteland. By offering a new version of the Everglades to the public, one influenced by scientific perceptions of the area, Coe hoped to show them it was worth protecting.

Coe emphasized the uniqueness of the Everglades repeatedly throughout the 20-year fight for the park. This uniqueness was due to the flora and fauna of the Everglades, the very things the park was going to protect. After a trip to Washington D.C. in 1928, Coe wrote to supporters and friends about the wonders of the Everglades. The area was the nation's “only section . . . where the sightseer and tourist can find as many forms of stately palms, tropical orchids hanging from strange trees and see other truly tropical jungle growth.” The Everglades was “so distinctive in its unique physical interests,” that it was imperative that be preserved as a national park. In 1934, to celebrate ENP legislation, Coe wrote a press release stating that “the Everglades National Park will become famous the world over for its unique charms. Its tropical landscape, remarkable display of beautiful birds and other native wild life, its stately palms and other native tropical trees, [and] its delightful climate at all seasons of the year are features different in the other national parks.” Coe argued that the wildlife of the Everglades “is distinct compared with other national parks. Here the palm, mahogany and rubber trees supplant the maple, ash and birch of colder climes.”16 Coe also stressed the tropicalness of the Everglades. Part of the reason the Everglades were so unique was that, according to Coe they were distinctly tropical. Although technically the Everglades were not in the tropics, to Coe, the Everglades evoked a tropical feeling, they possessed a tropical climate, and most significantly, they were full of tropical plants and animals. In fact, the tropicalness of the Everglades was so central to Coe's perception of the area that his initial name for the park was the Tropic Everglades National Park. Likewise, the original name of the ENPA was the Tropical Everglades National Park Association. The word tropic was eliminated from the name of the park early in the 1930s because it was too cumbersome. However, Coe fought for the word to be put back into the park's name. In August of 1934 he wrote to the Director of the NPS begging that they consider this issue. Coe argued that the word tropic was useful in differentiating the ENP from other parks and that the word tropic communicated uniqueness. He argued that the word tropic was as important to the name of the Tropic Everglades National Park “as the word Caverns was to the Carlsbad Caverns National

16 Ernest Coe (EC), October 25, 1928, David Fairchild Papers, (DF Papers) Fairchild Tropical Gardens Archives (FTG Archives); EC Press Release, May, 1934, DF Papers, FTG Archives; EC Press Release, May 1934, DF Papers, FTG Archives. 23

Park; 'Volcanic' to Lassen Volcanic National Park and 'Great Smoky' to Great Smoky National Park.”17 Throughout his correspondence, Coe upheld the tropicalness of the Everglades as one its main assets. In 1929, when the word “tropic” was still attached to the park, he wrote that the Everglades “is America's only tropic area within the bounds of the States. Here wild jungle life, both plant and animal, still abounds undisturbed by the inroads of development.” One of the appeals of the Everglades was due to “the lure of the tropics and is not easily classified but very distinctly felt.” In fact, the word “tropic” is contained on almost every page of Ernest Coe's early correspondence.18 Coe used the word tropic to communicate mystery and strangeness. Although he did not explicitly refer to the Everglades as mysterious or strange, much of his language evoked those moods. Coe frequently called the waterways of the Everglades “labyrinthine,” he described the plant and animal life as consisting of many “fantastic forms,” and referred to the entire area as having the “environs of a wonderland,” and as a “jungleland-fairyland.” Coe, who had worked his entire life as a landscape architect in New England, understood how different this tropical flora was from anything else in the U.S., and knew how tourists from other parts of the country would perceive these tropical growths. Coe's version of the Everglades was scientifically informed, but in his descriptions of the area, he attempted to retain the mystery and wonder that early observers of the Everglades described.19

17 EC to Director, NPS, 1 August 1934, DF Papers, FTG Archive. Although between 1928 and 1930 Coe's organization was called the Tropic Everglades National Association, throughout this work I refer to it as the Everglades National Park Association. Sometimes this organization is merely called the Association, or is abbreviated as the ENPA. Likewise, the name of the park during this period was the Tropic Everglades National Park. The word 'tropic' was deemed unnecessary, cumbersome, and technically inaccurate, and was dropped. However, Coe periodically referred to his organization with the modifier 'tropic' after 1931. Other park advocates and NPS employees had dropped the modifer tropic earlier or had never used it. In order to avoid confusion, I have referred to this organization as the ENPA throughout this manuscript. There also was, beginning in 1935, an Everglades National Park Commission. Likewise I refer to this organization as the Commission or as the ENPC. 18 ENPA bulletin, EC, 10 April 1929, Governor Carlton Papers, Florida State Archives (FSA); EC, “America's Only Tropics,” University of Miami (UM) Presidential Archives, Richter Library Special Collections, University of Miami. 19 EC Action Plan, 6 December 1928, DF Papers, FTG Archives; EC, general letter, 5 June 1928, DF Papers, FTG Archives; EC to David Fairchild, 13 August 1929, DF Papers, FTG Archives; EC General letter, 5 June 1928, DF Papers, FTG Archives. Other historians have discussed the multiple meanings and connotations of the word tropic. For this see Jack Davis, An Everglades Providence, 333-4; Nancy Leys Stepan, Picturing Tropical 24

Another feature that made the Everglades so unique and alluring was the diversity of landscapes found in the area. Because there were no mountains or valleys in the Everglades, Coe emphasized other types of landscapes to make up for this lack of geological drama. Instead of focusing on the land in the Everglades, which had no real geological significance, he emphasized the aquatic nature of the area. For example, in his press release announcing the passage of the 1934 ENP Park bill, Coe conceded that the Everglades “is generally level; no part of it being more than six feet above mean tide,” but quickly pivoted to discussing other types of wetland landscapes in more appealing terms. The Everglades had no geological wonders, so Coe instead emphasized its “many miles of lovely beaches,” and its “thousands of wooded islands and other thousands of lakes, bays and interlocking waterways.” In other letters he described the Everglades as possessing, “long reaches of tropic beaches and richly colored seas, verdure clad tropic islands, clear lakes and open glades.” Although mountain climbers would find no joy in the Everglades, the park would be “a paradise for pleasure boating amid tropical scenes unfamiliar to the general public.”20 To Coe, water was the primary fact of the Everglades. Although he never argued the Everglades itself was a river, beaches, lakes, rivers, streams, and coastal areas were what made the Everglades so unique, strange, and beautiful. Coe frequently made reference to the “interlocking” or “labyrinthine” waterways in his descriptions of the Everglades. Features like “azure seas, emerald isles, lakes, rivers, and beaches” were usually the focus on Coe's descriptions of the Everglades. In a letter to John Collier, discussing the Seminoles, he described the Everglades as “a labyrinth of interlocking bays, rivers, lakes and thousands of islands, creating a nature Venice of tropic loveliness.” Coe wrote to Collier that the Seminoles could act as guides along these waterways, and that the most popular tourist attractions would be “a trip of but an hour into this waterway jungleland.”21 To Coe, Cape Sable, a cape on the southwestern edge of Florida, was representative of

Nature, Reaktion Press, 2006. 20 EC Press Release, May 1934, DF Papers, FTG Archives; EC, October 25, 1928, DF Papers, FTG Archives; EC Press Release, May 1934, DF Papers, FTG Archives. 21 EC Action Plan, December 6, 1928, DF Papers, FTG Archives; EC to John Collier, June 11, 1931, DF Papers, FTG Archives. Coe used almost identical language in multiple letter to Collier, including EG to John Collier, April 3, 1934, DF Papers, FTG Archives. 25

the wonders of the Everglades. Cape Sable and the Ten Thousand Islands, where fresh water meandered into the Florida Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, epitomized the relationships between water, land, and life in the Everglades. In fact, early in the park fight, Coe commonly discussed the park as being located in the Cape Sable region of South Florida. In many of his early letters he never even used the word Everglades, but instead referred to “a Tropic National Park in the Cape Sable section of Florida.” Coe described Cape Sable as “composed of a great diversity of physical features, including as it does miles of firm, white sand beaches, hundreds of miles of interlocking waterways, lakes and bays, thousands of islands, open everglades, coastal prairies, and broken gulf coast lines with many outlying islands.”22 Whereas Marjory Stoneman Douglas emphasized the sawgrass prairies of the upper Glades, Coe's perception of the Everglades was based on his knowledge of Cape Sable, the Florida Bay, and the Ten Thousand Islands. Douglas saw the Everglades as a river of grass, a term that has become associated with the entire diversity of the Everglades, but which Douglas intended to only apply to the sawgrass prairies. This idea of the Everglades as a river eloquently communicated the fact that the water flowed south from Lake Okeechobee. This was not a stagnant swamp, but a slowly mass of moving water, and this water was essential to the health of the Everglades. Coe, on the other hand, described the areas where these fresh waters met the salty waters of the ocean. Coe focused on a much different type of aquatic fact, not the flow of water, but the Everglade's marine estuaries, where the Everglades' diverse biota thrived amid the blending of land, salt water and fresh water.23 There was more, however, to the Everglades than just Cape Sable and its marine estuaries. Many types of landscapes were included in the area that was to become the ENP. In a lecture on the Everglades, Coe claimed that “it would be difficult to imagine a land of a more diversified topography.” He again conceded that the Everglades was level, unlike western national parks, but noted that the area “was equally appealing and interesting in its own individual way.” This appeal lay in the fact the area was “composed of a great diversity of physical features, including . . . miles of firm, white sand beaches, hundreds of miles of

22 EC, June 5, 1928, UM Presidential Archives, Richter Library Special Collections, UM; EC, lecture, “America's Only Tropics,” October 28, 1929, UM Presidential Archives, Richter Library Special Collections, UM. 23 Davis, An Everglades Providence, 333-336. 26

interlocking waterways, lakes and bays, thousands of islands, open everglades, coastal prairies, and broken gulf coast lines with many outlying islands.” To Coe, the mangrove forests were “one of the wonders of the world, a forest whose feet are below high tide level and which towers in places a hundred feet into the sky.” These landscapes were different from the mountains of the West, but to Coe they had a unique charm that was not found anywhere else in the United States.24 Coe also embraced the beauty of the sawgrass plains. He called them “the majestic glades, those seemingly limitless level stretches bounded only by the dim distant horizon, affording that same sense of immensity of space and freedom one has in the open ocean or as one views a landscape painting of the modern Dutch school.” He continued this extended metaphor of the glades as an ocean, calling the tree islands and hammocks, “isolated bits of jungle like boats that have drifted away from their moorings.” Although, he never called these glades a river of grass, Coe did describe the glades as “a sea of waving grass, with the here and there hammock islands of tree growth, fairly floating, boat like on the emerald expanses.”25 Central to Coe's perceptions of the Everglades was that these landscapes were habitats for plants and animals. Coe, a former landscape architect, was especially aware of the plant life of the Everglades and its relationship to the land and water. In a 1943 radio address, Coe described the Everglades as “hundreds of miles of tidal water ways connecting many fresh water lakes and salt water gulfs.” To Coe, these expressions of water were central to the Everglades' identity, but also important was the fact that “these water ways penetrate tropical jungles of majestic palms and many other trees of the tropics, festooned with lovely orchids, graceful ferns and rope like hanging vines.” Coe thought it important that “along these water ways and lakes, native wild life abounds on every hand, including a great variety of birds. Among them are fantastic great wading species.”26 To Coe, the flora and fauna of the Everglades was central to it's identity. In Coe's first

24 EC, lecture, “America's Only Tropics,” October 28, 1929, UM Presidential Archives, Richter Library Special Collections, UM; EC Bulletin, May 20, 1933, EC Papers, South Florida Collections Management Center (SFCMC), Everglades National Park (ENP). 25 EC Bulletin, May 20, 1933, EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; WFTL Radio Release, May 18, 1943, Spressard Holland (SH) Papers, Florida State Archives (FSA). 26 WFTL Radio Release, May 18, 1943, SH Papers, FSA. 27

ENPA agenda he wrote that the goal for the Association and its members was to tell “the story of the wonderful things about this Cape Sable region.” These “wonderful things” included “palms, orchids, cacti, strange trees, vines and flowers, and other tropical growths, the many rare and fantastic birds, including the flamingo, scarlet ibis, roseate spoonbill, egret, and a host of others.” Here he also talked about “fish of such a diversity of form and color,” the manatee, “that strange mammal claimed to be a near relative of our very early ancestors,” and alligators, crocodiles and turtles.”27 Coe was particularly enthralled with the Everglades' flora and was sometimes extravagant in his praise of these trees, plants, orchids and ferns. He explained the Everglades were “the borderland where the tropics and temperate climes meet, giving rise to the greatest variety of plant forms. Palms, orchids and mangroves, typical of the southland [sic] are here neighbors with the oak, maple, magnolia and ash.” Elsewhere, in a lecture on the Glades, he talked about the “dense almost impenetrable tropic forest, jungles where many types of orchids, other air plants and ferns festoon the trees.” He continued to describe the area, stating that “here you will find tall Royal Palms, towering well above the jungle roof waving their glossy green fronds triumphantly in the breeze and where many other types of lesser tall-growing palms contribute their part in producing in these jungles their unique tropic lure long to be remembered by the sightseer and worshiped by those who live within their more constant influence.”28 Coe also discussed the fauna of the Everglades, especially the area's birds, which were central to the history of preservation in the Glades. On a trip into the park area with Dr. John C. Gifford, an agricultural expert, the two were able to see many of these species. Coe wrote that while the they traveled “white ibis and wood ibis, egrets and other native birds were occasionally flying overhead; singly, in two's and three's and frequently a whole flock of them at a time.” They also saw “that strange creation of nature, the anhinga or snake bird, which gives the impression of being part reptile as well as bird.” Also present was “the limpkin, a large, snipe-

27 EC, Progressive Sequence of Action to Be Followed in the Program Culminating in the Creation of the Tropic Everglade National Park, together with Comments, December 6, 1928, DF Papers, FTG Archives. 28 EC Bulletin, DS Papers, FSA; EC, lecture, “America's Only Tropics,” UM Presidential Archives, Richter Library Special Collections, UM. 28

like appearing bird,” whose “shrill call . . . is a familiar feature of this region.”29 Birdlife was an important part of the biological significance of the Everglades, but other animals also made this area their home and made it imperative that the Everglades be protected. Living in the ENP were “panther, wild cat, deer, bear, coon, opposum, rabbits, squirrels, wild turkey, and in the waters, alligator, crocodile, manatee, turtles and the greatest abundance of gamy fish in all sizes and degrees.” In another letter, Coe wrote that in the Everglades, “the alligator swims amid the lagoons. Bear, panther, deer, wildcat, possum and wild turkey roam the open places and border lands. . . [and] the shallow lakes and open glades furnish feeding grounds for myriads of wading birds.”30

Influences on Coe's Perceptions of the Everglades

Coe learned about the Everglades from scientists and naturalists, many of whom lived in Miami and intimately knew the area. The most important influence on Coe was David Fairchild, who also served as the first president of the ENPA and was an important political ally and mentor to Ernest Coe. Fairchild was a world-renowned botanist who worked for the U.S. Department of Agriculture and was an expert on tropical flora. Coe and Fairchild talked and wrote about the Everglades in similar ways, although Fairchild's writing was much clearer. Coe's emphasis on the Everglades' tropicalness was inherited from Fairchild's obsession with tropical flora. Fairchild's support for the park legitimized Coe's views of the Everglades and lent them scientific weight. Fairchild served as the president of the ENP from 1929 to 1931, and remained active in park issues until 1933. Although he intended to act only as a figurehead for the ENPA, he made many important contributions to the park's eventual creation. Fairchild delivered several lectures to prominent conservationist organizations and used his contacts with conservationists to publicize the park more broadly. He also wrote articles about the park and worked hard to convince Robert Sterling Yard of the National Park Association that the Everglades was worthy

29 Stuart McIver, Death in the Everglades, Florida: University Presses of Florida, 2003; EC, “Is it a Tragedy?,” July 6, 1931, DF Papers, FTG Archives. 30 EC, lecture, “America's Only Tropics,” October 29, 1929, UM Presidential Archives, Richter Library Special Collections, UM; EC, “Brief History of the Everglades National Park Idea”, February 18, 1931, David Sholtz Papers, FSA. 29

of national park status. Fairchild's article, “The Unique Everglades,” mirrored many of Coe's statements about the nature of the Everglades. This article, written in the early 1930s, was circulated widely by Coe as a ENPA bulletin. Here Fairchild described the sawgrass prairies, hammocks, and the mangrove forests while focusing mostly on the botany of the Everglades. He argued that the Everglades was tropical, and wrote that the plants and animals in the Everglades “are essentially stragglers from the great Caribbean tropical basin.” He also discussed the diversity and uniqueness of the Everglades' flora, writing that in the Everglades there were “more species than any other area of similar size in America.” Many of these species were “found nowhere else in the world, and most of them do not occur anywhere else in the United States.”31 In this article Fairchild described the various landscapes of the Everglades in detail. For example, he wrote that the mangrove forests and their “stilt-like roots,” made “an impenetrable wall of gnarled and interwoven vegetation.” He explained how these landscapes were much more than a collection of aesthetically pleasing trees. They were habitats for different animal species that relied on a complex web of interactions for survival. In the rainy season, the glades filled with fresh water where “an amazing growth of fresh water algae and insectivorous floating waterplants,” lived. Amidst this “mass of vegetation, . . . fresh water animalculae” grew which were “the ideal food of the fishes.” These fishes ate “swarms of larvae” born of the eggs of “myriads of insects.” Also present in this ecosystem, were “snails of various species, particular of the genus Planorbis” which fed on the algae and bacteria of the Glades. In turn, these fish and snails were the primary food source of wading birds, who “soar over this vast watered plain a thousand square miles in extent, and when from the air, they see minnows or snails in abundance, they alight and begin feeding.” Fairchild's description of the food chain illustrated for his readers that the Everglades was not just a flat plain, but a habitat that encompassed a complex web of interaction and dependency.32 Coe and Fairchild were members of the Florida Society of Natural History, a scientific

31 David Fairchild, “The Unique Everglades,” December 20, 1933, Mary McDougal Axelson Papers, Richter Library Special Collections, UM. 32 David Fairchild, “The Unique Everglades,” December 20, 1933, Mary McDougal Axelson Papers, Richter Library Special Collections, UM. 30

organization that discussed the Everglades from a scientific perspective and advocated for the preservation of a part of the Everglades. When Coe moved to Florida in 1925 he knew nothing of the Everglades, but quickly joined the organization and began learning about that environment. Through his association with this society, Coe discussed scientific papers on the Everglades with these scientists and learned about the need to preserve the area. Society members like Harold H. Bailey, who first took Coe into the Everglades, and Charles Torrey Simpson influenced Coe's perceptions of the Glades, both through personal contacts with Coe and through their books on the Everglades33 Harold H. Bailey was an ornithologist who studied the Everglades and the author of The Birds of Florida. In this book he wrote he cataloged over 200 bird species, described their migration patterns, dietary habits, and mating and childrearing practices and wrote about the human actions that were destroying the habitats of these birds. According to Bailey, “the drainage of the state, forest fires and automobiles,” were “the main factors factors in diminishing . . . Florida's wild life.”34 One of the species Bailey discussed was the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow. According to Bailey, “great drainage projects are developing at and around their habitat, which leads me to believe that the few remaining birds will be driven elsewhere, or disappear altogether.” The Florida Turkey was another species threatened by human activity. This bird, “while still an abundant bird in numerous sections of our state,” was threatened because “drainage and fire are fast destroying their natural habitat.” Another species Bailey believed was threatened was the Anhinga, or the snake-bird, which was “truly a tropical bird.” Bailey wrote that “the drainage of many of its best habitat ponds, sloughs, and creeks is driving it farther into the wilds each year, and it is therefore less likely to be seen nowadays than in former years.”35 Charles Torrey Simpson was another member of the Florida Society of Natural History who influenced Coe. Simpson was a botanist and an expert on tropical mollusks who had lived

33 Harold Bailey, “Historian Tells Version of How Park Idea Started,” 30 November 1947, Miami Herald; Marjory Stoneman Douglas, “The Forgotten Father,” Audubon, 1973 (September 1971), 79-96; Charlton Tebeau, Man in the Everglades: 2000 Years of Human History in the Everglades National Park, Coral Gables, University of Miami Press, 1968, 2nd Edition, 174-5; Jack Davis, An Everglades Providence, 328-331, Cesar Becerra, “Birth of Everglades National Park,” South Florida History Magazine 1997-1998 25(3) and 26(1): 10-17. 34 Harold Bailey, The Birds of Florida, Maryland: William and Wilkins, 1925, vii. 35 Bailey, The Birds of Florida, 105, 60, 16. 31

in south Florida for over 20 years before he published In Lower Florida Wilds, a book about Simpson's experiences and thoughts on the Everglades. In this book Simpson described the Everglades in terms that Coe would use a decade later in the fight for the park.36 In Lower Florida Wilds discusses the tropical nature of the Everglades and, as Simpson wrote, tires to explain how this “mixed flora, consisting, for the most part, of the warm temperate and the tropical forms,” came to exist in South Florida. In this book Simpson called the Everglades “labyrinthine,” a word Coe also used to describe the marine estuaires of Cape Sable and the Ten Thousand Islands. Simpson related how a on boating trip fform Flamingo he got lost in a “interminable maze of brackish lakes and passages” at Cape Sable and wondered how anyone could find their way “through this labyrinth.” At Cape Sable there were mangroves whose roots “everywhere descend into the channels so completely obstructing the passage,” “immense orchids . . . a world of air pines. . . gigantic ferns, forming the densest thickets,” and other strange forms of flora.”37 Simpson also spoke about the Everglades as a mysterious, strange, and unique place; Coe echoed these sentiments a decade later. In a chapter on the Ten Thousand Islands, Simpson wrote that “the very name savors of mystery, (and) of the joys of exploration and discovery.” The Ten Thousand Islands was “a region of mystery and loneliness, gloomy, monotonous, weird, and strange, yet possessing a decided fascination.” The pine rockland forests of the Everglades possessed “a similar “indefinable charm and beauty,” to Simpson, who also wrote that they were “dreamy and ethereal.”38 Coe's perception of the Everglades were also influenced by John Kunkel Small, a botanist from the New York Botanical Garden, who was an expert on the Everglades and a yearly visitor oo the region. Small frequently published in Journal of the New York Botanical Garden and in 1929 published From Eden to Sahara, an account of Small's 1922 expedition into the Everglades. Most of this book consists of botanical descriptions of Everglades flora, but Small also reflected on the destructive effects of human activity in the Everglades and urged that the

36 Charles Torrey Simpson, In Lower Florida Wilds: A Naturalist's Observations on the Life, Physical Geography and Geology of the More Tropical Part of the State, New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1920. 37 Simpson, 143, 109-100. Also see Simpson, 74. 38 Simpson, 59, 189. 32

area be protected from exploitation. As he had so many years before, in 1922 Small visited Cape Sable and described the wide variety of landscapes in the area. These ranged from “great prairies west of Flamingo,” “hammocks fringed with the Spanish bayonet, often growing in impenetrable thickets,” “miles of switch-grass placed so thick that for hundreds of yards the ground was not visible,” “a Liliputian forest of several acres in extent, composed of miniature trees of the box-brier,” as well as different varieties of hammocks, and mangrove swamps.39 Small also described the Everglades' nature more generally and urged that it be preserved. He described the Everglades as a “unique El Dorado,” and as a “botanical paradise,” that was, because of human activity, turning into a desert. Small also asserted the tropicalness of the Everglades, writing that it was an area that reached “almost to the Tropic of Cancer, where the floristics of temperate, subtropic and tropic regions not only meet, but mingle.”40 Coe also corresponded with Small and used a 1929 letter to him as an ENPA bulletin. In this letter, Coe praised From Eden to Sahara, and quoted from the book extensively, most likely more for the benefit of later readers than for Small, and connected Small's words to the fight for the park. Coe wrote that From Eden to Sahara had come “from the pen of one so well informed and whose opinion carries such weight” that this book should “awaken every loyal reader to action.”41 Zane Grey, a novelist famous for his westerns, also influenced Coe's perceptions of the Everglades and described Cape Sable in terms Coe would use later in his promotional writing. Grey was an avid fisherman, and wrote six nonfiction books on fishing. One of these was Tales of Southern Rivers, published in 1924, about Grey's fishing trips to three different areas: the Gulf Stream off the Eastern coast of Florida, The Santa Rosa River in Mexico, and Cape Sable. On this fishing trip, Grey traveled through a “labyrinthine web of waterways,” “tortuous lanes,” and “meandering creeks,” at Cape Sable. He described the flora as consisting of a “grim, impenetrable, iron wall of mangroves,” “wonderful growth[s] of ferns, vines and grass,” and

39 John Kunkell Small, From Eden to Sahara: Florida's Tragedy. Lancaster, Pa.: Science Press Printing Agency, 1929, 99, 100-3. 40 Small, 114, 112, 114. 41 EC to John Kunkell Small, November 6, 1929, UM Presidential Archives, Richter Library Special Collections, University of Miami. 33

“palmettos and buttonwoods and live-oaks and other trees I could not name.” He described the area as “endless bays and winding channels surrounding innumerable islands,” and called the areas around Shark River “a winding green creek, with many side channels, making the mangrove forest a matter of many islands.”42 Although these sources informed Coe's view of the Everglades, his knowledge of the Glades was not limited to book learning. Coe spent a great deal of time traveling and exploring the Everglades himself. According to a Marjory Stoneman Douglas, Coe “tramped everywhere,” in the Everglades, “often alone, wearing khaki trousers and a cotton shirt, a canvas hat and sneakers, carrying only a heavy stick.” Coe drove along any road he could find in the Everglades, walked all through the area's wilderness, and boated around the lower Glades, exploring Cape Sable and the Ten Thousand Islands. Douglas wrote that “he spent nights and days learning and delighting,” in the lower glades, and that “he could sleep comfortably anywhere he found himself, on the warm sand beach, on a rise over a slow river with the bull alligators roaring, or on a pile of leaves among logs in a jungle hammock.” According to Theodore Pratt, who wrote about Coe in the Saturday Evening Post, “even at eighty,” Coe continued “his habit of walking about, alone, in the southernmost tip of the mainland United States.”43 Coe first explored the Everglades with Harold H. Bailey in 1925, and according to Coe's neighbor, Orville Rigby, he continued visiting the area regularly. Theodore Pratt wrote that because the Florida real estate boom went bust in 1926, Coe “had plenty of time on his hands to take up his habit of wandering through the woods.” Coe also traveled into the Glades on many trips with Congressional or National Park Service delegations, as well as with other important individuals concerned about the future of the Everglades.44

Coe's Views on Nature and Ecology

42 University of Miami; Zane Grey, Tales of Southern Rivers, New York: The Derrydale Press, 1924, 55, 61, 60, 74, 54. 43 Marjory Stoneman Douglas (MSD), “Forgotten Father” Audubon 1974; Theodore Pratt, “Papa of the Everglades National Park,” Saturday Evening Post, 9 August 1947, 32. 44 Pratt, 46, 47; Orville Rigby to the Miami Herald, December 3, 1947, EC Papers, SFCM, ENP. 34

Coe's perceptions of nature are complicated and ambiguous. The intent of Coe's writings complicates an attempt to interpret his understanding of ecology. Coe wrote to build support for the park and much of his writing as a promotional quality to it. Coe was not a scientist trying to explain the inner workings of the Everglades. Rather, Coe had a sometimes dishonest, and to a historian, frustrating and obfuscating, tendency to tell his audience what he thought they wanted to hear. When speaking with Florida boosters he emphasized tourism and the economic benefits of the park, but when speaking with conservationists he felt free to ignore economic arguments and focus solely on the Everglade's biota. Coe had a rudimentary understanding of ecology. He used ecological terminology in his promotional work, but never wrote extensively on the topic. However, his ecological tendencies can be seen in his discussions of fire, predators and hurricanes in the Everglades. He saw all three of these natural forces as integral parts of the Everglades' environment. Coe also avoided discussing the drainage of the Everglades. However it must be noted that in 1930s scientists had not yet fully explored the flow of water from north to south in the Glades and its relationship to the health of the ecosystem. These insights were not explored in detail until the 1940s. Rather, those that did speak out against drainage saw it as a destructive force at a local level, that is, they understood that drainage destroyed the local environments it drained, but they did not see the larger implications of drainage. Coe was also wary of mentioning the drainage of the Everglades because he wanted to present the Everglades as a pristine and undamaged wilderness. Coe usually shied away from discussing the destruction of the Everglades, and when he did so, always made sure to emphasize the park's ability to restore the Everglades' nature. Likewise, Coe's desire the present the Everglades as undamaged colored how he spoke about predators, fire, and hurricanes. These forces were seen by many as destructive to the Everglades' biota, therefore Coe employed ecological arguments about these forces to downplay their destructiveness. Coe argued that these natural forces were simply a part of nature in the Everglades, and that the persistence of the Everglades' environment depended on these forces. In 1931, Coe wrote that the Everglades had the “necessary qualification for the perpetuation of its life forms in a balance relatively free from the dangers of maladjustment.” In

1933 he informed Arno Cammerer, in his typical overly verbose style, that the ENP had “an ecological balance which is perhaps nearer to the national park ideal, biologically considering it, than is at present represented within the national park group.” Coe informed George Wright that if the Everglades' wildlife were “left to its own devices, [it] will remain in numerical balance which will automatically care for itself, if left alone in so far as [the] white man is concerned.” Coe believed that the establishment of a national park in the Everglades would allow “nature to pursue its own plans.” The result of those plans would be an “exquisite adjusted balance.” In another letter Coe wrote that the park would preserve the Everglades “in its natural interlocking relations.”45 Coe used ecological arguments about predators, hurricanes, and fire to argue that these destructive forces were not disasters or dangers, but instead natural occurrences in the Everglades. Coe appreciated and understood the role predators played in the Everglades. He saw predators as an integral part of the Everglades and understood that they were essential to maintaining healthy animal populations. He wrote to Arno Cammerer that “cougars, bear, and other normal predators can be expected to continue to do their share in maintaining a normal balance of animal life within the area.”46 Coe addressed the issue of predation in the park in a short essay circulated as an ENPA bulletin. This document, about a hawk hunting a turkey, was entitled “Was it a Tragedy?,” a title that challenged prevailing notions about the destructiveness of predators and suggests Coe had an appreciation and understanding of the relationships between predator and prey. While traveling along Tamiami Trail with University of Miami professor and agricultural expert John C. Gifford, the two spotted a wild turkey successfully evade the first swoop of a hawk. The predator returned for a second shot at the turkey. Coe and Gifford's “last sight of them showed both almost in contact, the hawk's talons seemingly about, if not quite sinking into, the back of Mrs. Turkey. It seemed impossible for her to escape. Her chance lay in her greater aptitude to swiftly fly through the tree branches as compared with the hawk, his makeup being more fitted

45 EC to Vernon Bailey, 24 August, 1931, RG79 B234, National Archives, College Park, MD; EC to Arno Cammerer 9 November 1933, RG79 B921, National Archives, College Park, MD; EC to George Wright, 31 January 1935, RG79 B919, National Archives, College Park, MD; EC to Ira Gabrielson, 23 September 1939, RG79 B911, National Archives, College Park, MD. 46 EC to Arno Cammerer 9 November 1933, RG79 B921, National Archives, College Park, MD. 36

for the open way.” Coe noted that his sympathies lay with the turkey, who hopefully “made her way back to find her little brood of chicks unharmed,” but that if the turkey did escape it “would deprive Mr. Hawk of an ample and, without doubt, toothsome evening dinner.” Coe also showed sympathy for 'Mr. Hawk,' writing that the hawk's “actions were quite as much prompted by an inner nature as were those of the turkey who, we may safely suppose, had been feasting on the big yellow grasshoppers at this time abundant along the roadside.” Coe called what he saw “a tragic spectacle,” and evidence of the “constant warfare,” of nature, but the title of this ENPA bulletin questioned whether this was indeed a tragedy, or merely a common, everyday occurrence in the Everglades.47 Coe not only questioned negative attitudes towards predators, he also questioned whether fire and hurricanes were really as devastating to the Everglades' nature as prevailing attitudes suggested. Although he did on many occasions note that the park would protect the Everglades' hammocks and forests from fire, and routinely denounced hunters who purposefully started fires to facilitate their hunting activities, Coe recognized that fire was an important natural phenomenon that had existed in the Everglades for centuries independent of human activity. Likewise, he argued that hurricanes had swept through the Everglades countless times throughout history, altering the landscape of the area. Coe's use of ecological attitudes towards fire and hurricanes facilitated the goals of his promotional work. He wanted to present the Everglades as an example of untouched wilderness and as a pristine natural environment. By arguing that fire and hurricanes were natural phenomenon that did not really damage these qualities, Coe could make the case that despite a destructive hurricane in 1935 and multiple reports of damaging fires throughout the 1930s, the Everglades remained in its natural state and was worthy of national park status. Coe compared the effects of fire and hurricanes to the work of landscape architects, all of which shaped the landscape, albeit in radically different ways. He wrote that “nature employs expert architects in the shaping of her wild spaces, architects who are consistently bent on maintaining distinct types of landscapes, with ofttimes quite an obvious purpose of maintaining landscape value with open spaces.” Coe acknowledged the “beauty of many man-made

47 EC, “Was it a Tragedy?,” 6 July 1931, DF Papers, FTGA. 37

landscape effects,” but argued that more beautiful was the scenic value of wilderness, which was “maintained by natural agencies.” Human landscaping required “almost constant watchfulness and care,” but the landscapes found in this wilderness had “existed through the ages and, left to their own resources, will continue on indefinitely.” Coe argued that this contrast between human nature and non-human nature would lead “to a keener appreciation of the nature world about us.”48 In 1930 Coe wrote that a hurricane was often “looked upon as an uncompromising destroyer and frequently does take a toll of destruction and death,” upon a region. He acknowledged that hurricanes were destructive and wrote that “it is not easy to reconcile at first thought the destruction a hurricane sometimes exacts with the thought of any good.” However, these storms also deserved “much of the credit for the outstanding individual landscape charm of the region.”49 Although Coe had held this opinion about hurricanes in 1930, this perspective became more important after the Labor Day Hurricane of 1935 swept through Cape Sable and the Florida Keys, destroying everything in its path and leaving hundreds dead. This hurricane was one of the strongest to ever make landfall in the United States with winds reaching 185 mph at landfall and a storm surge of 18 to 20 feet. The hurricane destroyed the town of Islamorada and other settlements in the Florida Keys, as well as a section of the Florida East Coast Railway. Most notably, the storm killed about 400 World War I veterans employed by the Federal Emergency Relief Agency building a highway to Key West. The storm also made landfall at Cape Sable blowing down trees and causing destruction in the area.50 Despite the destruction this storm caused, Coe did not see the storm as an act of god, or as a destructive force, but as a part of nature. He wrote that “nature is ever at work building up and tearing down. This storm worked more rapidly than is usual doing its work over a period of a few hours.” Coe informed Arthur Demaray, the acting director of the NPS in October 1935 that the Labor Day Hurricane “and similar storms . . . are shaping and controlling agencies

48 EC to Roger Toll, 14 May 1930 RG79 B232, National Archives, College Park, MD. 49 EC to Roger Toll, 14 May 1930 RG79 B232, National Archives, College Park, MD. 50 Thomas Knowles, Category 5: The 1935 Labor Day Hurricane, Florida: University Presses of Florida, 2009; Willie Drye, Storm of the Century: The Labor Day Hurricane of 1935, Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Society, 2002; Jay Barnes, Florida's Hurricane History, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998. 38

having as much to do with the unique character of the region . . . as has the sum total of the erosion which has carved the Grand Canyon. The storm was just one of the many types of “natural forces which, ever at work in varying degrees, have in this instance expressed themselves with such violence as to create very obvious results.”51 After the storm, Coe made a aerial survey of the area, courtesy of the US Coast Guard, and wrote about the storm's damage at Cape Sable. In various reports written to the NPS and the ENPA, Coe detailed the destruction done to Cape Sable, but also asserted that the area would recover rapidly and that the hurricane was a natural occurrence that would actually work to maintain the unique features of Cape Sable. Coe wrote that the hurricane “caused many changes within this general area. Shallow bay bottoms were cleared of a great deal of the accumulations of soft marls, vegetable and animal matter. [. . .] Undoubtedly, vast quantities of plant and animal life were destroyed.” There were many “signs of destruction of trees,” including the red, black and white mangroves, as well as buttonwoods and palms. Further inland at Cape Sable, where the vegetation was thicker, many trees were “upturned and others washed out,” and “there was deposited among them, great quantities of debris accumulated by the onrushing waters of the storm.”52 In a report to the NPS accompanied by photos of the area, Coe wrote about the “large quantities of debris washed across the Bay of Florida from the Keys,” and the “great numbers of fish and other forms of animal life” that “also washed ashore from the Bay.” Gone were “many nearby incipient mangrove clad islands,” and some “sand and marl bays.” He wrote that “immense quantities of shells and sand were thrown well back from the beaches during the storm,” and that the coconut palms at East and Middle Cape, that had been recently planted for commercial coconuts, “were very generally either blown down or washed away.”53 Coe also examined the aftereffects of the hurricane. He argued that the Everglades had amazing regenerative powers, and that the flora that existed previous to the hurricane would soon

51 EC, “Further Notes. The Influences of the September 2, 1935 Hurricane on the Everglades National Park Project Area,” 5 February 1936, RG79 B920, National Archives, College Park, MD; EC to Arthur Demaray, 14 October 1935, RG79 B920, National Archives, College Park, MD; EC, “Notes on the Influence of the Storm of September 2, 1935, 5 October 1935, David Sholtz Papers, FSA. 52 EC, “Further Notes. The Influences of the September 2, 1935 Hurricane on the Everglades National Park Project Area,” 5 February 1936, RG79 B920, National Archives, College Park, MD. 53 EC to Arthur Demaray, 4 October 1935, RG79 B920, National Archives, College Park, MD. 39

reappear. Coe argued that the storm, and others like it, shaped the landscape of the Glades, and that the destruction left by the storm would encourage the rapid growth of flora. Cape Sable's flora, according to Coe, would be “greatly stimulated by the rapidly decaying materials washed in by the storm. As a result of this storm and its imposing, there will be a picturesqueness to the ensuing growth which would not otherwise be a feature of this woodland.” Although his understanding of ecology was limited, Coe recognized this important relationship between the bodies of dead trees and the nutrients they would provide for future growth. The Labor Day Hurricane killed most of the trees in its path, but Coe argued that “these dead trees will soon be the hosts of abundant plant and animal life.”54 Coe presented hurricanes as just another natural force, albeit an extremely dramatic and destructive one, that shaped the Everglades' landscape. He wrote that hurricanes “have been one of the principal factors in the creating and sustaining of much of the present unique physical, biological and broadly human interest characters of this region.” Hurricanes, “especially when accompanied by great volumes of water, are among the agents which carve individuality” into area such as the Everglades. He compared the 1935 Labor Day Hurricane to “a master sculptor when within the tidal regions of the park area.” This storm, and others “carve majestically and even fantastically, creating with the aid of other forces much of the unique charm and individuality of the region.”55 Coe argued that fire, another destructive force in the Everglades, played a role in creating and maintaining the area's environment. Just as he did with hurricanes, Coe employed an ecological rationale to argue that fire was a natural part of the Everglades' environment. Although he did acknowledge that fires were destructive, Coe also wrote that fire was “a consummate gardener” that was responsible for “much of the variety and charms” of the Everglades.56 According to Coe, throughout the Everglades' history “fire has been a great modifying

54 EC, “Further Notes. The Influences of the September 2, 1935 Hurricane on the Everglades National Park Project Area,” 5 February 1936, RG79 B920, National Archives, College Park, MD. 55 EC, “Further Notes. The Influences of the September 2, 1935 Hurricane on the Everglades National Park Project Area,” 5 February 1936, RG79 B920, National Archives, College Park, MD; EC, “Notes on the Influence of the Storm of September 2, 1935, 5 October 1935, David Sholtz Papers, Florida State Archives. 56 EC to Roger Toll, 14 May 1930 RG79 B232, National Archives, College Park, MD. 40

force.” Fire was a useful tool to “maintain a normalcy of physical balance” in nature. This force was “one of the agencies which is creating scenery” in natural areas and was successful in “modifying physical conditions.” In a letter to Arno Cammerer, Coe discussed a trip he took into the Everglades that “gave me further opportunity to study fire as one of the dominant factors in shaping Florida['s] landscape.” Fire was “a great pruner with a marked preference for open spaces,” and without it “much of our landscape interest would not exist.”57 Coe also thought that fire needed to be kept out of certain areas in the Everglades. Vulnerable hardwood hammocks in the Everglades “owe[d] their existence largely to the presence of 'fire breaks' of one form or another.” The Royal Palm Hammock was one example “of hammock growth which has been permitted to maintain itself owing to the area being practically surrounded by water, or at least with a moat sufficiently moist at times of exposure to stop fire.” Coe elaborated on the role of fire at the Royal Palm Hammock in a letter to William Wharton, an influential conservationist. He explained that this hammock “comprises three distinct development stages of vegetation. It is obvious that fire has played its limiting part in two of these. The other presents an area perhaps as free from obvious fire scars as can be found within the proposed Park [sic] limits.” These two other areas though, had been affected by fire, and Coe argued that this hammock at RPSP offered a case-study for how fire could modify natural landscapes. He wrote that “one of these three areas was burned over about three years ago and another a dozen or more years ago,” but that “in this latter area the natural growth has already sufficiently developed to be well on its way to a maturity similar in many respects to the area showing no fire scars.”58 Coe's letter to Wharton was in response to Wharton's fears that fire had perhaps destroyed essential areas in the Everglades and diminished the natural values of the park. David Fairchild was also concerned that fire in the Everglades, and the negative reports about its effect on the Everglades' biota, could derail the park. In response to an article in American Forests, which charged that Florida didn't care about its forests because of raging muck fires in the Everglades,

57 EC to NPS Director, 25 April 1931, RG79 B234, National Archives, College Park, MD; EC to Arno Cammerer, 24 February 1932, RG79 B234, National Archives, College Park, MD. 58 EC to Fredrick Law Olmsted Jr., 18 July 1932, RG79 B234, National Archives, College Park, MD; EC to William Wharton, 27 July 1932, RG79 B234, National Archives, College Park, MD. 41

Fairchild wrote to Coe that this argument would “do a lot of harm and make it difficult to raise funds for the park if not countered.” Fairchild, eager to use Florida boosters in service of the preservation of Florida's nature, thought that it may “be possible to utilized this tirade – unjust though it may be in part – in our effort to arouse the hotel keepers and get them to see that their pocket books will be affected by these fires to a degree which may be appalling as the years go by.”59 The same promotional impulse that allowed Coe to talk about hurricanes and fire in the Everglades as positive forces, also caused him to downplay the damage drainage had done to the Everglades' environment. Coe was critical of drainage efforts, but frequently asserted that drainage had done no harm to the lower Everglades that were slated to be part of the park, partly because he feared criticism that the Everglades did not live up to park standards, but also because he was unaware of the flow of water south through the Everglades. Coe did not posses a complete understanding of the Everglades' hydrology, although in the early 1930s, this system was not understood by scientists either. Although Marjory Stoneman Douglas, in an article on Coe in Audubon Magazine, strongly implied that Coe understood the Everglades' hydrological system, Coe never left any written evidence that supports this claim. Rather, it is likely that Douglas misremembered Coe's attitudes and attributed insights to him that she herself only came upon in the 1940s.60 Coe did not understand that water in Lake Okeechobee and in the northern sections of the Everglades flowed south and kept the southern Everglades wet. In his promotional work he largely ignored the issue of drainage, which had mostly occurred in the northern glades and focused on the integrity of the lower Glades. He described the aquasystem of the Everglades in 1930, asserting that the lower Everglades was an independent unit unaffected by the drainage of the northern Everglades. In describing the park area, he wrote that “other than the occasional intervals when the great Everglades areas to the north of this area experience a very high water overflow level, it is probable that no water except that accumulating on the area itself finds outlet through or over this territory. The area is physically quite an independent empire unto itself,

59 David Fairchild to EC, 5 June 1932, David Fairchild Papers, Fairchild Tropical Gardens Archive. 60 Marjory Stoneman Douglas, “The Forgotten Father,” Audubon Magazine, 1974. 42

neither draining its surplus water over other areas, as flow is toward and into the Gulf of Mexico, nor receiving surplus water from other areas, other than as above described.” Coe was ignorant of the fact that water levels in the lower Glades were dependent on the flow of water south from Lake Okeechobee. Rather he thought that “the water table underlying practically the entire south half of this area is influenced by and maintained at approximately uniform level throughout the year by the level of the Gulf waters.”61 Coe was harshly critical of drainage in the upper Glades and understood that these efforts were destroying that section of the Everglades and causing muck fires in these drained sections. He wrote to Robert T. Morris, an important park supporter, that “some effective means must be found and put into action by which the burning of this peat muck which has been accumulating through the years can be stopped. The present predicament has been brought about through the putting in of drainage canals through which the waters of these areas escape more rapidly than under natural conditions, and the water table becomes lower than would otherwise be the case, exposing vast amounts of vegetable matter to drying out.” Coe made sure to distinguish between these drained areas in the upper Everglades and the undrained areas in the lower Glades. He wrote to Morris that “the area under consideration to be included in the proposed Everglades National Park is not within the region,” that was being destroyed by muck fires and drainage. According to Coe, “within the Park area no burning has been going on other than on the surface,” and any fires that were burning in the southern Glades were natural occurrences.62 Coe believed that drainage had destroyed the upper Everglades, but that the lower Glades, south of the Tamiami Trail could still be saved. His view of drainage was that canals destroyed habitats and wetlands locally, a view shared by the scientists who influenced him. Naturalists like Harold H. Bailey, David Fairchild, Charles Torrey Simpson, and John Kunkell Small had all spoken out against drainage in the Everglades, but all did so within the context of the local impacts of drainage. None of these authorities understood that drainage around Lake Okeechobee would affect conditions in the lower Glades. Rather, this understanding of the Everglades as part of a larger hydrosystem was only explored by scientists and wildlife experts in

61 EC, “Suggestions on Everglades National Park,” 1 March 1930, RG79, B229, National Archives, College Park, MD. 62 EC to Robert T. Morris, 8 July 1932, RG79 B234, National Archives, College Park, MD. 43

the 1940s, and this perception of the Everglades as a sheet of flowing water only entered the public consciousness in 1947 with the publication of Marjory Stoneman Douglas' The Everglades: River of Grass. However, Coe did see the entire Everglades as one large system. He stated that this entire section was “occupied by the Lake Okeechobee Everglades basin as a unit.” However, this unit had been altered by human activity like road building, drainage and agriculture. He wrote that “the Tamiami Trail running East and West [sic] separates a south third from the rest of the area.” This area north of the Trail extending to Lake Okeechobee “could have been preserved for all time,” if it had “been acquired before settlement and exploitation.” However, roads, drainage, and agriculture had destroyed this area's natural value, and agricultural productivity meant this land was too expensive to purchase and reclaim as part of the park. This primitiveness of these northern section had been destroyed, therefore Coe focused on saving the lower Glades. Drainage projects had not been pursued in that area, few substantial human settlements were present and agriculture had not successfully been undertaken south of the Tamiami Trail. Despite the disruption of its water supply, which Coe was unaware of, the Everglades south of the Trail was an untouched example of the primeval Everglades.63 Coe thought that water levels in the park area were determined by rainfall, rather than by the flow of water south from Lake Okeechobee. To Coe it was obvious that water levels in the Glades rose during the rainy season and fell during the dry season. Coe wrote to the NPS in November of 1934 that “the water table within the park area influenced by rainfall . . . is somewhat higher at present than the annual average at this season.” Because of this “wading birds and water fowl are assembling down here in greater numbers seemingly than before within my experience of about ten years in this region.” In a another letter to the Service, he explained that “the water table in the glades area proper, is higher than is usual at this season of the year. If no heavy rains occur, and they area not usual from now on for several months, the water table will continue to lower.”64 Coe was unaware of the true nature of the Everglade's hydrological system in the 1930s,

63 EC to Robert T. Morris, 4 January 1929, RG79 B234, National Archives, College Park, MD. 64 EC to the NPS, 13 November 1934, RG79 B914, National Archives, College Park, MD; EC to Arno Cammerer, 20 November 1934, RG79 B904, National Archives, College Park, MD. 44

but by the 1940s he became concerned about the flow of water into the park from the North. In 1949, when the Army Corp of Engineers unveiled a comprehensive water management plan for South Florida, Coe wrote to the NPS urging them to involve themselves with the plan in order to secure water for the park. This plan called for the construction of three water conservation areas that would hold water during floods and provide water to South Florida and agricultural areas during droughts. Coe wrote to NPS superintendent Newton Drury that “water control within the [water conservation] area and this control of water as it may influence the water factor within the Everglades park area will be to assure the water's natural flow.”65

65 EC to Newton Drury, 14 February 1949, RG79 B922, National Archives, College Park, MD. 45

2. ERNEST COE AND THE EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK ASSOCIATION

Introduction

The central figure in the fight for Everglades National Park between 1928 and 1937 was Ernest Coe. Coe conducted his activities under the aegis of the Everglades National Park Association (ENPA), a private organization that dedicated itself to a single goal: the creation of a national park in the Everglades. The ENPA was mainly a promotional organization that Coe used to publicize the park and his own perceptions of the Everglades. He also used this organization as a platform to push for legislation concerning the park and coordinated his activities with other organizations. Coe controlled the ENPA completely, and although David Fairchild also played an important role in the Association, the other members did little other than occasional fundraising.66 Coe was an extremely prolific letter writer. He wrote letters to anyone and everyone he thought would be interested in the park, including politicians, businessmen, conservationists, members of any type of organization, newspaper and magazine editors, landowners, and others. He also regularly wrote general letters about the park, which he called bulletins. He also sent out copies of newpaper and magazine articles on the park, and copies of previous correspondence he thought the public would be interested. Coe's publicity work was aimed at increasing support for Everglades National Park, but this literature was also meant to convince people about the nature of the Everglades.

Ernest Coe and The Everglades National Park Association

Ernest Coe was born in New Haven, Connecticut in 1867, and lived an ordinary and

66 This organization was actually called the Tropic Everglades National Park Association in 1928. The word tropic was dropped around 1931 and the organization was known as the Everglades National Park Association from 1931 until its disbandment in 1949. However, Coe periodically referred to his organization with the modifier 'tropic' after 1931. Other park advocates and NPS employees had stopped using the word tropic earlier or had never used it. In order to avoid confusion, I have referred to this organization as the Everglades National Park Association throughout this manuscript. 46

anonymous life for 58 years. For this reason, there is little extant biographical data about most of his life. His obituary in Landscape Architecture stated that “there is little of Ernest Coe's record previous to his removal to Florida in 1925 to suggest exceptional traits.” He only attended one year of high school, owing to “frail health,” but later studied fine arts at Yale for two years, where he took courses in “anatomy, perspective, drawing, composition, [and] painting.” For most his life Coe worked as a landscape architect in Connecticut. He was married to Anna Coe, who served as the President of the Coral Gables Garden Club after the couple moved to Miami. The two had no children, but were close to many of their New England nieces and nephews.67 Coe lived in New Haven, Connecticut until 1925, when, at age 58, he moved to Miami, Florida to practice landscape architecture amid the booming real estate market of southern Florida. Coe hoped to get make a name for himself landscaping the homes of the rich, but his dreams were shattered in 1926 when the Florida land boom went bust and landowners were left holding titles to worthless lands. As a result, Coe's landscaping business was ruined, but soon thereafter, Coe found the work that would occupy him for the rest of his life and eventually bankrupt him completely. His new mission, which he pursued with an evangelical zeal, was the establishment of Everglades National Park. Coe's contributions to the creation of the park were numerous. More than any one else, he is the person most responsible for the existence of Everglades National Park. Almost all of the park's progress between 1928 and 1937 can be attributed to Ernest Coe. During this period he was successful at getting the politicians, NPS officials, conservationists, Miami's booster and business community, and other groups to reconsider the identity and value of the Everglades. Coe convinced these groups that the Everglades was not a diseased and dangerous swamp, but a wetland of biological importance. Coe was often called the 'papa of the Everglades National Park,' a title he certainly deserved.68 Although Coe started the fight for Everglades National Park, he was not the first to

67 Obituary, Landscape Architecture, V41, July 1951, 174-5; Ernest Coe (EC) “insert with federal application employment form,” 28 June 1949, Ernest Coe Papers, South Florida Collection Management Center (SFCMC), Everglades National Park (ENP). 68 Theodore Pratt, “Papa of the Everglades National Park,” Saturday Evening Post, 9 August 1947, 32, 33, 46-8. 47

propose the idea. Rather, this idea had been circulating since at least the beginning of the twentieth century. The Florida Federation of Women's Clubs (FFWC) declared at their 1905 annual meeting that Paradise Key should be made a federal forest reserve, “in order to preserve the unique groups of Royal palms” found in the area. In 1916, 4,000 acres of Everglades surrounding Paradise Key, was formally dedicated as the Royal Palm State Park, largely due to the efforts of May Mann Jennings, the FFWC president and wife of former Governor William Jennings. This park would eventually be absorbed into the ENP and today is the site of the popular Anhinga Trail. Prominent scientists and naturalists, such as Charles Torrey Simpson, Harold H. Bailey, and John Kunkell Small had called for the preservation of a part of the Everglades as well. These individuals had written books on various aspects of the Everglades, and all of them noted that the area was being destroyed by human activity. Federal officials also acknowledged the need to save a portion of the Everglades. Stephan Mather, the superintendent of the NPS, wrote in his 1923 annual report to the Secretary of the Interior that “there should be an untouched example of the Everglades of Florida established as a national park.” Senator Park Trammell of Florida had also considered the possibility of a national park in the state, and had introduced legislation calling for the study of a national park in the Everglades in 1926 and 1928, but this legislation was unsuccessful and never pursued seriously.69 Coe was exposed to the idea a national park in the Everglades through his membership in the Florida Society of Natural History. This society was organized in 1922 by a group of south Floridian scientists and naturalists who gathered to discuss the Everglades' flora and fauna and lament its destruction. Coe was introduced to this group by Hugh Matheson, an important landowner and developer in Florida who created Matheson Hammock Park and Crandon Park, both local parks in Miami. Coe started attending meetings and soon, perhaps because of his profession, was placed on the society's committee for landscape and park projects. The Society

69 Mrs. Kirk Munroe to May Mann Jennings, May Mann Jennings Papers, P. K. Yonge Library of Florida History (PKY) University of Florida, Gainesville; Linda Vance, “May Mann Jennings and Royal Palm State Park” Florida Historical Quarterly 1976 55(1): 1-17; Harold Bailey, The Birds of Florida, Maryland: William and Wilkins, 1925; Charles Torrey Simpson, In Lower Florida Wilds: A Naturalist's Observations on the Life, Physical Geography and Geology of the More Tropical Part of the State, New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1920; John Kunkell Small, From Eden to Sahara: Florida's Tragedy, Lancaster, Pa.: Science Press Printing Agency, 1929; Charlton Tebeau, Man in the Everglades: 2000 years of Human History in the Everglades National Park, Coral Gables, Florida: University of Miami Press, 1968, 2nd Revised Edition, 172. 48

had discussed trying to get a small section of the southern Everglades protected, and Harold H. Bailey, an ornithologist and founder of the society, had even drawn a map of the proposed sanctuary. Coe took this idea, expanded the boundaries, and started exploring and studying the idea of a national park in the Everglades outside of the purview of the Florida Society of Natural History.70 In 1928 Coe wrote a report proposing the establishment of a national park in the Everglades. This six page report covered the “physical, biologic and human interest features [of the Everglades] from a national park standpoint” and described the landscape, flora, and fauna of the area in detail. The report opened with quotations from Charles Torrey Simpson's In Lower Florida Wilds. Coe emphasized the Everglades' birdlife, and referenced the history of plume hunting in the Everglades, noting that if the area was a national park, the populations of those bird species would be allowed to recover. Coe also placed the ENP in the context of other national parks. He argued that the Everglades measured up the NPS's standards and noted that this park would be the only tropical park with the park system, making it unique and different from other parks. This park would be open year round, and in fact was at “its most attractive phase during the winter months,” when most other parks were closed.71 Coe not only discussed why the park should be created, but also how the park could be created. He noted that most of the area had not been surveyed or altered in anyway and that it had “offered little attraction from the standpoint of exploitation for personal profit.” Coe discussed land acquisition in the park area also, and argued that many of the large landowners in the park area would welcome government purchase of their worthless Everglades lands if offered a fair price.72 In May, 1928 Coe traveled to Washington D.C. and presented this report to National Park

70 Harold Bailey, “Historian Tells Version of How Park Idea Started,” 30 November 1947, Miami Herald; Marjory Stoneman Douglas, “The Forgotten Father,” Audubon, 1973 (September 1971), p79-96; Charlton Tebeau, Man in the Everglades: 2000 Years of Human History in the Everglades National Park, Coral Gables, University of Miami Press, 1968, 2nd Edition, p 174-5; Jack Davis, An Everglades Providence, p 328-331, Cesar Becerra, “Birth of Everglades National Park,” South Florida History Magazine 1997-1998 25(3) and 26(1): p10-17. 71 EC, TENPA bulletin, 18 February 1931, Doyle Carlton Papers, FSA; Charles Torrey Simpson, In Lower Florida Wilds; EC, “Preliminary Considerations for Everglades National Park,” 1928, RG79, B230, National Archives, College Park, Maryland. 72 EC, “Preliminary Considerations for Everglades National Park,” 1928, RG79 B230, National Archives, College Park, MD 49

Service officials and Florida Senator Duncan Fletcher. While in D.C. he also met with conservationists, and other interested parties to discuss Everglades National Park. NPS officials were enthusiastic about the park, and although Coe did not meet with Stephan Mather, he did speak with his assistant, Horace Albright, who would soon replace Mather as the superintendent of the NPS. Albright and Arno Cammerer, another NPS official who would be important to the park's future, agreed to support the creation of a park in the Everglades, and agreed with Coe that the first logical step would be an investigation into the Everglades to determine “the advisability and practicability of establishing a national park to be known as the Tropic Everglades National Park in the State of Florida.” While in D.C. Coe also gained valuable allies in his fight for the park.73 When Coe returned to Miami in June, he wrote a plan detailing the next steps needed to make the park a reality. The first step, an NPS investigation of the Everglades, was already being addressed. The second was the creation “of an Association to be known as the Tropic Everglade Park Association.” This association, which was soon renamed the Everglades National Park Association (ENPA), was run entirely by Ernest Coe and was devoted exclusively to making the park a reality. In some ways this organization was a forerunner of single issue modern environmental organizations. It was focused on one issue, it coordinated with national and local organizations, and pursued an aggressive publicity campaign designed to elicit support for Everglades National Park.74 The Everglades National Park Association was formally established on December 11, 1928. Coe later wrote in a brief memoir that “it became evident to a group of citizens that an association could be formed,” which would both aid the Department of Interior in their investigation into the Everglades and promote the ENP more generally. These citizens gathered at the Nautilus Hotel in Miami Beach and listened to Coe talk about his recent trip to Washington. David Fairchild spoke as well about “the importance of taking steps to protect the native plant and animal life of the general Cape Sable region of South Florida.”75

73 EC, “Preliminary Considerations for Everglades National Park,” 1928, RG79 B230, National Archives, College Park, Maryland; Congressional Record – Senate, 70th Congress, 2nd Session, 27 February 1929, 4545. 74 EC, Progressive Sequence of Action, 6 December 1928, DF Papers, FTGA. 75 EC, “Story of the Everglades National Park Project,” unpublished manuscript, 1 December 1950, (EVER22888), 50

Coe was the executive secretary of this new organization and David Fairchild served as the group's president. Fairchild was not only a renowned botanist and an expert on tropical flora, he was also connected to many powerful Americans. He personally knew many important conservationists and was acquainted with many powerful businessmen and politicians. His familial connections were also used to aid the park. His wife, Marion, was the daughter of Alexander Graham Bell, and his brother-in-law, who had married Bell's other daughter, was Gilbert Grosvenor, the founder of National Geographic. Fairchild intended to be nothing more than a figurehead, but his actual contribution to the park in the early 1930s was immense. He explained to Henry Ward of the Izaak Walton League of America that “I gave my name to this small provisional Association . . . because it seemed a duty of mine to help put the matter before the Intellectuals of the country.”76 Most of the other officers and members of the Association were important Miamians who raised money for the Association. For example, Clayton Sedgwick Cooper, a wealthy Miami Beach resident who was also a founding member of the Committee of One Hundred, a philanthropic organization, John Shares, a hotel owner from Sebring, Florida, and David Sholtz, the president of the Florida Chamber Commerce who would be elected governor in 1932 served as the first vice-presidents of the ENPA. Thomas Pancoast, a Miami Beach hotel owner, and son-in-law of John Collins, the founder of Miami Beach, was another important Miamian who worked for the park. Pancoast presided over this first meeting and remained very active in park issues, serving as an assistant to Coe on the ENPC between 1935 and 1937.77 These other Association members were primarily fundraisers and worked to support the activities of Coe. For example, Claude Matlack, a Miami photographer and ENPA member, attended two meetings of the Miami Beach Reel and Rod Club sometime in the early 1930s, where he “showed lantern slides depicting scenes from photographs taken from the air over the territory south of Royal Palm State Park,” but this type of activity was rare. A more typical activity performed by other Association members consisted of Thomas Pancoast and Charles

EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 76 David Fairchild (DF) to Henry Ward, 3 February 1929, David Fairchild Papers, Fairchild Tropical Garden Archive (FTGA). 77 EC, “Story of the Everglades National Park Project,” unpublished manuscript, 1 December 1950, (EVER22888), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 51

Leffler using their “influence with the [Dade] County Commissioners,” to secure funding for the Association.78 Coe was officially the 'Executive Secretary' of the ENPA, but as it operated, he had complete control over the Association. In fact, the organization existed primarily to provide Coe with a platform to promote the park. In 1933 in response to a disagreement within the ENPA over fundraising, Coe bluntly stated how he saw his relationship to the larger organization. In a letter addressed to the Executive Council of the ENPA he wrote that “this Association was organized, if I understand rightly, to afford me the assistance necessary for going ahead, that the Park project, originated by me, might be brought effectively before the public and official bodies.”79 Little business was conducted at Association meetings. Although the finances of the organization were discussed, most meetings were educational in nature and consisted of reports by Coe on the progress of the park and lectures by David Fairchild or another scientific expert on some aspect of the Everglades. The ENPA meeting held on January 27, 1933 largely followed this pattern. David Fairchild opened the meeting by discussing a recent trip into the Everglades with a delegation of US Senators and reported on a few recent articles about the Everglades. Coe also delivered a report on his recent activities and the Association members discussed the organization's finances.80 Coe did not typically engage in fundraising, and left this arduous task to other Association members. In fact, fundraising was the main function of the Associations' executive board. These members raised money and Coe spent it, usually in a irresponsible fashion. Coe had little practical conception of money, and ran the Association, and later the ENPC, without a budget and without any accounting system. By 1932 the ENPA's finances were in such disarray that it was forced to hired an accountant to sort through it's records and determine how much money had been raised and spent since 1928. This financial report affords an in-depth look at how the early Association raised and spent money.81

78 ENPA meeting, No Date, circa early 1930s, DF Papers, FTGA. 79 EC to ENPA Executive Council, 24 March 1933, DF Papers, FTGA. 80 ENPA meeting, 27 January 1933, DF Papers, FTGA. 81 ENPA report on the $5000 fund, No Date, DF papers, FTGA; Clifford Bourne, ENPA financial report, 23 June 52

According to this report, as of May 31, 1932, the ENPA had $18.73 on hand, and the Association's only asset was a typewriter. In addition, the Association owed Ernest Coe, various office supply companies and clipping services $619.63. Despite being so in debt, the Association had raised $11,883.28 since its inception. Of this amount, over five thousand dollars was acquired by Association members through private subscriptions. The City of Miami and Dade County each donated three thousand to the Association and Miami had also given Coe a free office in the city. Local chambers of commerce also donated over 500 dollars to the Association during this time period.82 Coe recklessly spent money to advance the park. The ENPA had paid Coe almost four thousand dollars in salary over a three and a half year period and had spent over $3,500 on Coe's various lobbying trips and lecture tours between December 1928 and May 1932. The Association spent another $1,200 dollars on office supplies and clipping services and another thousand dollars on boat and blimp rentals for various excursions into the Everglades.83 The ENPA was financially supported by the City of Miami, the Dade County Commission, the National Park Service, and private contributions. The official purpose of this organization was “to promote acquaintance with the wonders of America's Tropics located in the Cape Sable region of South Florida and the adjacent area.” The Association would accomplish this goal “by means of the cooperation of the Press, both editorially and in the printing of articles, with illustrations,” through “the free use of the radio, movie films and illustrated lectures, and the supplying of pamphlet matter to the Association's members and others.”84 The Everglades National Park Association was a promotional organization dedicated to one goal: the preservation of the flora and fauna of the Everglades through the establishment of a National Park. This organization was much different in its purpose and organizational structure than previous conservation organizations. National organizations like the Audubon Society had multiple purposes and were large and well-funded enough to pursue multiple goals. Local organizations like the Florida Federation of Women's Clubs, or the Florida Garden Clubs were

1932, DF Papers, FTGA. 82 Clifford Bourne, ENPA financial report, 23 June 1932, DF Papers, FTGA. 83 Ibid. 84 EC, Progressive Sequence of Action, 6 December 1928, DF Papers, FTGA. 53

smaller in scope than national conservation organizations, but also pursued a variety of objectives. The ENPA was a specialized organization devoted to a single goal, a type of organization that became very common among modern environmentalists. Coe's tactics also had much in common with later environmentalists. During the Progressive Era, conservation politics and the creation of national parks and forests were usually conducted in an undemocratic fashion. Elite Americans, like Gifford Pinchot, Robert Sterling Yard, Stephen Mather, and Teddy Roosevelt played an enormous role in the creation of federal reserves, parks, and forests. Democratic sentiment and popular opinion could be safely ignored as these men created national parks and forests with the signing of a pen. Through executive order alone Teddy Roosevelt, preserved about 230 million acres of federal lands.85 The modern environmental movement, by contrast, depended on the voices of citizens. Grassroots activism and the influencing of public opinion were at the core of modern environmentalism. Mark Harvey, in A Symbol of Wilderness, shows how small grass-roots organizations employing sophisticated publicity tactics were successful in blocking the construction of a dam in Dinosaur National Monument. These first modern environmentalists attempted to influence popular opinion through different media strategies. While Coe certainly spent a great deal of time lobbying politicians in Tallahassee and Washington, D.C., and cultivated relationships with senators, governors, and other public servants, the goal of the ENPA was to influence the opinions of the public. Coe used modern methods of publicity, such as radio broadcasts, and understood the need to distribute literature broadly to reach the maximum number of citizens. Coe wanted to convince politicians, conservationists, and businessmen about the park, but also wanted to reach a wider audience. He emphatically wrote in an early ENPA bulletin, “Every Florida citizen . . . MUST make himself realize that the Everglades National Park project is the most important single thing before Florida today.”86

Coe's Publicity Tactics

85 Hal Rothman, Preserving Different Pasts: The American National Monument, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1998. 86 Mark Harvey, A Symbol of Wilderness: Echo Park and the American Conservation Movement, Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1994; EC, 13 June 1930, DF Papers, FTGA, capitals in original. 54

The ENPA was a promotional organization, and Coe was the park's main promoter. He publicized the park in a variety of ways. He wrote and dictated letters at a feverish pace, creating a legendary reputation for his voluminous correspondence. Although he personally published articles on the park only a few times, he was effective at getting others to write about the Everglades. He arranged for magazine editors to receive information about the park and wrote press releases that were sent to newspapers throughout Florida. The Miami Herald and the Miami Daily News, in particular, followed the park closely, and Coe could easily rely on these two publications to dutifully publish articles whenever he desired. Coe, armed with over one hundred lantern slides of Everglades scenery and biota, also lectured about the park to local organizations and on lecture tours along the East coast in the early 1930s. He also used local radio programs to publicize the park in Miami and formed close relationships with National Park Service officials, governors, senators, representatives, and other Florida politicians, local newspaper and national magazine editors, and prominent conservationists. Coe also lobbied politicians in Washington, D.C. and Tallahassee and arranged and led trips into the Everglades for politicians, NPS officials, and conservationists. Coe was an extremely prolific writer. Between 1928 and 1937 his office sent out an almost unremitting stream of bulletins, letters, copies of previous correspondence, magazine excerpts, reports, and copies of park legislation. According to journalist Michael Grunwald, Coe “fired off thousands of letters about the park.” Coe's sometimes obnoxious letters infuriated his enemies and at times allies. In 1936 when part of the Everglades National Park Commission, another member complained about how Coe had “flooded” his county with “this propaganda.” Another member of the Commission explained that he owned five or six different corporations in Key West and that he received “communications addressed to each of the corporations.” Henry Ward of the Izaak Walton League also complained about Coe's letters. He wrote to fellow conservationist Robert T. Morris that he had been “flooded with correspondence from Mr. Ernest Coe, regarding the proposed Everglades National Park,” between 1929 and 1931.87

87 ENPC meeting, 2 December 1936, (EVER19387a), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; Henry Ward to Robert T. Morris, 12 February 1931, RG79 B230, National Archives, College Park, MD. 55

Coe wrote to government officials and politicians, conservationists, newspaper and magazine editors, and other organizations and individuals he thought might be interested in the park. Under the aegis of the ENPA, Coe also mailed bulletins on the park. These were sent to a large number of recipients and usually included general information on the nature of the Everglades, tourism in the park, or the status of the park. A typical bulletin, labeled “Bulletin no.7” and mailed in April 1929, was entitled “The Proposed Tropic Everglades National Park.” It discussed both tourism in the park and the nature of the Everglades. Bulletin no. 8 was mailed the very next day and was entitled “What Has Been Accomplished Within About One Year in Promoting the Tropic Everglades National Park Project.” This three page document recounted the events of the last year relating to the park, discussed tourism and nature in the Everglades, and included copies of a letter from Coe to Senator Duncan Fletcher, and Fletcher's reply to Coe. He frequently used old correspondence between himself and various scientific experts or lawmakers as ENPA bulletins. Coe circulated letters from conservationists like Ding Darling and John Merriam, and from scientific experts like John Kunkell Small and V. E. Shelford. Coe's bulletins featuring letters from NPS biologist George Wright and anthropologist Ales Hrdlicka were among those most widely circulated.88 Coe made sure that his everyday correspondence was used to maximum effect. He frequently carbon copied much of his correspondence to a large number of interested parties. For example, a letter about the nature of the Everglades was sent to 22 individuals, including NPS Director Arno Cammerer, Governor Sholtz, Robert Sterling Yard of the National Parks Association, the Mayors of Miami and Miami Beach, the Chairman of the Dade County Commission, Nature Magazine, the National Audubon Society, President Roosevelt, Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes and his wife, as well as Coe's own wife and 9 other individuals.

88 EC, 10 April 1929, David Carlton Papers, Florida State Archives (FSA); EC, 11 April 1929, David Fairchild Papers, FTGA; EC to John Kunkell Small, 6 November 1929, UM Presidential Archives, Richter Library, UM; George M. Wright to EC, 9 October 1931, UM Presidential Archives, Richter Library, UM and David Carlton Papers, FSA and EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; Jay N. Darling to EC, 7 October 1943, UM Presidential Archives, Richter Library, UM; V.E.Shelford to EC, 20 October 1943, UM Presidential Archives, Richter Library, UM; Harlan P. Kelsey to EC, 23 October 1943, UM Presidential Archives, Richter Library, UM; Ales Hrdlicka to EC, 8 December 1932, SH Papers, FSA; W.M. Buswell to EC, 30 November 1933, SH Papers, FSA; John C. Merriam to EC, 20 March 1935, SH Papers, FSA; EC to Arthur Pack, 23 October 1935, David Sholtz Papers, FSA; Ales Hrdlicka to EC, 8 December 1932, SH Papers, FSA. 56

Elsewhere he mailed a copy of a letter about the Seminole Indians to more than 60 individuals. Marjory Stoneman Douglas later remembered that “everyone received letters from him constantly, and his long envelopes were crammed with carbon copies of letters he had written to everyone else.”89 In much of his correspondence, Coe also sent enclosures accompanying his letters. For example, in a letter to Governor Sholtz about the park's boundaries, Coe included copies of 4 previous letters about the park's boundaries from Secretary Ickes, Arno Cammerer, Florida Congressman J. Mark Wilcox, and ENPC member D. Graham Copeland and a copy of a NPS report on the park's boundaries. This letter was also carbon copied to 6 other individuals who presumably received these enclosures as well.90 During election years, Coe typically ratcheted up his letter writing and publicity work in order to influence state politicians to support the park. For example, in 1936, Coe sent a form letter to every candidate for a federal or state-wide position in Florida and to all candidates in Dade County about the ENP. Coe informed the ENPC in 1937 that all candidates in 1936 “had been kept intimately acquainted with the Everglades National Park project and its importance to the interests of the State.”91 Sometimes Coe's letters were haphazard and jumbled, and his writing could be long- winded, overly verbose and even incoherent at times. These problems may have been exasperated by the pace of Coe's letter writing. David Fairchild warned Coe early on that his letters were too long and repeated that concern as he tried to officially retire from the ENPA in 1930. Fairchild wrote to Coe that “I read your letters with real interest dear Coe but allow me to point out still once again that they are too long.” Coe was particularly incoherent in a 1935 letter to Governor Sholtz. One of the first sentences of the letter reads: “There is a growing fear and this not without reason that our national parks wherein the preservation of the primitive is of first

89 EC to ENPA and ENPC Executive Council, 28 June 1935,(EVER19369), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; EC to ENPC, 29 June 1935, EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; Marjory Stoneman Douglas (MSD), “The Forgotten Father,” Audubon Magazine, 1974. 90 EC to Governor Sholtz, 4 May 1936, (EVER21899), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; EC to Arthur Pack, 7 January 1936, (EVER20650) EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 91 EC to Florida candidates, 21 May 1936, DF Papers, FTGA; EC to D. Graham Copeland, 25 May 1937, (EVER14723), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; EC to candidates for nomination for Governor of Florida, 21 March 1940, Spessard Holland Papers, PKY, UF. 57

importance that this primary purpose is being jeopardized where provisions have been made for access that the public may enter [sic].”92 Coe's letters, although effective at promoting the park, were also overwhelming, irritating and bothersome. In Voice of the River, Marjory Stoneman Douglas explained how Coe, who she greatly admired and called a prophet, could sometimes be a nuisance. According to Douglas “even people who were convinced there should be a park would have to hear Mr. Coe tell about it over and over again.” Frank Stoneman, Douglas's father and the long-time editor of the Miami Herald felt the same way. According to Douglas “every time Mr. Coe came into the office his [Frank Stoneman's] heart would sink, because he knew Mr. Coe would read him all the letters he'd gotten and all the letters he'd written.”93 Coe was aware that no matter how many letter he wrote, magazine and newspapers could reach a larger audience. He worked hard to ensure that the ENP was covered in a variety of print mediums. He could reliably depend on local newspapers and conservation organizations with their own publications, like the National Audubon Society, to publish articles on the Everglades. The National Audubon Society's publication, Bird-Lore, renamed Audubon Magazine in 1941, was especially focused on the status of the ENP and the happenings in the Everglades. Between 1930 and 1934 they published yearly updates on the status of the park. Throughout the 1930s and '40s the magazine also reported on the activities of Audubon bird wardens in the Everglades and published articles on the Everglades' bird life as well. Especially after 1938, perhaps in an effort to restart the campaign for the park, which had been stalled since 1937, the magazine ratcheted up its coverage of the Everglades. Between 1938 and 1948, Bird-Lore and Audubon Magazine published on the Everglades 14 times. Coe also cultivated relationships with other magazine editors. He frequently wrote to magazines in response to articles on conservation, connecting their articles to the fight for the ENP. In response to an 1935 article in Nature Magazine entitled “Conservation and Use,” Coe wrote to Arthur Pack, the editor of the magazine. He discussed this article, which was on the purpose of national parks, and concluded that the ENP would fulfill the national parks' highest

92 DF to EC 26 September 1930, DF Papers, FTGA; EC to Dave Sholtz, 23 June 1935, DF Papers, FTGA. 93 MSD, Voice of the River, Pineapple Press, 1990, 135. 58

purposes. Coe also reviewed the campaign for the ENP and described the area's “lakes, bays and interlocking waterways,” as well as its “open prairie dotted with hammock-like islands.” Coe hoped to inform Pack about the park, and hoped his magazine would publish on the Everglades.94 Nature Magazine had in fact run a small news item in July of 1934 about the park, but perhaps goaded by Coe's letters, they ran a more substantial piece in 1937. This article, written by John Kunkell Small, discussed the flora and fauna of the Everglades. Small called the area tropical and noted that “the area is about equally divided between land and water” and that “most of the area is accessible by boat in protected waters, a mode of transportation least disturbing to wild life.” Small's detailed descriptions of the various plants and animals were scientifically informed, but also somewhat whimsical and intriguing. He concluded that the Everglades was “a strange country, a land of anomalies and the grotesque. Here fish sing; snakes often live in trees; epiphytes grow as terrestrials; terrestrials grow as epiphytes; giant oak trees are arbours for aerial plants and ferns; cacti grow in water; oysters grow on trees and broad-leaved trees grow on rocks lacking soil.” Nature Magazine continued to follow the progress of the park, publishing articles in 1941 and again in 1947.95 David Fairchild, knew many conservationists and magazine editors and used these connections to advance the park. For example, his brother-in-law was Gilbert Grosvenor, the first editor of National Geographic. In January of 1930, National Geographic published a 94 page article on the State of Florida, accompanied by color photos, written by Associate Editor John Oliver La Gorce. This article was a comprehensive account of Florida, and La Gorce made sure to discuss not only the Everglades, but the national park as well. La Gorce described the Everglades as an “extraordinary region,” that “never was the dark, equatorial swamp with boa constrictors dangling from trees to grab at passing animals, so graphically shown in woodcuts which illuminated early geographies.” Rather, the Everglades was a “rock-bottom shallow basin,” that was “really a lake and not a mammoth swamp.” The area was “a naturalist's delight,” with “virgin forests,” “a unique flora,” and abundant wildlife. The proposed park

94 EC to Arthur Pack, 23 October 1935, David Sholtz Papers, FSA. 95 Nature Magazine, 7 July 1934, 21; John Kunkell Small, “The Proposed Everglades National Park, USA,” Nature Magainze, 14 August 1937, 263-4, 264; Nature Magazine, December 1941, December 1947. 59

would protect this flora and fauna from destruction. LaGorce wrote that “were this area set aside as a national park, the wild life could be protected.” National Geographic published on the Everglades again in 1940, with an article devoted entirely to the flora and fauna within the park's proposed boundaries.96 Many other magazines published articles on the Everglades and on the park in the 1930s, including publications such as Science, Scientific Monthly, Reader's Digest, Travel, Landscape Architecture, The Review of Reviews, and Scientific American. Although these and other magazines reached a national audience, Coe was aware that he needed to focus on smaller state and local audiences as well. Coe had close relationships with newspaper editors like Frank Stoneman of the Miami Herald, who wrote editorials promoting the park's creation. After his retirement, Stoneman served on the ENPA's Publicity and Membership committee. Coe corresponded with other Florida newspaper editors as well. For example, Coe frequently wrote his “dear friend,” A.H. Andrews, the editor of the Estero American Eagle, a newspaper from the west coast of Florida that supported the ENP. In 1931, Coe thanked Andrews for his support of the park, and encouraged him to continue publishing on the Everglades, noting that “the reading public wants to hear more about the subject.”97 Even as late as 1940, Coe still had a tremendous amount of power over the newspaper coverage of the park. On occasion, Coe's letters were even adopted by the Miami Herald as editorials. On September 20, 1940, Coe sent out a bulletin entitled “Herein Lies A Danger,” stating that: Spessard L. Holland, nominee for Governor of Florida, has very positively expressed his purpose to use every influence within his power, when elected Governor to the end that the Everglades National Park project becomes established with all possible speed. It is also well known that each member of the forthcoming governor's cabinet has expressed himself to this Association in favor of the Park's early establishment. Coe cautioned though, that “the foundation only is so far laid,” that “we must by all means at our

96 Oliver LaGorce, “Florida – The Fountain of Youth,” National Geographic, January 1930, 1-93, 26, 35; John O'Reillly, “South Florida's Amazing Everglades,” National Geographic, January 1940, 115-142. 97 1937 ENPA annual meeting report, 25 March 1937, DF Papers, FTGA; List of ENPA subscribers, 27 January 1930, DF Papers, FTGA; TENPA report, undated, c 1934, DF Papers, FTGA; EC to AH Andrews, 27 February 1931, Reclaiming the Everglades website. 60

command gird ourselves for an intensive campaign,” and “build up public interest and understanding for the Park, not only that State officials will have the hearty support of the citizens, which they so much need, but that the way will be paved for the financial support that must be forthcoming to finish up the land acquisition job remaining for the State.”98 The Miami Herald took this bulletin, made it readable, and published it as an editorial three days later. This article stated that: Spessard L. Holland, nominee of governor, has pledged that he will exert every influence to bring about the establishment of this park after his election and inauguration. The cabinet members have likewise expressed their approval of the park. However, Director Ernest F. Coe warns that those interested should not thereby be led to assume that the park project is assured. The work must go on in order to maintain the enthusiasm and to raise further funds for the acquisition of remaining lands and to carry on the promotional and other activities of the Everglades National Park Association.99 Throughout the 1930s Coe mailed press releases to the Miami Herald and the Miami Daily News. In 1936 this operation was expanded when the ENPA hired Hester Scott, “a woman with a background of many years in newspapers and magazine writing, trained in preparing publicity material from a newspaper point of view,” to write press releases for Florida newspapers. Although Scott was probably not employed longer than a year or two, due to the financial position of the Association, she was effective a enlarging the Association's influence over Florida newspapers. Scott's impact on press coverage of the Everglades was measured in an ENP report. This report found that between July and December of 1936, 118 newspapers out of the 203 the ENPA's clipping service monitored, ran 521 stories about the Everglades National Park. Of these, 387 originated from Scott's own press releases. Scott wrote to Coe that “each month has given us new papers and new localities in which we have not previously appeared and that once started these papers have, as a rule, followed through with continued representation.”100 Coe also made use of local radio to promote the park in Miami. WQAM and WIOD, two

98 EC Bulletin, 20 September 1940, SH Papers, PK Younge Library, UF. 99 MH 23 September 1940. 100 Hester Scott to D. Graham Copeland, 15 December 1936, EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; Hester Scott, 28 January 1937, DF Papers, FTGA. 61

Miami radio stations, repeatedly gave Coe and his allies air time throughout the twenty year fight for the park. In April 1931, Coe organized a week-long lecture series on WIOD. In 1937, Coe took to the airwaves again to attack Governor Cone's inaction concerning the park. On WQAM Coe stated that “Governor Cone is another one of these executives whose lack of understanding of the Everglades Park situation bids fair to upset all the work which has been done in the past.” Coe took the radio again in 1941 to praise the election of Spessard Holland, whom he said is “fully informed as to the possibilities which the opening of this park will develop economically for the entire state.”101 Coe also delivered lectures to various organizations, both in Florida and in urban areas along the east coast. Coe was a member of the Rotary Club and had extensive contacts with other service organizations and social clubs. Sometime between 1929 and 1931, Coe traveled to Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, New York, and Boston delivering lectures to various “important organizations which have influence in National Park matters.” These were accompanied by over 100 lantern slides of the Everglades. These slides were mostly made by Coe and Miami photographer and ENPA member Claude Matlack. Some of the photos were also acquired from the private collections of various scientific authorities, including John Kunkell Small, Frank Chapman, John Merriam, and David Fairchild. According to Coe, “these picture slides show the graceful curves of white beaches at the Cape Sables, great groves of native palms, alluring examples of jungle life, orchids, birds, rookeries, tarpon jumping, alligators basking in the sun, (and) a colony of flamingos as they once were in the great Whitewater bay.” Coe also lectured extensively in South Florida. Marjory Stoneman Douglas wrote that Coe “talked before women's clubs, garden clubs, Rotary clubs, civic meetings, or groups of neighbors. He gave lectures everywhere, illustrated with slides. And the theme of everything he had to say was, 'It must be a national park.'”102

101 ENPA mailing, transcript of EC's WIOD radio address, 13 April, 1931, UM Presidential Archives, Richter Library, UM; EC, excerpt from WQAM commentator, 11 December 1937, Cone Papers, FSA; EC, excerpt from WQAM commentator, 1 February 1941, Holland Papers, FSA. 102 Undated press release, circa 1928-1931, DF Papers, FTGA; MSD, “The Forgotten Father,” Audubon Magazine, 1974. 62

3. TOURISM IN THE EVERGLADES

Introduction

Coe successfully challenged common perceptions of the Everglades and built support for preserving the Everglades' flora and fauna, but was also aware that a higher degree of support for the park would be needed from Florida's business community and political elite. To establish the park, the state of Florida would need to purchase private lands in the Everglades. Coe tried to convince these politicians that investing in the creation of the ENP would be an economic asset to Florida's future. He argued that Everglades National Park would attract millions of tourists, thus providing an economic benefit to Florida. Coe also asserted that there was an inspirational and educational benefit from Everglades tourism. Park visitors would be enlightened and inspired by their experiences in the Everglades and, according to Coe, would reconsider their own relationships with the environment around them. Coe's use of tourism and his discussions of nature's ability to inspire humans have much in common with Progressive Era conservationists like Stephan Mather and John Muir. Although Coe's desire to protect the Everglades' biota connects him to modern environmentalism, this connection is complicated by these aspects of Coe's promotional work. Coe's use of tourism also upset many conservationists, some of whom, like Robert Sterling Yard of the National Parks Association, were connected to an emerging wilderness movement that was highly critical of tourism in natural areas. These wilderness activists were especially wary of automobiles in national parks and forests. Yard and other conservationists feared that local boosters and real estate interests were pushing an inferior park for economic gain. They feared that tourism would ruin the Everglades' natural features, but but because the Everglades was a swamp, they were skeptical that the area was worthy of national park status. This controversy hurt the short term prospects for the park's establishment, but also had long term benefits for the park. These debates, and George Wright's Fauna of the National Parks, the first survey of wildlife in the parks, influenced Coe's ideas about tourism in the ENP. Coe argued that tourism could exist in the ENP without harming the park's flora and fauna. The ENP's boundaries and developments would be planned to restrict tourism to a few small areas. As a result, the vast majority of the park would remain a roadless wilderness. Coe also argued

that because of the aquatic nature of the Everglades, the use of automobiles would be severely limited in the park. Rather, tourists would be forced to travel by boat or by foot to see the Everglades. Tourism in the park would thus be limited both spatially and qualitatively.103

Tourism as a Promotional Strategy

Throughout American history, the establishment of national parks has been tied to tourism and geology. The rationale for Everglades National Park, however, lay in protecting its biological contents and once the park was established, it attracted significantly less tourists than other similarly-sized parks. Tourism did however, play a large role in the park's creation. In this way, Everglades National Park has something in common with its predeccesors within the national park system. Although he asserted on more than one occasion that tourism was merely a means to create the park, Coe frequently discussed tourism in Everglades National Park, particularly when addressing local audiences. Coe argued that the park would bring millions of tourists to Florida annually. These tourists who spend money while in Florida and increase the state's tax revenues. Coe also emphasized that these tourists would have to travel the length of the state to reach the park, and would of course, spend money on their way. These arguments became more relevant to Florida once the country was plunged into an economic depression. Coe frequently wrote that the establishment of the park, although it would cost the state millions, would soon pay for itself and would help alleviate the depression in Florida. He stated that with the establishment of the park, “more and more dollars will flow our way, and our economic problems will be largely solved.”104 Although Coe frequently discussed tourism and the economic benefits of the park, especially to local audiences, he also repeatedly stated that the preservation of the Everglades' biota was the park's first priority, and that tourism was a means to a create the park. In a letter to the American Civic Association, he stated that “my economic promise that any national park project stimulates is only a means for an end.” In a less direct manner, typical of Coe's writing,

103 George Wright, Thomas Dixon, and Ben Thompson, Fauna of the National Parks of the United States, U.S.: Government Printing Office, 1933. 104 Ernest Coe (EC), ENPA Bulletin, June 13, 1930, David Fairchild (DF) Papers, Fairchild Tropical Garden Archives. 64

he communicated the same sentiments to fellow landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. Coe wrote to Olmsted Jr. that many of the ENPA's bulletins “have been deliberately planned to stimulate local interest,” and that in these bulletins, “the economic side as it related to local citizens has been stressed.” However, in all these bulletins, “no opportunity” had been lost “to stress the aesthetic value of this region and the importance of providing a haven for its native wildlife.” In Coe's earliest writing about the park he discussed tourism, but added that “far transcending any economic consideration as a reason for or means of acquiring this area stands out the Nation wide importance of preserving this Cape Sable section of South Florida as a National Park for all time.”105 More frequently, however, Coe directly and forcefully argued that the establishment of the park would be an economic benefit to Florida. A bulletin issued by Coe in 1932, entitled “Florida's Most Important Stabilizing Project,” used complicated statistics to show the economic benefit Florida would gain from tourism to the ENP. Coe calculated that “461,855 people coming into Florida for an average of 20 days, spending an average of $10 per day . . . equals $82,371,000 annually.” 461,855 was the number of tourists who “visited one National Park during 1931.” Coe continued his dubious and optimistic calculations, stating that these tourists would spend $46,185,500 on “hotels or other quarters, and $8,636,694 for gas. The state revenue on this gas tax would be $273,734. On another occasion, Coe claimed that the ENP “will be visited by from 500,000 to 1,000,000 visitors annually, and that this would mean “the enriching of the income of our state and its citizens individually from outside sources by thirty to seventy- five million annually in dollars.” In 1938, Coe offered a different set of statistics. In a fundraising form letter, the ENPA claimed that the park would “mean an additional influx annually of more than 500,000 visitors and increased expenditures by them within the State of from $75,000,000 to $100,000,000 each year.” In yet another letter Coe claimed that tourists would bring at least 50 million dollars a year in Florida, “which is more than $150,000.000 each day of the year, not counting Sundays.”106

105 EC to Miss Harlean James, March 18, 1931, Shotlz Papers, FSA; EC to Frederick Law Olmsted, February 2, 1931, David Sholtz Papers, FSA; EC, “RE: Proposed Tropic Everglades National Park,” October 25, 1928, UM Presidential Archives, Richter Library Special Collections, UM. 106 EC, ENPA Bulletin, Feb. 2, 1932. DF Papers, FTGA; EC, ENPA Bulletin, No Date, c1929, David Sholtz Papers, Florida State Archives (FSA); Form letter for fundraising, on the back of Thomas J. Pancoast to Dr. Bowman Ashe, March 4, 1938, University of Miami (UM) Presidential Archives, Richter Library Special Collections, UM; Ernest Coe, “Report covering special activities of the Association,” November 1, 1934.” UM Presidential Archives, Richter Library Special Collections, UM. 65

More frequently, Coe was vague in his estimations on the exact economic benefit Florida would receive from the park. In many bulletins and letters, Coe repeated the claim that “there will be hundreds of thousands of tourists coming to this National Park annually. They will spend millions of dollars annually while touring the State.” When Key West citizens protested the park because they feared losing their sponging industry, Coe sent them a Du Pont synthetic sponge and told them to forget sponging and embrace tourism because “catering to the tourist is one of the world's biggest and most profitable industries, and no influence bending tourist travel is greater than the influence of national parks.”107 Coe emphasized the increased tax revenues the park would generate. Because the State of Florida would have to eventually buy the land for the park, Coe attempted to convince the state government that the park would bring long term increases in tax revenue. He wrote that the park would “increase the revenue on the sale of gasoline alone many thousands of dollars annually.” Some government officials feared the park would mean a loss in property tax income, but Coe, writing to Governor Sholtz, in a letter that would carbon copied to more than ten other individuals including many members of the NPS and ENPC, disagreed. He wrote that “the income to the State through gasoline tax alone will amount to many times more in money than would be realized from taxes on lands included in the Park.”108 The ENP, unlike other national parks, would be open year round, thus attracting many tourists during the winter months. One ENPA bulletin stated that “the key to Florida's future place in the sun is beyond doubt its superb winter climate.” This park would be “the only National Park located in the true Tropics,” and “will have this outstanding distinction and be a focal attraction, especially for tourists and nature students traveling south during the winter season.”109 Coe also emphasized that all of Florida would benefit from the park, not just South

107 EC, “Annual Meeting of the ENPA,” Jan 1, 1935, DF Papers, FTGA; EC to William Porter, July 8, 1936, EC Papers, SFCFC, ENP. Also see Ernest Coe, July 5, 1934, DF Papers, FTG Archives; Ernest Coe, “Florida Wants the Everglades National Park,” 1938, DF Papers, FTG Archives; Ernest Coe “Something Every Candidate for Office in Florida Can Well Ponder Over and Stand For In His Platform” March 26, 1936, EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; EC to Governor Dave Sholtz, May 4, 1936, EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. EC to Governor Sholtz, May 4, 1936, EC Papers, SFCMC; EC to Arthur Gomez, April 12, 1937, EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 108 EC “Something Every Candidate for Office in Florida Can Well Ponder Over and Stand For In His Platform” March 26, 1936, EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; EC to Governor Dave Sholtz, May 4, 1936, EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 109 EC, ENPA Bulletin, June 13, 1930, DF Papers, FTG Archives; EC, ENPA Bulletin, No Date, c1929, David Sholtz Papers, FSA. 66

Florida and Miami. To reach the park tourists would have to travel the length of the state. In a letter meant to draw attention to the park during the 1936 election, Coe wrote that “this national park will be located in the southernmost extremity of the State. To reach it calls for touring the entire length of the State, giving the tourist an opportunity to see Florida both going and coming.” According to Coe, “each and every city, town and county will be benefited,” because “to reach the Tropic Everglades National Park from the northern points, the tourist will practically traverse the entire state both going and coming.” Tourists on their way to the park “will have occasion to stop to eat, drink and pass the nights, which means enriching the country and its citizens along the way by spending in return for the accommodations, service and favors extended to him.”110 Other park advocates were skeptical about the park's economic benefits. David Fairchild wrote to T. Gilbert Pearson of the National Audubon Society that “Coe in his talks to the Clubs gives them the idea that the Park will bring millions to Florida.” Fairchild however, was not so optimistic. He thought that the park would not have this large an impact, in part because “the area will never be adapted to camping out parties as in the Yellowstone or the Glacier of the Yosemite National Park.” Fairchild thought that tourists would not have much to do in the park. He wrote that “there is nothing on earth for the boys and girls to do in the evening and I am sure that the Park Service will have the dickins of a time inventing pastimes for these people which would compete with the dance halls and palaces of pleasure of Miami.”111 Although Fairchild was skeptical, Coe was successful in convincing others from Florida about the economic value of the park. John Pennekamp, the editor of the Miami Herald in the 1940s who fought for the park during that decade, parroted Coe's statements about to tourism. At an ENPC meeting in 1946, Pennekamp stated that the ENP and Florida “will get more than our share of people because we will be open four times as long.” Tourists will “traverse the whole of the State of Florida,” and none of them “will use the same road twice.” Coe also was successful in convincing Spessard Holland, Florida's Governor between 1941 and 1945, about the economic value of the ENP. At this same ENPC meeting Holland stated that the park “will bring in many tens of thousands of additional tourists who wouldn't come except for the park.

110 EC “Something Every Candidate for Office in Florida Can Well Ponder Over and Stand For In His Platform” March 26, 1936, EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; EC, ENPA Bulletin, No Date, c1929, David Sholtz Papers, FSA. 111 David Fairchild to Gilbert Pearson, January 23, 1931, DF Papers, FTG Archives. 67

They will see many new things, they will come back, they will stay and invest their money here and help build our state to even greater heights. It will produce many millions of additional dollars in tax revenues. It will bring tremendous revenues to hotels, restaurants (and) people in private business.”112 Coe also argued that Seminole Indians would benefit economically from Everglades tourism. In various letters to officials within the Bureau of Indian Affairs, including letters to John Collier, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Coe argued that the establishment on the ENP could solve many of the problems the Seminoles faced. To Coe, the Seminoles presented “a dismal picture.” The Seminole was “a man without a country, his source of livelihood largely taken from him and nothing put in its place.” However, the establishment of the ENP would be “a solution to the whole Seminole problem both economic and social.”113 Coe saw the Seminoles as part of the Everglades and also hoped they would be a part of Everglades National Park, but his perception of the Seminoles was also deeply condescending and degrading. Coe thought it was “reasonable to assume that the Seminole by being present within the park would be one its attractions.” The Seminole, with his “costumes,” that Coe described as “colorful to the extreme and unique,” would be sure to “fascinate those who come in contact with him.” Coe wanted the Seminoles to act as guides for tourists in the park. Coe rhetorically asked, “What could be more tempting or give promise of a rarer experience to the park tourist than a trip of a few minutes or hours through one of these jungle waterways, sitting in the bow of a canoe guided by a Seminole?” These trips would “be so priced as to assure an income to the Seminole.” In another letter, Coe stated that “the braves will serve most acceptably as guides.” Coe also thought the Seminoles would benefit economically by making and selling souvenirs to tourists. He wrote that “nothing could be more suitable or acceptable as souvenirs than the many articles these Indians do so skillfully fashion.”114 Despite Coe's condescending perception of the Seminoles as a tourist attraction or museum exhibit, Coe also thought the Everglades would help the Seminoles solve their “social” problems. Although Coe was vague on what exactly this meant, he did discuss on various occasions the issue of whether the Seminoles would assimilate into mainstream America or

112 ENPC Executive Committee meeting, October 21, 1946, EC Papers SFCMC. 113 EC to John Collier, April 3, 1934, DF Papers, FTG Archives. 114 EC to John Collier, April 3, 1934, DF Papers, FTG Archives; EC to Members of the ENPC and the ENPA, June 28, 1935, DF Papers, FTG Archive. 68

retain their own unique culture. To Coe, employment in the park would allow the Seminole's “social life,” to be “relieved of the many pitfalls now assailing him on every hand.” The park would create a situation for the Seminole in which he would be able to “work out his own destiny.” Presumably, the park would enable the Seminoles to retain their own culture and resist assimilation.115 These arguments about tourism and the economics of creating the park were directed at local audiences. Coe tailored his publicity materials to appeal to the audience they would reach. In an early ENPA bulletin directed at Floridians, Coe wrote that “the world wants to make Florida its great winter playground, the place to tour, recreate, and gain health and inspiration. Our own local troubles mean little to it. The world is glad to pay and pay liberally when it is out on a pleasure bent.” He argued that “the key to Florida's future place in the sun is beyond doubt its superb winter climate. It is up to us, its citizens, to build upon this supreme gift everything that adds to Florida attractions.” Coe appealed specifically to Miami writing that “Greater Miami and its interests are to receive more immediate and future benefits from this National Park than will be enjoyed by any other part of the State of Florida.”116 Coe was allied with many South Floridian boosters. Prominent South Florida hotel owners served as Coe's fundraisers on the ENPA, and were his staunchest allies on the Everglades National Park Commission(ENPC), a state agency Coe ran between 1935 and 1937. Thomas Pancoast was perhaps Coe's longest and most loyal ally in the fight for the park. Pancoast was the President of the Miami Beach Chamber of Commerce, owned a hotel in Miami Beach, and was the son-in-law of John Collins, the founder of Miami Beach. Pancoast served as the Chairman of the ENPC from 1935 until 1937 and was one of the original members of the ENPA. When offered the position as chairman of the ENPC he stated that “it might be well to have the president or chairman of the organization close to Mr. Coe. Because Mr. Coe and I have been in close contact with each other practically every day from the start of the organization.” Pancoast worked with Judge John O. Shares, the owner of the Sebring Hotel in Sebring Florida, on the ENPC to support Coe's authority over matters such as the budget, the daily operations of the Commission, and the highly contentious issue of the park's boundaries. Other boosters on the ENPA included David Sholtz and Clayton Sedwick Cooper. Coe himself was a life-long

115 EC to John Collier, April 3, 1934, DF Papers, FTG Archives; EC to John Collier, March 27, 1935. DF Papers, FTG Archives. 116 EC, ENPA Bulletin, June 13, 1930, David Sholtz Papers, FSA 69

Rotarian who used his social connections to publicize the Everglades National Park.117 Although he emphasized the economic benefits of tourism to local audiences, Coe also discussed the spiritual and inspirational benefits of Everglades tourism. Coe believed that when tourists saw the wonders in the Everglades they would be educated and inspired, and may even begin to reconsider their own relationships with the environment. Coe wrote that the Everglades, through its “inspirational value as a nature reservation,” could alter the way humans saw the Everglades and the larger environment as a whole. Visitors to the park “will tell of the wonders of this Tropic National Park,” and “will take away the memories of having realized an oft time longed for experience and its thrilling sight[s] and unfamiliar wonders.” Coe called the park a “veritable wonderland” and argued that the park would be an area “for study and inspiration.” Coe also noted that this “inspirational value,” was dependent on the Everglades being “left largely in the primeval state.”118

Controversy over Park Publicity, Politics, and Tourism

Coe's arguments about tourism resonated with Floridian businessmen and politicians but conservationists from outside Florida were critical of Coe's publicity methods and his discussions of tourism. Robert Sterling Yard of the National Parks Association (NPA), George Pratt of the American Forestry Association (AFA) and Henry Ward of the Izaak Walton League of America (IWLA) all expressed opposition to the establishment of the Everglades National Park between 1929 and 1931. They feared the park was a boondoggle dreamt up by local boosters who only cared about enhancing Florida's reputation and economy and were unconcerned about National Park standards and the preservation of nature. Some feared the park was a real estate scheme pushed by landowners saddled by worthless land. Most importantly, they were concerned that tourists in the park would ruin the natural qualities of the Everglades, destroying the very things the park was meant to protect. These individuals, especially Robert Sterling Yard, also doubted whether the Everglades was worthy of national park status. Yard subscribed to both older perceptions of the Everglades as a dank and dangerous swamp, and

117 ENPC meeting, January 15, 1936, Ernest Coe Papers, SFCMC, ENP; EC, “Story of the Everglades National Park Project,” unpublished manuscript, 1 December 1950, (EVER22888), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 118 EC Lecture, “America's Only Tropics,” UM Presidential Archives, Richter Library Special Collections, UM; EC, ENPA Bulletin, No Date, c1929, Doyle Carlton Papers, FSA; EC, ENPA Bulletin, No Date, c1929, Doyle Carlton Papers, FSA; EC to Sen. M. O. Harrison, July 18, 1931, Doyle Carlton Papers, FSA. 70

older ideas about the purposes of national parks. He thought parks needed to be geologically and superlative and did not yet accept that parks could have biological significance. Coe and the NPS worked to defend Everglades National Park, but David Fairchild was more effective at defusing this controversy, partly due his reputation as a scientist. He defended Coe's use of tourism and tried to convince these conservationists about the need to protect the Everglades' flora and fauna. Although he corresponded with Yard, Pratt and Ward, he also delivered an important speech about the Everglades in 1929 to the American Forestry Association. Here he presented his and Coe's version of the Everglades and examined how perceptions of the environment had changed over time. William P. Wharton, a New England conservationist, and Fredrick Law Olmsted Jr., one of the most important landscape architects in American history, also played a role in defusing this controversy. The National Parks Association and other conservation organizations commissioned these two to conduct a independent investigation of the Everglades. Due to their positive and enthusiastic conclusions, which revolved around the scenic value of the parks' biology, Yard and others dropped their opposition to the ENP's creation. Much of this controversy was rooted in the debates about tourism and wilderness in natural areas. Conservationists were increasingly critical of roads and automobiles in natural areas. They believed these contraptions were destroying the natural qualities in national forests and national parks. Paul Sutter, in Driven Wild, details how conservationists Aldo Leopold, Bob Marshall, Benton MacKaye, and Robert Sterling Yard embraced the idea of wilderness to oppose the further construction of roads in national parks and forests and to protect these natural areas from the harmful effects of tourism. Tourism was destroying nature, and as many noted at the time noted, the national parks were being 'loved to death.' National parks, which were supposedly designed to preserve nature were, in reality, tourist attractions and the large number of tourists in the parks, along with the highly commercialized nature of that tourism had a negative impact on the natural life in the parks. Tourism might have had the power to revitalize Florida's economy, and it might have been able to make humans reconsider their relationship with the environment, but it also could destroy that nature.119 Sutter also discusses Yard's opposition to Everglades National Park, revealing it to be a

119 Paul Sutter, Driven Wild, How the Fight Against Automobiles Launched the Modern Wilderness Movement. University of Washington Press, 2002. 71

pivotal moment in the evolution of Yard's thinking the purposes, rationales and standards for national parks. Through his affiliation with the National Parks Association Yard fought many inferior and commercially motivated park proposals. Yard was especially derisive of what he called 'southern' parks. In the 1920s and '30s many Southern states proposed national parks. Yard saw these parks as commercial proposals put forth by Southern boosters suffering from regional jealousy over the West's national parks. Yard judged parks based on their scenic qualities, and thought the scenery in southern parks inferior to the parks of the West. Additionally, when these proposed parks did possess some scenic significance, Yard criticized them as unpristine and sullied, as most of the land in these proposed parks had been used and exploited by humans. The Great Smoky National Park, for instance, was one park Yard opposed that was created on land that had been mined and logged extensively.120 According to Sutter, Yard Everglades National Park for a variety of reasons. He thought the Everglades had been altered by humans and not pristine enough to be a national park. He also believed that the park proposal was another of these 'southern' proposals that were mainly commercial ventures dreamt up by local boosters. He thought that these boosters were allied with local real estate interests who intended on using the park to drive up real estate values back to those of the pre-land boom era. Yard was also very concerned about potential development in the park, such as roads, and lodging and boating facilities. Yard's opposition also revolved around the perceived lack of scenery in the Everglades. In the early 1930s Yard could not accept that a national park could be established for biological rather than scenic reasons.121 Yard did not look favorably on the prospects of a park in the Everglades, but Coe's publicity work exacerbated his fears. Coe's actions and his arguments about tourism fueled Yard's fears that local boosters and commercial and real estate interests were pushing for the park's establishment for selfish purposes. Yard was constantly fighting the promotion of inferior parks and Coe's early promotional tacitcs in 1928 raised red flags for Yard. In 1928, Coe and Fairchild wrote a letter asking prominent scientists, politicians, and conservationists their opinions about the Everglades. These individuals included Gilbert Grosvenor, the President of the National Geographic Society, and Fairchild's brother-in-law, conservationists like Gifford Pinchot, Thomas Barbour, and Herman Bumpus, and other notable Americans like Thomas

120 Sutter, 130-1; Margaret Brown, The Wild East: A Biography of the Great Smoky Mountains, University of Florida Presses, 2001. 121 Sutter, 131-4. 72

Edison, Zane Grey, Henry Ford, Chief Justice William Taft, and Fredrick Law Olmsted. Coe intended to use these replies to promote the park. For example, a 1932 ENPA Bulletin included an excerpt from Gifford Pinchot's reply to this form letter. Pinchot wrote that the Everglades “is a land of strangeness separate and apart from the common things we know so well,” and that it would be “a new world to play in, [and] a good place to be in summer as well as winter.”122 Robert Sterling Yard, however, saw this letter an attempt to push the park through the legislative process before it had been adequately examined by the proper officials. He wrote to Fairchild early in 1929 stating that “the purpose of these letters and the folder they mention can be no other than to whip into action public expectation and Congressional demand for an area whose national park standards have not been determined by the Interior Department.” Yard thought the ENPA was acting improperly and explained, “we have been fighting promotions in Congress of areas not officially passed upon as standard,” and that “we are bound by our conviction and our duty to the millions throughout the country who trust our leadership in defense of National Park Standards.” He was especially upset because “Mr. Coe when in Washington last fall, appeared so sympathetic with the requirements of the the National Parks System.” However, “the change in the Association's position from promise of orderly and dignified promotion to misrepresentation of fact and appeal to Congress by outcry, irrespective of standards, is extremely disturbing.”123 Henry Ward of the Izaak Walton League of America also protested to Fairchild. Yard was skeptical about the value of the Everglades, but Ward believed that making the Everglades into a national park, was “the most attractive plan which has been brought out within recent times.” He wrote that “we have all of us known generally regarding the unique biological character of the area,” and about the destructive effects that “rapid [commercial] development” was having in the Everglades. However, Ward was upset at this attempt to promote the park and wrote that “efforts to stampede legislative bodies are totally foreign to the purpose and methods of the Izaak Walton League, as well as of scientific men generally.”124 Ward had the impression, formed from reading some of Coe's other mailings, that the ENPA was a front for local boosters who wanted the park created to selfish reasons. He

122 Form letter beginning “A movement has been started,” No Date, DF Papers, FTG Archives; ENPA Bulletin, March 18, 1932, EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; Gifford Pinchot to David Fairchild, January 19, 1929, DF Papers, FTGA. 123 Robert Yard to DF, January 18, 1929, DF Papers, FTGA. 124 Henry Ward to DF, January 28, 1929, DF Papers, FTGA. 73

protested that “National Parks are not amusement resorts and the League does not propose to support anything merely as a means for the State to get out of the government maintenance costs for Coney Island amusement parks.” Ward told Fairchild that the League was “constantly called upon to fight transportation agencies, restaurant and hotel keepers and concessionaires of all sorts because they want to turn our magnificent National Parks into cheap amusement resorts to the total destruction of the wilderness and its wild life.” However Ward was more willing to support the ENP than Yard was, and asked Fairchild to assuage his fears and send him more information about the park.125 Fairchild responded and tried to clear up any misunderstanding that had arisen between Coe and Ward.. He wrote to Ward, who would share these letters with Robert Sterling Yard, about the Everglades' identity and Coe's publicity tactics. He made it clear that these initial solicitations concerning the Everglades were not going to be used until after a federal investigation into the Everglades was conducted. He assured Ward that neither Fairchild, Coe, nor the ENPA would use these letters to put pressure on any government entity. Fairchild ended the letter by stating that he wanted to mail Ward and Yard some additional materials on the park but that, “we have no printed literature as yet.” To emphasize this point he added, “we are waiting for the investigation and the outline of the area before we bring out any literature on the Park.”126 Although Ward was appreciative of the Everglades' nature, Robert Sterling Yard was not so impressed with the area's flora and fauna, and continued to attack the actions of the ENPA and the park itself. After seeing Ward's letter to Fairchild, Yard wrote to further protest Coe's actions. He clarified that “I do not know, [and] neither do all those whom you are asking to express opinions,” whether the Everglades meets the National Park standards set forth by the NPA. He also stated that “it will be patriotic and decent for your association to stop its attempt to enlist in political pressure of good people who don't know either the Everglades or national park principles.” Yard was opposed to “their gathering of the opinions of hundreds of people all over the country who have not seen the Everglades, or who are not familiar with national park standards as to whether it wouldn't be nice to have a park there and using them in nation-wide circulation to create a powerful politician argument.” He wanted NPS officials to make an

125 Henry Ward to DF, January 28, 1929, DF Papers, FTGA. 126 DF to Henry Ward, February 3, 1929, DF Papers, FTGA. 74

unbiased assessment as to whether the Everglades met national park standards. Yard thought Coe was engaging in a political tactic that was “of a new and dangerous kind,” and emphasized twice in this letter, that these methods and tactics amounted to Coe “not playing the game!”127 According to Yard, “Mr. Coe's clever mind has devised an altogether new way of prejudicing Congress and government in favor of local demand. He plays his trout skillfully giving plenty of line. While declaring that the Park Service is the be fully consulted, he brings to bear on the Interior Department and Congress, in advance thereof, a pressure of 'national demand,' that politicians find it very hard to resist.” Yard saw Coe's tactics as evidence that there was something else behind the ENPA. He speculated about the existence of “a land-selling scheme,” behind the park, and wrote that reaction and speculation with regards to the aims of the ENPA was “starting vigorously.”128 Yard believed that creating national parks was the purview of the federal government and that it needed to be done according to a strict set of standards. To him, conservation was a personal matter. He intimately knew NPS officials like Stephen Mather and Horace Albright, was well connected among conservationist circles, and had ties to powerful politicians. To Yard the establishment of a national park was something decided by elites within the government. Ernest Coe, however, understood that local politics in Florida were going to play a large role in the establishment of the park. Unlike with other parks, the federal government did not own any of the land in question and, instead of merely creating a park out of federal land, the state of Florida was going to have to purchase most of these lands from private individuals, thus requiring a much higher degree of political commitment. Coe needed to convince a much larger circle of individuals about the beauty and worth of the Everglades. Yard's activism, however, was constrained to congressional and interdepartmental politics and the attitudes of other conservationists. Coe's activism was much more democratic in nature than Yard's and tt was not only the content, but the method and quality of Coe's publicity work that was disturbing to Yard. Coe's impression of this controversy was that it was all an unfortunate misunderstanding. In a letter to Fredrick Law Olmsted, thanking him for writing to Robert Sterling Yard about the park, Coe wrote that “I fail to understand just why all this cry about local promoters, exploiters, etc. that seems to be going the rounds [sic] at the present time.” Coe had thought that Yard and

127 Robert Yard to Henry Ward, January 29, 1929, DF Papers, FTGA, underline in original document. Robert Yard to DF, January 28, 1929, DF Papers, FTGA. 128 Robert Yard to Henry Ward, January 29, 1929, DF Papers, FTGA. 75

others “would look upon this Everglades Park project” in a favorable light.129 Coe does bear responsibility for this controversy though. His over-enthusiasm for the ENP, his aggressive modern promotional tactics, his insistence to local audiences that the park would be an economic panacea for Florida and his loose and overly optimistic talk about tourism conflicted with these conservationists' attitudes about national parks in the 1930s. There was a fundamental misunderstanding at the heart of this conflict as well. Coe and Yard did not understand each other. They had widely different bodies of knowledge and experience they drew on when analyzing new information. Coe, who had spent his entire life as a landscape architect in New England, had no inkling that these debates over tourism in natural areas were even taking place when he started advocating for the ENP. Coe, in 1929, was still largely ignorant about national park standards, tourism and wilderness. Robert Sterling Yard, and in fact most conservationists at the time, knew nothing about the Everglades, and were largely ignorant about the nature of the area and its suitability for inclusion within the national park system. These individuals had formed their ideas about nature, parks, tourism, and wilderness within the context of temperate mountains and forests. They did not appreciate the value of wetlands and did not understand the identity of the Everglades that Coe was advancing. George Pratt of the American Forestry Association also expressed opposition to Everglades National Park, and saw national parks and swamps in the same ways as Yard. Pratt wrote David Fairchild early in 1929 that “I am absolutely opposed to a National park at the end of Florida. I do not believe, judging from the correspondence you have enclosed, that this region measures up the standard required for a National Park. . . .Too many states are trying to secure the cooperation of Congress to have national parks created in their particular States, and I am absolutely opposed to this one.” However, within a month Pratt had changed his mind, and wrote to Fairchild a month later that, “I may have been too hasty in my conclusion about the Everglades Tropic Park matter, but I have seen so many occasions when various States attempted to secure legislation creating National Parks out of areas that did not measure up to the national park standard, that I felt this was a similar attempt.” Pratt proclaimed that “My mind is perfectly open to the matter” of a park in the Everglades and invited Fairchild to discuss the park at the AFA's annual meeting on February 28, 1929.130

129 EC to Fredrick Law Olmsted Jr, 3 February 1931, DF Papers, FTGA. 130 George Pratt to DF, January 12, 1928, DF Papers, FTGA; George Pratt to DF, February 5, 1928, DF Papers, 76

Fairchild's speech before the American Forestry Association was an excellent description of his and Coe's version of the Everglades. Fairchild also examined how human perceptions of beauty in nature had changed over time. The beauty of the European Alps, for example, was so renowned and accepted that when Fairchild visited Europe in the 1890s “almost every traveler made a direct line for the Alps and the ship talk was largely as to whether you were going to visit them or not, so great had become the fame of their beetling crags and snow capped peaks and dark mysterious valleys.” Although this was how the Alps were viewed in the 1890s, Fairchild noted that “this appreciation of the Alps came very gradually into the life of the European.” He pointed out that an authority on beauty no less than William Wordsworth saw no “romantic beauty” or worth in these mountains. Fairchild quoted the lines from Wordsworth's “The Traveler,” to illustrate Wordworth's fearful view of the Alps: “'No vernal blooms their torpid rocks array But winter lingering chills the lap of May; No zephyr fondly sues the mountain's breast But meteors glare and stormy glooms invest.'”131 Despite his negative impressions of the Alps, Wordsworth wrote lyrically about his love of the English countryside. He fought against a proposed railroad in his beloved Lake district, writing that “'it is benignly ordained that green fields, clear blue skies, running streams of pure water, rich groves and woods, orchards, and all the ordinary varieties of rural nature, should find an easy way to the affections of all men.'”132 Just as Wordsworth doubted the value of the Alps, many northerners had misconceptions and illusions about the Everglades. According to Fairchild, “in my conversations with those who know only the northern forests I have found that as a rule they have an utterly incorrect impression of what a tropical forest is.” Fairchild urged the AFA to see the Everglades in the same way that “Wordsworth saw the wild tarns and woodlands of Windermere and Ullswater.” The Everglades needed to be examined carefully and with an open mind, and Fairchild admitted that “there will be those who speed through the Everglades and see nothing that appeals to them, just as the then famous Bishop Burnet described the gorgeously beautiful Alps after having

FTGA. 131 David Fairchild, “The Proposed National Park in Southern Everglades of Florida,” Department of Agriculture, State of Florida, 1929. 132 Ibid. 77

crossed them as 'those mountains of which the very sight is enough to fill a man with horror.'”133 Most of this lecture consisted of description of the Everglades and arguments for the creation of the ENP. Fairchild described the Everglades as “a vast expanse of grass land cut into a hundred fragments and diversified by oases of scrubby trees called hammocks and waterways whose shores in part are covered with impenetrable jungles of mangrove and in part are sandy beaches strewn with cocoanut palms.” Fairchild also argued that the Everglades was tropcial and unique and that its worth as a park was due to the area's flora and fauna.134 Fairchild argued that the beauty of the Everglades was not conventional and was not always easily seen and appreciated. He told the AFA that the Everglades had “a strange and to me appealing beauty,” and a charm that was similar to “the charm of the Pacific Islands.” Fairchild had traveled around the world on various botanical expeditions and frequently compared the Everglades to other exotic tropical locales. To the AFA he argued that the Everglades was more exotic, more fantastic, and more interesting than most of those foreign locales. The beaches at Cape Sable “with their groves of coconut palms,” reminded Fairchild “of beaches in Samoa and the Fiji Islands and Amboina and the other islands in the Java sea.” Fairchild found the hammocks of the Everglades similar to the “Winneba Plains of the African Gold Coasts . . . although they lacked much of the beauty that characterizes the hammocks of Florida.”135 Fairchild believed that the mangrove forests of the Everglades, which he called, “those strangest of all the plant associations of the world,” were also the most magnificent mangrove forests in the world. He told the AFA that “I went to Java and saw the mangroves there. I visited Siam and Ceylon and traveled out to New Guinea. I have been twice on the coast of Sumatra and I have coasted along the islands of the Fiji and Samoa and the Hawaiian groups, but nowhere have I seen such magnificent mangrove vegetation as that which characterizes the Southern Everglades of Florida.”136 Fairchild made the same arguments about the Everglades orchids. He told the AFA he had “just returned from the table lands of North Sumatra, but nowhere in all my experience have I seen greater numbers of orchids, or more magnificent specimens, than abound in the hammocks

133 Ibid. 134 Ibid. 135 Ibid. 136 Ibid. 78

of Southern Florida.” Likewise, the Everglades' strangler figs were “one of the most striking features of the jungle anywhere.” Fairchild stated that “I have never seen (a) finer example anywhere of the complete destruction of century old oaks by the strangling action of these ficus species than here in South Florida.” He connected the Everglades' palm trees to the tropical identity of the area, telling the AFA that the cocoanut palm “carries with it more of the romance of the Pacific island civilization than any other plant. Take it away from the landscapes of the Pacific and you have robbed them of their most precious possession.”137 Although Fairchild, and perhaps his audience at the AFA as well, were more concerned with the flora of the Everglades, Fairchild discussed the fauna of the region as well. He informed his audience that in the Everglades live “about forty species of land animals,” and that “some of these have already become so rare that they may be entirely extinct.” Also in the Glades were manatees, “whose formless bodies at one time started the myth of the mermaids,” dolphins, porpoises, sharks, whales, and “seven hundred species of brilliant and fascinating fishes.” Of course, alligators and crocodiles were in the Everglades as well. Fairchild explained that “to one who has never seen an alligator there is a thrill in seeing one that is out of all proportion to its characteristics,” and that “no picture of the Everglades would be any where near complete without alligators sunning themselves on a mud bank.”138 Although he connected the identity of the Everglades to alligators, he downplayed the existence of snakes in the Glades. Fairchild stated that “one thinks of snakes when one sees the water covered swamps of the Everglades, . . . but these regions are, as a rule, too wet for the true rattlers, and one sees there generally only the black snake, the king snake, the large tree snake and the water moccasin.” Fairchild doubted these snakes were a danger “greater than that of the hundreds of automobiles between which and behind which we travel thousands of miles of month in our great cities.”139 Of course Fairchild was obliged to discuss the birds of the Everglades, the animal most closely associated with the area in the 1930s. These birds were “one of the most remarkable and romantic characteristics of the wild life of this planet.” A national park was needed to save these bird populations which were already threatened and diminished. According to Fairchild, it was “the disappearance of the beautiful birds which once occurred in such immense flocks that

137 Ibid. 138 Ibid. 139 Ibid. 79

disturbs my peace of mind more than anything else.” Fairchild presented the Everglades as a habitat for these birds. The area was “a favorite feeding and nesting place” for these birds and was “blessed with an abundance of the kind of food upon which some of the most spectacular of all birds of the world live.” The hammocks of the Glades had many tree snails, the shores were “alive with shrimp and small fish, and the fresh water lakes are filled with minnows, while thousands of lizards are everywhere scurrying about through the tall grass without knowing that a bird from the sky can follow its every movement.”140 Fairchild's speech was an implicit argument for a new kind of national park, a park that would preserve a biologically significant, rather than geologically significant area. However, because geology and national parks were so well connected in the minds of the AFA, Fairchild did attempt to claim that the geology of the Everglades was important as well. He told the AFA that the Everglades was “a flat region with no elevation that is over 100 feet. The rock is sandy limestone . . . and the shell marl which composes vast areas is believed to be Pleistocene.” The importance of the Everglades' geology lay in the fact that “it is a great body of newly made land. There are evidences along its eastern border of an uplight of several feet in recent times, and at the very tip of Florida there are evidences of a recent sinking of the land.” Although none of this was scenically significant, Fairchild was trying to argue that geological processes were taking place in the Everglades and that these processes were scientifically significant and worthy of further study.141 Finally, Fairchild discussed the destruction of the Everglades and the need it as a national park. Unless constrained, Fairchild argued that humans “will cut roads through every hammock, drain every mangrove swamp, burn up all the peat deposits, let the fires destroy all the pines and imagine that the hand of man can make a better looking world than has the hand of nature.” Fairchild called on the AFA the protection of the Everglades' flora and fauna through the establishment of a national park in the Glades. This speech, delivered in February 1929, was successful in getting George Pratt and the AFA on board with the ENP. No further opposition came from Pratt or his organization, and in later letters Coe listed the AFA as an organization that supported the park. Although George Pratt and the AFA no longer opposed the ENP, Robert Sterling Yard

140 Ibid. 141 Ibid. 80

continued to criticize the Everglades. In fact, Yard did not fully accept the park's legitimacy until 1932 when the NPA commissioned an investigation into the Everglades. Yard actively opposed the federal authorization of the park in 1931, and remained skeptical of the Everglades' worth throughout the 1930s. Although in 1931 Yard discontinued his active opposition to the park's establishment, he was never more than a reluctant supporter of Everglades National Park. In 1932, Yard's organization, the National Parks Association, and other conservation groups, commissioned their own investigation of the Everglades. Although the Department of the Interior and the NPS had already investigated the area and found that it measured up to national park standards, the NPS sent William Wharton, an NPA member and prominent conservationist and Fredrick Law Olmsted Jr., a landscape architect and expert on parks, into the Everglades to conduct an independent investigation of the area. The NPS's investigation was primarily concerned with the biological worth of the Everglades, but Wharton and Olmsted Jr., used a different set of criteria to determine the area's worth. They judged the area according to its scenic and inspirational qualities. Although they found scenic value in the mangrove forests and bird populations of the Everglades, it was the scenic value of these biological elements they praised. Wharton and Olmsted Jr. placed the Everglades' biology within the context of the traditional purposes of national parks. They saw the Everglades biology in the context of its ability to inspire and impress humans, while Coe and Fairchild both saw the area's flora and fauna as having intrinsic value outside the purview of human perception. Wharton and Olmsted explained in their report, which was published in American Forests, the AFA's magazine, that they were “chiefly concerned . . . as to whether the area is really characterized by qualities properly typical of our National Parks from the standpoint of scenery - qualities which take and hold the attention of all visitors, impressing and inspiring them with a sense of power and vastness and beauty in nature.” Olmsted and Wharton's evaluation of the Everglades' scenery was mixed. They wrote that “the quality of the scenery is to the causal observer somewhat confused and monotonous,” and that its beauty was “akin to that of other great plains – perhaps rather subtle . . . though sometimes very grand.” Even as a prairie, Olmsted and Wharton found the scenery of the Everglades “less impressive pictorially than the simpler and bolder landscapes of some other notable plains.”142 They also, like Fairchild in his speech to the AFA, strained to find some geological value

142 Fredrick Law Olmsted Jr., and William P. Wharton, “The Florida Everglades,” American Forests 38, 1932. 81

in the Everglades. Just as Fairchild had done they pointed to evidence of recent geological change in the Glades. They found shoals “visibly forming and shifting,” mangrove seedlings, “forming precarious colonies on hazardous shoals and accelerating their upbuilding into islands,” marine organisms, “forming coral-like reefs of nascent limestone over the marl margins of established mangrove-islands,” and storms “breaking and tossing great fragments of these 'reefs' along with shells and mud, to form what might becomes the fossilferous conglomerates of some future geologist.”143 Wharton and Olmsted Jr. did find two features that measured up to their ideas about scenery and national parks. The first was the mangrove forests around Cape Sable and the Ten Thousand Islands. Although these forests were a biological feature, not a geological formation, what impressed Wharton and Olmsted was the “the impression of power” seen in the mangroves. They described these forests using a geological metaphor, writing that the mangroves were a “long frontal cliff of columnar trunks and dark foliage rising abruptly our of the Gulf of Mexico and bearing the brunt of storm waves that sweep across a thousand miles of water.” Wharton and Olmsted Jr. also described the mangrove-lined waterways and channels in the southern Glades, and the sense of remoteness and isolation felt within these estuarine areas. The waterways were “picturesque and strange and full of stimulus to observation and thought,” and the scenery was “strikingly picturesque even to a superficial observer.”144 The second scenic feature they found inspiring was the bird life of the Everglades. Here, just as with the Everglades' mangroves, Wharton and Olmsted discussed the biology of the Everglades in terms of its scenic value. They wrote that the Everglades was “especially noteworthy for the abundance of many species of wild bird life not commonly seen in other parts of the United States,” and described the different species of birds and other animals in the Everglades, including crocodiles and alligators, panthers, manatee, and other mammals.145 However, their main purpose was to discuss “the bird life of the region in its relation to the scenic and inspirational qualities of the area.” Just as they did with the mangroves, these authors connected this biological feature to the geology of other parks. They wrote that these “great flocks of birds,” created an “impression of sheer beauty . . . no less memorable than the impressions derived from the great mountain and canyon parks of the west.” They continued to

143 Ibid. 144 Ibid. 145 Ibid. 82

praise these birds for their inspirational value, writing that “no one who has seen these remarkable birds flying in line against the blue sky can fail to be impressed by their great beauty and interest.”146

Tourism and Preservation in Everglades National Park

Although the conflict between Yard and the ENPA was eventually quelled it had a lasting impact on the fight for the park. Yard's criticisms concerning the effects of tourism exposed Coe to these debates about tourism and wilderness. Because of Yard, Coe learned about the damages that tourism could inflict on natural areas and became aware of the emerging wilderness movement and its arguments about automobiles, tourism, and wilderness. In response to Yard's criticisms, Coe studied the issue of tourism, and developed a set of arguments about tourism and wilderness as it applied to the Everglades. Coe views on tourism were especially influenced by George Wright's Fauna of the National Parks, the first survey of wildlife in the national parks. Coe argued that because the ENP would be such a large park, and because its boundaries were being so carefully planned, tourism could be developed in a few small areas while the rest of the park could be left an inaccessible wilderness. Coe also argued that because of the aquatic nature of the Everglades, automobile tourism in the park would severely limited. Most tourists in the park would travel through the Everglades via boat, a form of transportation that did not require roads or large amounts of infrastructure. Tourism would not only be spatially limited, but the quality of that tourism would be relatively non-intrusive. George Wright's Fauna of the National Parks advanced a new rationale for parks and suggested new strategies for park management that aimed to preserve of wildlife. Wright's book advanced a ecological ethos of park management and questioned the emphasis on tourism that the NPS had embraced under Stephan Mather. Because of Fauna, the NPS established a wildlife division and began hiring biologists to work in national parks. Although this ecological perspective of park management never dominated the NPS during the 1930s, and soon was displaced in the 1940s by the increased needs of tourists, this emphasis on ecology and wildlife

146 Fredrick Law Olmsted Jr., and William P. Wharton, “The Florida Everglades,” American Forests 38, 1932; Alfred Runte also discusses Wharton and Olmsted's trip into the Everglades. However, Runte sees this trip as evidence of the biological rationale for the park. Runte does not discuss the trip taken by Department of Interior officials and only relies on published sources concerning the ENP. 83

in the National Parks had a huge impact on the establishment on the Everglades National Park, and on the thinking of Ernest Coe.147 Wright argued that the purpose of national parks was the preservation of “the flora and fauna in the primitive state.” Wildlife was also, according to Wright, the main attraction in parks. He wrote that “the national parks owe much of their unique charm to the unusual opportunities they afford for observing animals amid the intimacies of wild settings,” and that this wildlife was “one of the causes contributing to their constantly increasing popularity.” To Wright, seeing wildlife in its natural setting, “is a fresh thrill and it brings the realization that the unique charm of the animals in a national park lies in their wildness.”148 Wright was also aware of the problems relating to tourism in national parks. He wrote that “the perpetuation of natural conditions will have to be forever reconciled with the presence of large numbers of people on the scene.” Wright was aware of the needs and demands of tourists and understood that different interests wanted different things out of national parks. The difficulty for the park service lay in reconciling these competing desires with the need to preserve the wildlife in the parks. According to Wright, “the park superintendent stood at the crossroads between the wild life and various groups of interested persons with their conflicting biases. Among them were those of the man who judged the park in terms of fish in its streams, the hunter who wanted the maximum protection of game though he could not shoot it, the scientists who would exclude people from large areas in order that their potentialities as pure cultures for zoological research might not be destroyed, the visitor who would prefer to have the animals fenced by the roadside for easy inspections from his car, and the person who eschewed the intrusion of any artificiality, even a road, in the native haunts of wild creatures.”

One of the main goals of Fauna of the National Parks was to determine how to reconcile these human demands with the goals of wildlife preservation.149 Wright and his coauthors also wrote about conditions in individual parks, including the proposed Everglades National Park. Wright, like Coe, also believed that the nature of the Everglades would limit the type of tourism in the park. He wrote in Fauna that “the physical characteristics of the terrain are in favor of the wild life. People can not wander at will over the landscape. On land, their movements will be circumscribed by the limits of the

147 George Wright, Thomas Dixon, and Ben Thompson, Fauna of the National Parks of the United States, U.S.: Government Printing Office, 1933; Richard Sellars, Preserving Nature in the National Parks, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997, 91-148. 148 Wright, 147, 2, 54, 147. 149 Wright, 5, 9. 84

development areas. In boats they will only be able to go where guides are licensed to take them. A stranger might soon be lost on these trackless waterways. Thus, though it would seem to be an anomaly at first glance, large numbers of people can be admitted to the area without disturbing the great rookeries. This will require a certain amount of precaution in locating a few roads and utility areas and in marking the water lanes, plus a few reasonable restrictions upon visitors in some critical areas.”150

Wright repeated this judgment in a letter to Coe about tourism in the parks, a letter that Coe circulated widely as an official ENPA mailing. Wright wrote to Coe that “the usually opposing functions of pleasure grounds and game sanctuary could both be developed . . . without prejudice of one cause or the other. This is due to the terrain of the Everglades themselves. The visitor cannot wander at will over the landscape.” According to Wright, tourists would be confined to the roads, or would mostly travel through the Everglades by boat, and would necessarily need a guide to avoid getting lost in the mangrove-lined labyrinths. Coe and Wright agreed that the ENP “could be opened up so as to make adequate provision for the appreciation of the Everglades . . . and still further conservation of the unique flora and fauna” of the park.151 Wright also discussed park boundaries in Fauna, and argued that park boundaries should be dictated by the needs of wildlife, not by political and economic realities. Although Fauna was published in 1932, Wright was optimistic about the proposed ENP and was confident that the park's boundaries were being planned in order to protect the area's wildlife. He wrote that “the whole problem of relationship between man and the wild life [sic] has been apprehended in advance of development” of the park. According to Wright “the manner in which the whole project is being approached by everyone connected with it is proof of the remarkable evolution of the national-park idea in the few short years.”152 One of Coe's central arguments about tourism in the Everglades was that because most of the Everglades was underwater, roads and cars would be limited, and most tourists who wanted to travel deep into the park would have to rely on boats. Most of the debates about tourism and wilderness revolved around cars and the resulting infrastructure, amenities, and quality of tourism that were associated with automobiles. However, Coe thought a limited road system in the Everglades that would be constrained to a single large highway through the park could still accommodate large amounts of tourists.

150 Wright, 136-7 151 EC bulletin, excerpts of letter from George Wright to EC, 9 October 1931, (EVER22313), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 152 Wright, 137 85

Coe also argued that because the park would be so large, it could easily provide for recreational activities while protecting the Everglades' biota. He wrote that “nowhere else in our country can a larger area be found which is now, and can henceforth be sustained in its primitive character. At the same time it presents ample opportunity for the provisions required in order to make parts of the area accessible.” Coe optimistically wrote that Cape Sable “is so physically made up that is it believed that ample provision for an almost unlimited amount of tourist travel can be provided for with practically no intrusion on a liberal portion that can be set aside as a nature sanctuary.” Coe pointed out that the NPS itself declared “that as a National Park both the biologic features of the Cape Sable region can be safeguarded and . . . a certain degree of accessibility to the public can be planned for.”153 In an ENPA bulletin Coe outlined what he thought would be the two most popular tourist activities in the park. The first would be a “one day sea plane trip.” The plane would leave from Miami, “flying over [the] lovely Florida keys and Florida Bay region” and land at Cape Sable. Here tourists would embark on a “boat ride through the Ten Thousand Island region of tropic unique wonders,” and then return to Miami by plane. The second trip would be a “two day scenic trip.” Tourists would drive or take a railroad to Jewfish Key, an island south of Key Largo that was not slated for inclusion in the park, and then travel “from there by boat down through the channel-ways of Florida's lovely keys; then across Florida Bay to the Cape Sable beaches.” Tourists would be able to disembark here and explore “these lovely white strands” of beaches and “gather beautiful shells and view the great cocoanut palm groves skirting these beaches.” Back on the boat, tourists would cruise “up the coast to the Shark and Harney Rivers and the Ten Thousand Island region of unrivaled tropical scenery.” The next day tourists would enjoy a tour “through the lakes, rivers and bays of the entrancing Whitewater Bay region; later continuing up the Gulf coast to Everglades [City].” At Everglades City, outside the park, tourists would “be met there by autos,” and drive east along Tamiami Trail back towards Miami. According to Coe, these two trips “may be arranged . . . to supply the demands of the many thousands who will undoubtedly wish to see this Cape Sable wonderland,” and would be meet those demands without any additional road construction by the NPS.154

153 EC to Arthur Pack, 23 October 1935, Governor Sholtz Papers, FSA; EC to Sen M.O. Harrison, 18 July 1931, Governor Carlton Papers , FSA; EC to Frederick Law Olmsted, 2 February 1931, Governor Carlton Papers, FSA. 154 ENPA Bulletin, 13 June 1930, DF Papers, FTGA. 86

Coe's views on tourism and preservation in the ENP are best summed up in a letter he wrote to Arthur Pack, the editor of Nature Magazine. Here Coe argued that Everglades National Park, because of its large boundaries and the aquatic nature of the park, would be able to accommodate tourism while preserving the primitive wilderness of the area. Coe wrote that “nowhere else in our country can a larger area be found which is now, and can henceforth be sustained in its primitive character. At the same time it presents ample opportunity for the provisions required in order to make parts of the area accessible.” In the ENP “the public at large, rather than a favored few,” would see the wonders of the Everglades and be inspired by this beauty. However, the public would only be able to view, “the borderlands of a vast primitive region,” and not the interior of this wilderness. The few roads and facilities in the park would only touch a small area of the whole park, and most of the Everglades would remain a roadless wilderness.155 Although Coe may have seemed overly optimistic about the coexistence of tourism and preservation in the Everglades, his assertions about tourism in the park have been proven true to some extent. Today, tourists visiting Everglades National Park travel on one road and have few explicit tourist attractions along the road to visit. This main road terminates at Flamingo where tourists enjoy a variety of boat tours around Cape Sable and the Florida Bay. Although around one million tourists visit the park annually, most of the park is a roadless wilderness, accessible only via boat or foot.

155 EC to Arthur Pack, 23 October 1935, Governor Sholtz Papers, FSA. 87

4. PARK POLITICS

Introduction

Ernest Coe not only promoted the park, he lobbied federal and state legislators to pass legislation needed to create the park. In addition to use usual promotional activities, Coe visited Washington D.C., and the Florida capital at Tallahassee to directly influence legislators. He frequently played a role in the drafting and passage of park legislation, and coordinated these efforts with national and local organizations. Coe also arranged for groups of important legislators, conservationists, and federal bureaucrats to take excursions into the Everglades. These trips would give these individuals a chance see the wonders of the proposed park firsthand, but also gave Coe the opportunity to form relationships with these men and women which he could utilize later in the fight for the park. The most important of these trips was an investigation by the Department of Interior (DOI) to determine whether the Everglades was suitable for inclusion in the national park system. This investigation used scientific criteria to determine the Everglades' worth, and as a result of this investigation, the Department of the Interior recommended to the U.S. Congress that a national park be established in the Everglades. After this investigation was conducted Coe pursued a variety of state and federal legislation related to the park. The most important of these was the federal authorization of the park. Traditionally national parks had been created when Congress took existing federal lands and declared them a national park. Since the 1920s however, new proposed parks, especially those in the East, were composed of state, federal, and private lands. In these cases, Congress merely authorized the park, while state legislatures and private organizations acquired the lands needed for the park. These lands were then deeded to the federal government which then created the park. This more circuitous method of park creation was used to create Everglades National Park. Beginning in 1931 Coe pushed for the federal government to authorize the ENP. However this bill was ensnared in partisan politics and issues related to New Deal spending. Fiscally conservative Republicans opposed this bill and repeatedly used parliamentary procedures to block it from coming to a vote until 1934. In 1934 the Everglades National Park bill was finally debated. Park opponents argued the Everglades was a swampy morass, and because they saw parks primarily as tourist attractions,

they thought the park was a Florida scheme to force the federal government to spend millions of dollars in the Everglades developing the area. Park supporters, however, described the Everglades in the same ways as did Ernest Coe, and argued that the park, which would protect the Everglades flora and fauna, would not be developed beyond one main road. To make their point clear, park supporters inserted an amendment into the park bill that mandated that the Everglades be preserved as a wilderness. This amendment marks the first time the federal government explicitly protected an area as a wilderness.

Trips into the Everglades

The most important investigation into the Everglades was conducted by the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service between February 11 through February 15, 1930. To determine the Everglade's worth, the DOI sent experts on national parks, but also sent scientists who were better equipped to evaluate the scientific value of this new type of national park. Attending this trip were Horace Albright, the Director of the NPS, his assistant Arno Cammerer, Herman Bumpus, a respected biologist who was “engaged in a study of the educational values of our National Park System,” Ruth Bryan Owen, Miami's congresswoman, Roger Toll, the superintendent of Yellowstone National Park, and T. Gilbert Pearson, an ornithologist and the president of the National Audubon Society. Also present were Harlan Kelsey, the commissioner of the Southern Appalachian National Park, Dr. W. A. Clark, a “national park enthusiast,” who served as the party's photographer and Caspar Hidgson, the chairman of the conservation committee of the Campfire Club of America, an organization that had written the park standards in use at the time.156 Secretary of the Interior Ray Wilbur had planned to attend as well, but instead he stayed in D.C. as President Hoover traveled to Florida for a fishing trip. Wilbur sent his assistant, Elbert Burlew, in his stead. David Fairchild, who was an expert on tropical flora, led the actual expedition, and along with Coe, planned the trip's itinerary. Marjory Stoneman Douglas also attended the trip as a special reporter for the Miami Herald. Coe, of course, was present, although he was kept somewhat in the background because according to Douglas, “he talked so

156 ENPA report, no date, circa 1929-1930, David Fairchild Papers, Fairchild Tropical Gardens Archive (FTGA); Miami Herald (MH) 11 February 1930, 1, 29. 89

much, and at such length and so exhaustingly.”157 Douglas published three articles about the trip under the byline, “Special Writer for the Herald.” Although today Douglas is more closely associated with the Everglades than any other individual, these articles represent her only writing done in support of the park. Her book The Everglades: River of Grass was released just months before the park was formally dedicated in 1947 and Douglas had little to do with the ENPA or with the fight to create the park. Although she, and her father, knew Coe well, Douglas spent the 1930s and '40s writing short stories for the Saturday Evening Post and working on her Everglades book. According to historian and Douglas biographer Jack Davis, this trip was actually her first real excursion into the Everglades.158 This trip began with a blimp ride over the Everglades' sawgrass prairies, the area of the Everglades Douglas would later describe as a 'river of grass.' Douglas wrote in 1930 that the trip allowed a view of the “vast expanse of the Everglades, low-lying, patched bright green with occasional truck farms and groves, but for the most part grey-green and brown and untouched, a huge empire of solitude over which the great silver dirigible slowly dragged its shadow.” In the air the DOI delegation “looked down through flocks of blue and white herons tossing and falling like scraps of paper between them and the earth.” These flocks of birds and their rookeries would prove to be the main attraction of this trip, validating to the NPS the idea of a biological national park.159 After the blimp ride, the party returned to the Kampong, David Fairchild's bayfront Coconut Grove residence, for lunch. The event was also attended by “a number of local naturalists,” who discussed what the party would see over the next few days. Next the group traveled via automobile to Lower Matecumbe Key where they boarded the houseboat “Friendship,” and continued their journey into the Everglades. Their first stop was Shark River, where the party journeyed up the river and into Whitewater Bay.160 At Shark River, the party saw “thousands and thousands of birds.” Douglas described this sight in the Herald as “flashing ribbons of white birds, soaring circles and spirals and streams of white birds and of dark blue birds, turning and darting, thousands of gleaming black

157 Marjory Stoneman Douglas, “The Forgotten Father,” Audubon Magazine, 1974. 158 MH 14 February 1930, 39; Jack Davis, An Everglades Providence, Athens, GA.: University of Georgia Press, 2009, 335. 159 MSD, MH 12 February 1930, 2. 160 MH 11 February 1930, 1, 29; MSD, MH 14 February 1930, 39. 90

and white birds, surging against the blazing blue of sky over the low mangroves of Shark River.” Among these birds were “herons and ibis in a bewildering variety, the green heron, the little blue heron, Ward's heron, the Louisiana heron, the lovely white ibis and wood ibis, the egret and the particularly rare glossy ibis.” Douglas also described the flora seen on along Shark River. As the party traveled west at sunset, “facing the raw fire and orange of the sunset,” they saw “mangrove, tropic fern, viney [sic] tangles, coco-plum and water grasses” that “blotted into the vast lying blackness of jungle that is land.”161 The next day the party traveled to Cape Sable to view “the last of the great natural beaches of Florida” and to Gator Lake rookery “to see what are left of the roseate spoonbill.” The party left their houseboat and boarded small motorboats to get a closer look at the winding waterways of the lower Glades. Frequent changes in scenery were the norm along this trip. The houseboat traveled along, surrounded by mangroves, but when they got to Cape Sable, “the long low miles of mangrove . . . gave way to the open water of the Gulf of Mexico.” When the party got into their smaller craft and traveled up a canal to Gator Lake, “it was an entirely different region which they saw.”162 At Gator Lake the party saw great white ibis and black wood ibis rookeries that had been untouched by the guns of plume hunters. Douglas described entering the rookeries as “an extraordinary feeling, as if one were for the first time entering a land only of birds and of the teeming fish.” These rookeries were the highlight of the trip for many of the NPS officials. Douglas described these rookeries in detail for the readers of the Miami Herald, writing that when they entered the rookery: “we expected the wood ibis to rise as the ducks and the wading birds had done, with a roar and rumor of thousands of wings. The boats crept toward the farther shore and everyone held his breath. But the wood ibis stood solemnly, looking down their solemn long noses, hunching their funny white shoulders occasionally and did not move an inch from their perches. We crept up so near that we could have poked them with long sticks and they only stared a little and the funny tiniest babies in their very uncomfortable-looking stick nests, set up a tremendous bobbery with their little fuzzy heads on their long necks, wah-wahing like real babies ready for

161 MSD, MH 14 February 1930, 39. 162 MSD, MH 14 February 1930, 39, 26. 91

their dinner.”163

Coe, in a brief memoir, described a different set of rookeries seen by the group: “In places the nests, largely constructed of loosely arranged twigs, were so close to each other as to touch, some containing eggs; others with baby birds in all stages of development, while yet too young to leave the nest. Here and there the nests and their contents weighed the branches well down to the water's edge. This rookery spectacle was greatly enhanced by the arrival of parent birds from their foraging afternoon trips with supper for their babies, and unerringly finding their little brood from among the hundreds close by, where seemingly to the human eye, such discerning would be impossible.”164

The party also stopped at the Cape Sable beaches. Coe, who particularly loved Cape Sable and its beaches and jungle-like interior, wrote about the group's experiences on the Cape. The group landed to explore the “white, glistening beach” at sunrise on the 13th. According to Coe, the area possessed “such varied interests on every hand that the naturalists of our party, as well as the other members with their several interests, found ample opportunity on every hand to be completely absorbed. Some of us renewed our search for beautiful shells along the beaches . . . (while) others of the party went inland from the beach, following trails into the open spaces or plunging into the nearby tropic jungles entranced with the many plants found there.”165

The next day the group returned to the mainland and visited Royal Palm State Park, where the Florida Federation of Woman's Clubs prepared a luncheon for the visitors. After lunch, May Mann Jennings and other Federation members delivered short speeches before the party returned to Miami. There they were wined and dined by the Miami Chamber of Commerce before traveling to Everglades City and St. Petersburg to discuss the park with members of those

163 MSD, MH 16 February 1930, 26. 164 Ernest Coe (EC), “Story of the Everglades National Park Project,” unpublished manuscript, 1 December 1950, (EVER22888), EC Papers, South Florida Collection Management Center (SFCMC), Everglades National Park (ENP). 165 EC, “From the Log of the Good Boat Friendship, NPS trip, Feb 11-14, 1930,” Carlton Papers, Florida State Archives (FSA). 92

communities.166 As a result of this investigation the Department of the Interior recommended to the U.S. Congress, in accordance with the 1929 law that authorized this investigation, that a national park be created in the Everglades. The delegation was extremely impressed by the Everglade' flora and fauna. Horace Allbright compared the spectacle of the rookeries at Gator Lake to the Grand Canyon, stating that he had “never heard people on the edge of the Grand Canyon make such a fuss as his committee did over those curious and amazing birds.” T. Gilbert Pearson, the president of the National Audubon Society, also expressed his great pleasure at seeing these rookeries. Pearson called the trip a “culmination of many years' desire to see this, the last of the great heron rookeries in America.” Pearson estimated that the party saw more than 10,000 individual birds in the Everglades and provided Douglas with a list of all the species seen on the trip.167 The Department of Interior also submitted a report on the Everglades to the U.S. Congress. The DOI argued that the, unlike previous national parks, the biology of the Everglades would be the park's main attraction. This report focused on the biological worth of the area and explicitly rejected the notion that the Everglades had any scenic value. It stated that “the scenery in certain sections has a uniformity that may be said to approach monotony.” Instead of the soaring peaks and dramatic valleys found in other parks, the Everglades possessed “several distinct types of tropical and semi-tropical vegetation, such as the mangrove, cypress, and pine forests, vast expanses of saw-grass covered everglades, and luxuriant tropic inland hammock vegetation.” This report placed a heavy emphasis on the wildlife of the area, especially the bird life, which was “abundant and includes many species, some of which are rare.” The report also claimed that “no other region in America is so abundantly supplied with fish and marine life,” and mentioned alligators, crocodiles and manatees, all of which were “reduced by killing” or “nearly extinct.”168 This investigation, and William Wharton and Fredrick Law Olmsted Jr.'s trip were the two most important. The had large impacts on how conservationists and the federal government perceived the Everglades and its value as a National Park. These two expeditions also reveal

166 MSD, MH 16 February 1930, 26; EC, “Story of the Everglades National Park Project,” unpublished manuscript, 1 December 1950, (EVER22888), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 167 MSD, MH 16 February 1930, 26; MSD, MH 14 February 1930, 39; MSD, MH 16 February 1930, 26. 168 Senate committee Report, “Tropic Everglades National Park,” 71st Congress, 3rd Session, Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1930, Doyle Carlton Papers, FSA, 11, 12. 93

different rationales for the ENP. Wharton and Olmsted Jr. discussed the Everglades in terms of its scenic and inspirational value, alhtough the source of this value was found in the Everglade's biota. The DOI's trip had a much stronger scientific emphasis. These officials judged the worth of the Everglades primarily in terms of its biological value. There were many other “dog and pony show” trips that the ENPA helped plan in the hopes of influencing opinions on the Everglades. For example, Ray Lyman Wilbur, the Secretary of the Interior, missed his own department's trip due to Herbert Hoover's fishing trip. In January 1933 David Fairchild escorted Wilbur into the Everglades, where they observed “vast numbers of birds,” along the Tamiami Trail, and went fishing in the Shark River, “where the party landed several tarpon.” According to Fairchild, “Wilbur was very much impressed with the remarkable geological and biological character of the Cape Sable region.” The rationale for the ENP was based on the biological worth of the area, a new concept for national parks, yet those viewing the Everglades could not help but strain to find some geological importance, even when faced with a entirely flat area that was no more than a few feet above sea level.169 The ENPA also helped plan a trip taken by members of the U.S. Senate between December 28, 1930 and January 2, 1931. This expedition was led by David Fairchild and included six Senators, all members of the Senate public lands committee, and their families. Also present were T. Gilbert Pearson, Arno Cammerer, Ernest Coe, Ray Lyman Sexton, a naturalist and photographer, and Gladstone Williams, a reporter for the Miami Herald.170 Some of the highlights of this trip included a diverse mix of birdlife seen from the Goodyear blimp Defender, including multiple species of heron and egret, as well as wild ducks, bald eagles, ospreys and others. The delegation was also impressed with “the several distinct types of tropical and semi-tropical vegetation, such as the mangrove, cypress and pine forests, vast expanses of sawgrass covered everglades and luxuriant tropic inland hammock vegetation where a variety of palms, orchids and ferns not found elsewhere in the United States,” thrived in the Glades. David Fairchild and T. Gilbert Pearson acted as guides and according to the Miami Herald, worked hard to “impress upon the group that there are numerous species of plant and animal life that occur nowhere else in the United States, and some that are found nowhere else in the world.” They also detailed the damage that fire, development, and illegal hunting were doing

169 ENPA meeting, 27 January 1933, DF Papers, FTGA. 170 MH, 28 December 1930, 1, 33 MH 29 December 1930, 1, 7. 94

to the area and spoke about the need to preserve the Everglades as a national park.171 This trip was designed to impress these senators about the biological value of the Everglades, but Coe also hoped they would push for legislation needed to create the park. These goals seemed to have been met, as the senators were very impressed with the Everglades' nature. One senator remarked in an interview that the he “was sold on the park idea for the Everglades,” and that he hoped legislation “can be expedited to the point where we can obtain early designation of the area.” This trip also gave Coe, the ENPA and other South Floridians who supported the park a chance to form personal relationships with powerful senators, such as Senator Gerald Nye, the chairman of the Senate public lands committee.172

State Legislation

The state of Florida was heavily involved in the creation of the ENP. The federal government owned very little of the land in the proposed park, while the state of Florida and private individuals owned the majority it. The state was responsible for acquiring those lands, and would eventually have to deed all the state and private lands in the park area to the federal government to make the park a reality. Legislation was needed to facilitate this process and Coe and others worked hard to pass this legislation in 1929 and 1931. In anticipation of the federal government's authorization of the ENP, Coe lobbied Tallahassee for the passage of a bill that would facilitate the acquisition of park lands. A law was passed on May 25, 1929 that authorized the creation of a commission that would be responsible for acquiring park lands. This method of land acquisition was used in the creation of many eastern parks in the 1920s and '30s. This commission, initially called the Tropic Everglades National Park Commission, the word 'tropic' was later dropped, was to be composed of twelve members, appointed by the Governor, and had broad powers over the land acquisition process. The Commission, which was not actually appointed until 1935, could raise and spend money as they saw fit, could acquire title to lands within the park boundaries as set by the Department of Interior either through purchase or through condemnation proceedings, and had the power to

171 MH, 30 December 1930, 3; MH 2 January 1931, 5. 172 EC, “Story of the Everglades National Park Project,” unpublished manuscript, 1 December 1950, (EVER22888), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP, 46. 95

deed these lands to the Department of the Interior.173 Coe was directly responsible for the passage of this legislation, and spent five weeks in Tallahassee working for its passage. According to Coe, he dedicated himself to “acquainting the members of both houses with the real merits of the Project,” and “saw to it that the members had ample opportunity to know what it was all about and the reasons why they should be convinced that it was to their advantage and that of their constituency and the State at large to favor the passage of that bill.”174 In 1931, Coe sought additional legislation relating to the still unformed commission. This legislation gave the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund, a state agency that had been charged with draining the Everglades, the authority to deed 325,000 acres of land in the Everglades to the Everglades National Park Commission for the purposes of establishing the park. Although Coe initiated this legislation, May Mann Jennings, the wife of former Florida Governor William S. Jennings, and the former president of the Florida Federation of Women's Clubs (FFWC), traveled to Tallahassee to facilitate the passage of this bill. Jennings was intensely interested in the Everglades National Park. Her husband was the first governor to talk about draining the Everglades, she owned land in the area that would become the park, and she was the main force behind the creation of Royal Palm State Park, which was in the ENP's tentative boundaries. Coe coordinated the activities of the ENPA with other organizations like the FFWC with which Jennings was still affiliated. Jennings kept Coe updated about the status of this legislation, but even at this early date, tension existed between the two, who later as members of the Everglades National Park Commission, would clash repeatedly over a variety of issues. Jennings and Coe disagreed about the exact wording of this legislation and on whether the Trustees of the IIF should deed this land to the Commission, or directly to the Department of the Interior. Coe also wanted the bill to include more than 325,000 acres and asked Jennings where she got that number from and if it was possible to enlarge the acreage. Jennings wrote to him that she took the acreage “from the statement made . . . by the Interior Department,” and that “it would be almost too late to amend the bill now,” but that perhaps next legislative session it would be possible.175

173 General Acts and Resolution adopted by the Legislature of Florida, 22nd Session, 1929, Chapter 13887 (No. 323) 174 EC to Doyle Carlton, 12 November 1930, Doyle Carlton Papers, FSA. 175 May Mann Jennings (MMJ) to EC, 13 April 1931, Doyle Carlton Papers, FSA; MMJ to EC, 18 May 1931, 96

Jennings knew many state legislators personally and had a great deal of experience in working with the legislature on a variety of issues. She was effective at both getting this legislation introduced in the Florida House and Senate and in getting pledges from Senators and Representatives to push for this legislation. She wrote to Coe that “Senator John Watson introduced the bill,” and that the bill was “certainly in good hands.” Jennings also had Duncan Fletcher and Ruth Bryan Owen, members of Florida congressional delegation in Washington D.C., “send each member of the House the Committee Hearings on the Park,” and other relevant materials. Coe was anxious about the bill, and thought it necessary to travel to the capital to ensure the bill's passage, but Jennings, who knew Coe could be a nuisance, told him that “things are very tense up at Tallahassee and I really think it would be fine for those in charge of the bills to have you and others write them and thank them and say we are all ready to come if they will give us notice and are needed.”176

The Authorization of Everglades National Park

Although the state of Florida would have to acquire all the lands in the park area, the federal government first had to authorized the park. Coe began lobbying the U.S. congress to authorize the ENP almost immediately after the DOI reported their approval of a national park in the Everglades. This authorization would give the DOI the power to create the park as soon as it received all the needed lands for the park from Florida. This procedure had been successfully employed in eastern parks prior to the establishment of Everglades National Park. Great Smoky Mountain National Park was authorized in 1926 and established in 1934; Shenandoah National Park was authorized in 1926 and established in 1935; Mammoth Cave National Park was authorized in 1926 and established in 1941; and Big Bend National Park was authorized in 1935 and established in 1944. In all of these cases the federal government authorized the parks' creation and the parks were created later when private organizations and states deeded park lands to the federal government.177 To Coe and others it seemed like the authorization of the park would easily be

Doyle Carlton Papers, FSA. 176 MMJ to EC, 16 May 1931, Doyle Carlton Papers, FSA. 177 John Ise, Our National Park Policy: A Critical History, Baltimore: John Hopkins University, 1961; Margaret Brown, The Wild East: A Biography of the Great Smoky Mountains, University Press of Florida, 2001. 97

accomplished. The state of Florida, National Park Service and a cavalcade of conservation and scientific organizations approved of the park. Additionally, the federal government would not actually be spending any money creating the park, but rather only authorizing Florida to proceed with the land acquisition process. However, the park became enmeshed in partisan New Deal politics, subjected to Republican filibusters, and delayed for years. Republicans, drawing on older perceptions of the Everglades, argued that the park would be nothing but a snake pit. They also saw parks primarily as tourist attractions and argued that the federal government should not be spending money on parks during a national depression. To Republicans, these three issues were related. Because they saw the Everglades as so hostile and uninspiring, they believed that the federal government would have to spend millions in the park to make it appealing to tourists. These fiscal conservatives tried to restrain federal spending during the depression, but because of their weak political position, they could not successfully oppose big ticket spending items like the Civilian Conservation Corps or the Works Progress Administration. Instead these conservatives tried to limit federal spending in other ways. Although House Republicans, through a variety of parliamentary procedures delayed the authorization of the ENP for three years, in the Senate the ENP bill faced little to no opposition. Senator Duncan Fletcher of Florida was able to get this law passed easily in that chamber on three different occasions. The Senate passed the ENP's authorization on February 10, 1931 with almost no debate other than some discussion concerning the rights of Seminoles in the park. During the same month, allies of the park attempted to introduce the bill in the House, but Republicans used parliamentary procedures to ensure that the bill could not be introduced. Ruth Bryan Owen, Miami's representative to the House, was forced to withdraw the bill until the next legislative session. House opponents of the ENP argued that the bill was on the wrong calendar, and hence could not be brought up for vote under House rules. The ENP bill had been placed on the house calendar, which was reserved for items that would not require any federal appropriations. The supporters of this bill argued this was proper, because the federal government would not spend money to establish the park or purchase park lands. The opponents of the bill, however, argued the bill should be on the union calendar, which was reserved for bills that would require federal spending. Although no federal money would be spent to create the park, House Republicans argued that after the park was established, the National Park Service would spend millions building roads and facilities in the park. These opponents were successful

in using this distinction to ensure that the ENP bill would not be voted on in 1931.178 On January 19, 1932, the Senate passed a bill authorizing the ENP for the second time. Again, there was little debate on the issue and the bill passed easily. Achieving the same result in the House would prove more difficult, and in fact, this bill did not even make it to the floor in 1932. On May 29, 1933, the Senate passed the ENP bill for the third time, this time without any debate at all. Once more, the House failed even to consider the bill.179 Coe took personal interest in all of these bills, and traveled to Washington, D.C. to push for their passage. However, there are no detailed records on Coe's activity in D.C. before 1934 other than scattered letters that only serve to indicate he was present in Washington. Coe's activities most likely revolved around publicizing the park and attempting to educate members of the House and Senate about the Everglades. Coe blamed Ruth Bryon Owen for the failures of the park bill and was vocal about his displeasure with ther inability to bring this legislation to a vote. Coe's criticism of Owen was largely unjustified, and created controversy within the ranks of those fighting for the park. Coe periodically upset and alienated allies, especially when he engaged in activities outside of the purview of promoting and publicizing Everglades National Park. Ruth Bryan Owen, the daughter of William Bryan Jennings, was the first Southern woman to be elected to the House of Representatives. She served Florida's fourth district, which included Miami and much of the ENP area, from 1929 to 1932. Owen supported the park and although she was unsuccessful in bringing the ENP authorization to a vote in the House, she diligently worked for the bill's passage. Owen lost her reelection campaign in 1933 because of her support for prohibition, but later that year she was appointed Ambassador to Denmark by President Roosevelt.180 Coe was critical of Owen and her inability to bring the ENP bill to a vote in the House in 1931. He was unaware of the details of House parliamentary procedure and criticized Owen for placing the bill on the House calendar, and for referring the bill to the House Committee on Public Lands, both of which were appropriate and necessary moves by Owen. Coe was impatient, and saw any delay in establishing the park as harmful to the flora and fauna of the

178 Congressional Record, Senate, 10 February 1931, 4493-5; Congressional Record, House, 21 February 1931, 5644-9. 179 Congressional Record, Senate, 19 January 1932, 2238-40, Congressional Record, 8 May 1933, 2970-1. 180 Sarah Vickers, The Life of Ruth Bryan Owen: Florida’s First Congresswoman and America’s First Woman Diplomat. PhD dissertation, Florida State University, 1994. 99

area. He was also accustomed to having control over park affairs, but he could control neither the US Congress, nor the pace at which they conducted business. Horace Albright, the director of the NPS, intervened by praising Owen and informing Coe of his error. Albright wrote that the placing of the bill on the House calendar had meant that the bill would most likely fail, because it could be so easily objected to, but that there was no alternative since it was so late in the legislative session. Albright praised Owen, noting that her role in chairing the House Committee on Public Lands hearing had “resulted in a favorable report from that committee,” and that Owen's “work on the floor took advantage of every parliamentary opportunity possible.”181 Albright also wrote to Coe asking him not to “let your propaganda take any turn that will be embarrassing to the National Park Service, Mrs. Owen, or Senator Fletcher.” Albright was adamant that no one should claim that “the bill failed because of any action of the authors of the measure,” and told Coe that “everything was done that could have been done by all of us who were interested.” Albright knew that Owen's help would be needed in the next legislative session and he feared alienating her.182 Albright repeated these concerns about Coe to David Fairchild. Albright informed Fairchild that “quite often I understand he [Coe] made the statement that had it not been for Mrs. Owen the Everglades Park bill would have passed the House. He is entirely wrong.” Albright praised Owen's work, writing that “she worked very hard on it,” and that the park was in fact further along than any other park project he had seen, in part because of Ruth Bryan Owen. Already, early in the park fight, Coe was proving himself to be an occasional nuisance by feeding rumors that Owen was to blame for the bill's failure in the House. Coe was an effective and enthusiastic promoter of the park, but he often lacked tact, misunderstood the politics of a situation, and was overly critical of anyone who he felt had failed him or crossed him. Albright asked Fairchild to “have a talk with him, and urge him not to dig up the happenings of the winter or discuss in any detail the strategy that will be employed next winter.” Albright wanted Fairchild to prevent Coe from insulting or embarrassing Owen, who was a valuable ally of the park. He wrote that “above all,” Coe needed to be “urged not to say anything that would embarrass the authors of the bill because they must be depended upon to promote the measure

181 Horace Albright to Ruth Bryan Owen, 20 March 1931, DF Papers, FTGA. 182 Horace Albright to EC, 25 March 1931, DF Papers, FTGA. 100

next winter.”183 Coe wrongly blamed Owen for the bill's failure, but eventually, after being chastised by Albright and Fairchild, he belatedly apologized to Owen and acknowledged that he was ignorant about proper legislative strategy. He wrote to Owen in June of 1932, that “I have just found out what I never knew before about Congressional procedure in reference to the Everglades Park Bill. You properly relied upon the Chairman of the Public Lands Committee in the House to substitute Senator Fletcher's bill for yours. This will explain the delay in the House action which I could not understand.” In the same letter Coe apologized, writing that “I have never charged you with disloyalty to the Park matter. I am extremely sorry if anything I have said or done should be so interpreted, for I know full well of your energetic and sincere interest in the Park matter. I sincerely hope this may end any future controversy.” This would not be the first time Coe had to apologize to an ally or to an opponent for being overzealous and impatient. Coe had a habit of alienating enemies and supporters both, but seems to have been aware of his own character flaws and frequently made apologies to those he had offended.184 Despite these setbacks, Coe continued working on softening Republican opposition to the ENP bill throughout 1932. Coe talked to key Republican lawmakers while in Washington D.C.. Lorne Barclay, a member of the ENPA, had also met with Republican lawmakers who supported the park in an attempt to develop a strategy to deal with those who opposed it. He suggested to Coe that he secure the support of the Executive Committee of the Republican National Committee and key Miami Republicans, and then use those contacts to elicit the support of Congressmen Snell and Treadway, two key opponents of the bill. Barclay, after talking with many Republicans, thought that the bill had enough support to pass, but he was “fearful of the skill of Mr. Snell who may prevent the bill from coming up in the house through legislative technique.”185 These fears were well-founded, because Snell was successful in using his “legislative technique” to prevent the bill from coming to the floor in 1932; likewise, Owen failed at securing support for her bill. The next year, Owen lost her seat in the House to James Mark Wilcox, a lawyer from West Palm Beach. Owen's loss was due to her support of prohibition, but rumors circulated in Miami and in the halls of Congress that her inability to bring the ENP bill to the

183 Horace Albright to DF, 25 March 1931, DF Papers, FTGA. 184 EC to Ruth Bryan Owen, 11 June 1932, Reclaiming the Everglades website. 185 Lorne Barclay to EC, 17 February 1932, DF Papers, FTGA. 101

floor of the House provoked the ire of Miamians unwilling to wait any longer for the park. Although Wilcox was unknown to Coe and the ENPA at the time of his election, he became an important ally of the park, and a long-time associate of Coe, who in the late 1940s even took over the ENPA just before it disbanded. Coe, despite being discouraged the three previous years, remained involved in the legislative process. As so often before, Coe traveled to Washington D.C. to try to influence the law-making process. He was in D.C. from February 18 to June 30, 1934 keeping tabs on the course of the bill and talking with and writing to legislators. Coe sent all members of Congress a fact sheet about the ENP's location, size, climate, scenery, recreational and educational opportunities, wildlife, flora, fossils, accessibility, and physical features. In this document Coe also wrote about the bird life, the “combination of plants of the temperate and tropic zones,” the various trees and beasts in the Everglades, the “labyrinth” of “innumerable bays, lakes and interlocking rivers,” found at Cape Sable, and the many “forms of wild life native to the State of Florida” in the Everglades. Coe also pointed out that the ENP would be accessible to tourists by multiple methods, including railroad, automobile, airplane and boat. Here Coe again exaggerated data about the Everglades as it pertained to tourism, while also trying to assuage Republican fears about massive and expensive road-building in the park. Coe clarified how the park would be created, writing that “the area under consideration . . . is not federal land,” and that Florida would acquire the land, then deed it to the Department of the Interior. To Republican Congressmen who desired to limit federal spending during the Great Depression, he stressed that no federal monies would be used for land acquisition.186 Coe also wanted to show these legislators how popular Everglades National Park was amongst national organizations. A long list of professional, scientific, and conservation organizations had passed resolutions in favor of the park's creation. These resolutions were used by Coe to influence the course of legislation. Coe used these resolutions as ENPA bulletins, and referred to these organizations to bolster his case for the park. Organizations that supported the park included the American Association of Park Executives, the American Civic Association, the American Forestry Association, the American Game Association, the American Nature Association, the American Society of Landscape Architects, the American Institute of Architects,

186 EC, ENPA Summary for 1934, 1 November 1934, DF Papers, FTGA; EC to Members of Congress, 25 March 1934, AS Houghton Papers, Ricther Library, University of Miami (UM). 102

the American Society of Museums, the American Society for the Advancement of Science, the Camp Fire Club of America, the Society of American Foresters, the Garden Club of America, the General Federation of Women's Clubs, the Izaak Walton League, the National Association of Audubon Societies, the National Confederation of State Parks, the National Council of State Garden Club Federations, the National Parks Association, the Florida State Garden Clubs and many others.187 In May 1934, the pro-park forces in Washington D.C., which included Coe and the ENPA, the National Park Service, the entire Florida delegation in the U.S. Congress, and multiple other Congressmen and Senators, were successful in bringing the park bill to a vote in the House of Representatives. Edward Cox, a Democratic Congressman from Georgia, introduced a resolution that would order the entire House to consider the establishment of Everglades National Park and asked for its “immediate consideration.” Republicans, as they had done before, attempted to block the vote on this resolution through a variety of tactics. First, Allen Treadway, a Republican from Massachusetts, who along with Minority Leader Bertrand Snell had led opposition to the park, announced there was no quorum present and demanded a roll call of the House. After it was established that quorum was present, Republicans tried to question Cox's right to offer an amendment to his own resolution in the hopes of embroiling the House in a debate over parliamentary procedure. Thomas Blanton, a Democrat from Texas, declared that these motions were “a Republican filibuster pure and simple.” Next, a vote was taken on Cox's resolution. This resolution passed and in accordance with House procedure, the House immediately began to debate the bill to authorize Everglades National Park. 188

1934: Federal Authorization of Everglades National Park

House Republicans saw the Everglades as a snake and mosquito-infested wasteland. They also saw national parks as tourist attractions and believed that because the Everglades was so unimpressive and inaccessible that the eventual creation of the park would entail millions of dollars in federal spending aimed at making the Everglades accessible and appealing to tourists. Because these House Republicans opposed government intervention in the economy and saw

187 EC, Press Release, May 1934, DF Papers, FTGA. 188 Congressional Record, House, 73rd Congress, 9494-9516, 9494, 9495. 103

federal deficit spending during a period of economic depression as irresponsible fiscal policy they opposed the authorization of the park. These fears about federal spending in the ENP were justified by Coe's own writings about the Everglades, which suggested tourism would be a major factor in the park, and that the federal government would spend money constructing roads and facilities in the Everglades. Republicans also appealed to blantant partisanship to oppose the park. They tried to tie wealthy and scandal-plagued Democratic donors who had nothing to do with the park to the bill. Supporters of the park in the House fought both the claim that the Everglades was a wasteland and the argument that the park's creation would entail federal spending. These supporters described the Everglades in the same way as did Ernest Coe: as a area with fantastic and diverse flora and fauna. They also argued that the ENP would be a new type of park. It would not cater to tourists, but would instead be largely maintained as a roadless wilderness. Representative Cox began the debate over the park by attempting to assuage the fears of fiscal conservatives by describing the bill and arguing that its passage would not entail any federal spending. Cox stated that “the Government is not expected to expend one dime in the acquisition of property,” in the park area. Supporters of the bill had actually inserted an amendment into the bill mandating that no federal funds could be used in the area that was to become the park for five years after the passage of the bill. Cox explained that “the bill provides that no expenditure whatever shall be made by the Government on the development of the park for 5 years after the adoption of the bill.” After this short speech, Cox ceded most of the hour of debate to the minority party, allowing Republicans ample time to state their opposition to the bill.189 This five-year clause, as it was called by Coe, sated few, if any, of these representatives, who continued to insist that the establishment of the park would entail unnecessary federal spending during an economic depression. These representatives also mocked the Everglades' nature using older ideas about swamps as wastelands. Fredrick Lehlback, a Republican from New Jersey, stated that “this bill is to create a snake swamp park on perfectly worthless land in the State of Florida,” and that this bill was really “the most perfect example of supersalesmanship [sic] of Florida real estate . . . that has ever been made public.” Lehlback argued that real estate interests were pushing the park because they wanted the federal

189 Congressional Record, House, 73rd Congress, 9496. 104

government to build “a road at a cost of 1 million dollars,” and “pour countless millions into that swamp,” which would in turn add value “to the surrounding real estate of Florida.”190 Republicans made many wild statements as to how much money the federal government would spend on the park. Even though they conceded that Florida would pay for the costs of land acquisition, Republicans claimed that the proper development of the park would cost millions. John Taber, from New York claimed that when the ENP bill was first brought up in the House, “it was generally talked about around here that before we got through with it would cost 100 million dollars out of the Treasury of the United States.” This statement was immediately challenged by park allies, but Taber's college from New York, Francis Culkin came to his defense, asserting that the bill would create “a park out of 3,400 square miles of land, would involve futures disbursements on the park of the Government of many millions, including $700,000 per mile for roads.”191 Republicans also tried to tie the park to Democratic landowners in Florida, whom they argued would benefit economically from the park's establishment. John Taber, (R-NY) gave a lengthy speech, arguing that the park would cost too much and would only benefit a few wealthy Democrats with economic interests in South Florida. One of these beneficiaries was Barron Collier, the namesake of Collier county in south Florida, whom Taber described as “a leading Democrat of New York City.” Another leading beneficiary, according to Republicans, was Judge Halstead Ritter, a member of the ENPA ,whom Taber noted was being investigated by the “Committee on the Judiciary.” Republicans argued that Henry L. Doherty would benefit from the park's creation. Taber described by Taber as “the head of the Cities Service Co., which is now being investigated by the Federal Trade Commission,” and who was also the “chairman of the President's birthday ball committee” and “the owner, as a side line, of a chain of hotels in southern Florida, which would more or less be benefited by the adoption of the bill.” Other Republicans also noted that Doherty's daughter was the secretary to Ruth Bryan Owen, who after her unsuccessful reelection campaign had been appointed Ambassador to Denmark by President Roosevelt. Taber also incorrectly claimed that Doherty had paid for the Department of the Interior's trip through the Everglades and up Shark River, and joked that if the park was established it would mean that “the taxpayers of the United States would be taken up Shark River

190 Congressional Record, House, 73rd Congress, 9497. 191 Congressional Record, House, 73rd Congress, 9497. 105

with a vengeance.”192 Other Republicans joined Taber in trying to connect the ENP bill to wealthy Democrats with unscrupulous motives and in using humor to mock the entire ENP proposal. Louis McFadden, a Republican from Pennsylvania, noted that with important legislation, questionnaires were frequently sent out to interested parties, and jokingly asked “whether the alligators and snakes have been consulted” about the park. Another Republican asked Rep. Taber if he had ever seen the area, and when Taber replied he had not, joked that “'the gentleman has never seen nothing yet.'” Rep. Treadway stated that the only way the area can even be seen is by airplane, and that if Taber's income does not let him own an airplane, “he might get Mr. Doherty to lend him his.”193 Republican congressmen continued making jokes at Doherty's expense in an attempt to tie the park and Democrats to this allegedly corrupt Democratic donor. Rep. McFadden proclaimed that the development of roads in the park “would also improve the value of the Miami Biltmore and other hotels which Doherty has recently purchased,” to which Rep. Taber replied “oh yes; so he could entertain his Democratic friends. They seem to be the ones with enough money to go down there [to the park].” Rep. Culkin then asked if Doherty would like to “entertain the subscribers to Cities Service stock,” whom Doherty had been accused of defrauding. Taber quipped back “oh, he does not want to see them,” a line which provoked laughter in the House. Culkin, quick on his feet, responded that “he has already given them a ride, I suppose.” Although in reality, Doherty had nothing to do with the park, partisan politics and opposition to the New Deal intruded into the park debate, injecting issues that had nothing to do with conservation or biology into the debate over the Everglades.194 Representative McFadden, from Pennsylvania, also used the park to attack the Roosevelt administration by tying Doherty and Collier, who McFadden called “two of the greatest speculators in the United States,” to the ENP and FDR. McFadden claimed that Doherty had “fleeced the American people out of millions of dollars and . . . kept for himself a minimum of $200,000,000.” According to McFadden, Doherty supported the park because it would benefit his own economic interests in South Florida, but also because “he wants to gain further popularity, not only with the [Roosevelt] administration but with the public.” McFadden called

192 Congressional Record, House, 73rd Congress, 9497-8. 193 Congressional Record, House, 73rd Congress, 9498. 194 Congressional Record, House, 73rd Congress, 9498. 106

Doherty, “the major domo of this administration on entertainment,” and further tied Doherty to Ruth Bryan Owen. McFadden also attacked Barron Collier, calling him “another prominent Democrat,” and “one of the leading speculators in real estate in Florida.” He asserted that Barron Collier “will be benefited if this bill goes through,” although McFadden did not describe how this would happen.195 Henry Doherty was under investigation for fraud and could be tied to the Roosevelt administration, although only tangentially. Doherty was the Chairman of the National Committee for 'The Birthday Ball of the President,' a philanthropic organization that held a fundraiser for infantile paralysis on Roosevelt's birthday. However, Doherty had absolutely no connection to Ernest Coe, the ENPA, or the campaign to establish Everglades National Park. He recently purchased the famous Biltmore Hotel in Coral Gables, Florida, but had no other connection to the ENP. After Republicans finished their jokes about oilmen throwing parties for Democratic politicians in Miami hotels, they began a more serious discussion of federal spending in the ENP, which was the real reason they opposed the establishment of the park. Rep. Taber posed the question that many of these Republicans were thinking, namely, “why would the State of Florida want to give this land, 1,300,000 acres to the United States unless it expected to get a big appropriation out of the Federal Treasury?” Taber stated that all joking aside, “this is the thing about which I am especially interested. I want you to be serious about it; I want you to think about it. I expect if we pass this bill today we will be approached in the not far distant future with an effort to obtain countless millions out of the Federal Treasury for this development and the development of matters connected with it.” Taber explained that he opposed this bill “in the interest of the Federal Treasury,” and asked that the delegation from Florida explain the bill more fully.196 Congressman Robertson, a Democrat from Virginia, took up Taber's challenge to explain the ENP bill, detailing the legislative history of the bill and countering many of the accusations made by the Republican opposition. Robertson explained that “Barron Collier does not own any land in the area to be acquired.” He also claimed that “Mr. Doherty has no particular interest in this bill. He owns two hotels out of many hotels in Florida.” Robertson claimed that all Doherty

195 Congressional Record, House, 73rd Congress, 9508. 196 Congressional Record, House, 73rd Congress, 9499. 107

wanted was to “preserve this great natural resource for the poor people that cannot go to the Miami Biltmore or to the wonderful palatial marble hotels at Coral Gables” a dubious statement, since a democratic desire for leisure was not a rational for the ENP. Robertson also claimed that these teeming masses could already easily enter the Everglades through “a road already built through the park,” and that those worried about the U.S. Treasury could cease their fretting because “the Director of the National Parks Service informs us that he does not contemplate the construction of any more roads” in the park area.197 To support these arguments about spending and road-building in the park, advocates for the park inserted two amendments into the park bill. One amendment limited development in the park and ensured that the area would be “preserved in its natural state.” According to Robertson, “we want to exclude the hand of commercialism in this area.” Another amendment, the five-year clause, guaranteed that “the United States will not spend one red cent for 5 years after the approval of the bill” in the park area. Although Rep. Taber stated that the NPS would spend 100 million dollars in the park, Robertson argued that “the Director of the National Parks Service tells us that there will be involved only the nominal expense of maintenance.” Robertson also addressed the Republican claim that roads in the area would cost $700,000 a mile. According to Robertson, “there are not to be any roads. We have it in the bill to leave this area in its natural state. We do not want roads. We want only those who from a love of nature desire to commune with nature's God to come in there and enjoy the natural conditions existing in this park.” Although they wanted no roads, Robertson also claimed that roads were very easy to build in the park area and that “all you have to do is drain it and throw up the sand and shells and you have all the road you need. The expense will be small.”198 Although Robertson asserted that no money would be needed to make the park accessible, Republicans continued to argue that the park was impossible to enter and that this would necessitate the building of multiple, expensive roads to accommodate tourists. Representative Treadway took the floor after Robertson's speech and argued the Everglades was inaccessible to anything but reptiles. He stated that the Everglades “can never be made accessible unless the federal government sees fit to expend enormous sums of money to render it so.” According to Treadway, to get into the Everglades, “you would have to swim . . . and if you

197 Congressional Record, House, 73rd Congress, 9499. 198 Congressional Record, House, 73rd Congress, 9499-9500. 108

did you would be eaten by crocodiles or bitten by snakes.” Treadway used Coe's account of the Department of Interior's trip into the Everglades to support his arguments about reptiles in the park. Treadway sarcastically read what he called the “fine language and unadulterated adjectives” Coe used to describe the hatching of turtles, which under the protection of the federal government would be allowed to procreate free of human interference. Treadway mocked the notion that these turtles deserved or needed any protection and was generally dismissive of the value of the Everglades' biota. After reading Coe's account, he sarcastically exclaimed “my Lord, is not that a wonderful proposition! We will get a great crop of little turtles.” Treadway, who at the beginning of his statement proclaimed he loved national parks and nature, did not consider the preservation of a species, or the biological significance of natural areas a valid rationale for a national park. Instead, he clung to older notions about parks as tourist attractions.199 Throughout this hour of debate Republicans either mocked the nature of the Everglades, or claimed that the Everglades would rob the U.S. Treasury of countless millions of dollars. Rep. Martin of Massachusetts argued Florida wanted the park “for the purpose of saddling the expense of maintaining the property upon the Treasury of the United States.” Although earlier in the debate Republicans had tried to argue that the park was a scheme to reward Democratic donors, Martin now argued that “this is not a partisan question,” but instead was a question of “whether we are going to protect the Treasury of the United States.” Rep. Reed, who spoke next, took the second route, using his speaking time to talk about rattlesnakes. Reed argued that the Everglades was “a great snake country.” He went on to dubiously suggest that “a great snake industry is being built in that country. They are canning rattlesnake meat. There rattlesnakes grow to great dimensions, some of them weighting as much as 40 pounds.” Although he spent most of his time talking about snakes, he also stated that “I am not interested in snakes,” and that “I do not want them around.” Reed cast doubt on whether this snake country would attract any tourists at all. He stated that “I would not be very much interested in going through the Everglades, and would not want my family to go down there with a canoe floating around among the alligators.”200 All these statements about federal spending need to be seen within the context of the Great Depression and the New Deal. Conservative Republicans were wary of spending money

199 Congressional Record, House, 73rd Congress, 9500-1. 200 Congressional Record, House, 73rd Congress, 9501-3. 109

during an economic depression, which is exactly what the New Deal was doing. They felt that further expenditures were adding to a general sense of economic irresponsibility. Republicans had futilely opposed federal spending as an antidote to the Depression thus far, and they saw any victory against more federal spending, no matter how minor or insignificant, as a victory for fiscal conservatism. Although the ENP bill was a relatively minor bill, Republicans had opposed it for years because of the threatened status of their fiscal conservatism during the Great Depression. Rep. Rich of Pennsylvania directly connected the establishment of the ENP to the country's economic situation. Rich, a Republican, was a member of the public lands committee of the House and had experience in the establishment of national parks. He spoke about the establishment of Smoky Mountain National Park, which was established through state and private donations and given to the federal government. After its establishment, the Department of the Interior requested an appropriation of fifteen million dollars for the development of this park. According to Rich, the ENP, like any national park “cannot be made accessible to the people without a large expenditure of Federal funds.” Rich was convinced that the only purpose of a national park was to accommodate tourism, and did not understand that the ENP was to be a new kind of park with a new mission. According to Rich, instead of spending money on a national park, “we should be devoting our energies today in helping the men who are trying to get jobs, who want to make a livelihood. I think we are doing the wrong thing by bringing up a proposal of this kind at this time and taking up the time of the House when we have important legislation that should be enacted.” Rich was not opposed to creating a park in the Everglades, but wanted “to postpone” the establishment of the park till the economy recovered.201 Once again, Democratic congressmen, such as Rep. Robertson from Virginia, countered these statements about federal spending in the Everglades and argued that any federal expenditures in Everglades National Park would be minor. These Democrats also presented a much different version of the Everglades to their colleagues in the House of Representatives. While Republicans attempted to paint the park as a snake-infested wasteland, J. Mark Wilcox, the Democratic Representative from South Florida, discussed the biological worth of the Everglades. Wilcox, who soon after replacing Ruth Bryan Owen in the House became a stalwart ally of Ernest Coe, and here echoed many of Coe's arguments about the Everglades.

201 Congressional Record, House, 73rd Congress, 9506-7. 110

Wilcox opened by stating that the Everglades was “unique and distinctive,” and that it was “the only natural tropical growth in the continental United States.” Although most national parks in the United States were “located in the mountain sections . . . mountain scenery is largely similar to other mountain scenery.” By contrast, the Everglades possessed a unique aesthetic quality not found in other national parks. Wilcox argued that “it is necessary to preserve and protect it [the ENP] for future generations in order that we may have all kinds of primitive areas preserved.” Wilcox also argued that the main rationale for this park was to preserve the Everglades' biota. This included “certain species of bird and animal life,” that were “rapidly becoming extinct,” and species of trees and plants that were “being rapidly exploited by commercial interests.” For instance, developers were “going into this area, digging up these Royal Palms that are rare specimens, moving them out and planting them on their private estates.” Wilcox stated that unless the park was established, the U.S. “will completely lose the only growth of tropical palms existing in [the] continental United States.”202 Wilcox addressed Republican arguments about the cost of the bill and about the nature of the Everglades. He addressed the Republican statement that road building in the Everglades would cost $700,000 a mile, calling this a “wild and unreasonable and unfounded statement.” Wilcox noted that road building in the Everglades, was “the cheapest of anywhere in the United States,” but he also argued that roads in the park would be few because Wilcox, as well as “naturalists and scientists,” were all “anxious to preserve this area in its primitive state.”203 He also discussed whether the Everglades was snake-infested. Here Wilcox recounted a conversation he had with Dr. Raymond Ditmars, the curator of the New York Zoological Park, about the number of snakes in the Everglades. According to Ditmars, in the middle of New York City, there were “from three to five times as many snakes per square mile as you can find in all the Everglades.” Those who believed the area to be snake infested were “not well versed in such matters,” and that there was “no indication that there are more snakes in southern Florida than in many of the other areas of that State or the mountain areas of the West or parts of New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.”204 The debate over the park continued in this fashion for an entire hour. Republicans argued the Everglades was a worthless wasteland and that it would cost the federal government millions

202 Congressional Record , House, 73rd Congress, 9504. 203 Congressional Record, House, 73rd Congress, 9504. 204 Congressional Record, House, 73rd Congress, 9504. 111

of dollars to open it up to tourism, while Democrats countered that the Everglades had great biological worth and would cost little because it would be preserved in a primitive state. After an hour the bill came to a vote and passed, with 222 yeas, 145 nays and 64 Representatives not voting. The final version of the bill was a ground-breaking document that has mostly been ignored by historians. Its provision mandating that the Everglades remain in a primitive state was a precedent for later legislation and a powerful endorsement of the idea of wilderness, an idea that was just beginning to gain traction among conservationists.

The Wilderness Amendment

J. Mark Wilcox introduced the following amendment to the park bill as it was being debated in 1934: “Said area or areas shall be permanently preserved as a wilderness and no development of the project or plan for the entertainment of visitors shall be undertaken which will interfere with the preservation intact of the unique flora and fauna and the essential primitive natural conditions now prevailing in this area.” This law marks the first time the federal government explicitly protected a natural area as a wilderness. Thirty years before the passage of the Wilderness Act, and one year before the Wilderness Society came into existence, the federal government endorsed the idea of wilderness in the Everglades.205 Although this amendment was used to placate fiscal conservatives, its existence was largely due to Robert Sterling Yard's opposition to the establishment of Everglades National Park. Yard's criticisms of Coe's promotional tactics, his doubts about the worth of the Everglades' nature, and his vocal opposition to the authorization of the park in 1931 forced Coe and the NPS to vocally and legally embrace wilderness in the Everglades. Although Coe and the NPS had repeatedly stated their desire to preserve the Everglades as a wilderness, Yard believed that Florida boosters, inspired by Coe's talk of tourism, would pressure the NPS to develop the park. To prevent this, Yard and other conservationist pushed for an amendment to the ENP authorization forbidding extensive development in the park. In December of 1930, Yard, unable to attend a hearing of the House's committee on public lands concerning the ENP due to laryngitis, wrote to the committee explaining his opposition to the parks' authorization. He wrote that, according to his “botanist friends,” the area

205 Congressional Record, House, 73rd Congress, 9504. 112

was “an exceptionally good museum piece of primitive conditions,” and should be preserved as a botanical reservation, but because it was “not scenically valuable,” it should not be made a national park. Yard also urged the committee to “inquire particularly into the plan for developing and administering the proposed park.” Showing his disdain for modern methods of national park creation, Yard argued that “nothing is more damaging to the purpose of influence of the National Park System than local raising of money to buy park area upon the argument that local profit will result from the motor travel that such a park will bring into the state.” He felt this was an dangerous argument and believed that the government “should never sanction creation of a National Park on any ground short of the highest benefit to the nation.”206 Yard continued to stir opposition to the park's authorization throughout 1931 and continued to criticize Coe's promotional tactics. Coe's use of tourism to promote the park created unrealistic expectations about the park's economic benefits and fed Republican criticisms concerning the cost of the park, but Yard's arguments also reveal his disdain for popular opinion and his reliance on the elitist politics used to establish previous parks. Yard objected to “the policy of local people raising the purchase money” for national parks, but failed to address the practical matter of how these eastern parks were to be created without these funds. According to Yard, “the Southern Appalachian park campaigns [for the Great Smokey National Park and the Shenandoah National Park] proved that the only way money can be got from local publics and state legislatures is by promising the coming of a million motorists to add to the prosperity of the neighborhood and the state tax on gas.” Yard thought this dangerous because “the government cannot accept land purchased under such promises without being morally and politically bound to furnish the highways and camps to take care of such an invasion.”207 Yard was devoted to an idea of wilderness that placed human needs above those of wildlife and flora. His desire for wilderness was focused on providing humans with a higher and purer recreational experience in a version of the natural world that was free from any human artifice or presence. Yard wanted wilderness areas so that humans could escape civilization and renew their spiritual and emotional connections to nature. This wilderness would protect natural areas, but the protection of biota and the recognition that nature had a non-human value was not central to Yard's conception of wilderness. His desire for wilderness in the Everglades was one

206 Robert Sterling Yard, Statement at the Hearing on the Everglades National Park Bill, 15 December 1930, B230, RG79, National Archives, College Park, MD. 207 Robert Sterling Yard, 6 January 1931, B230, RG 79, National Archives, College Park, MD. 113

that sacrificed the Everglades' biota to keep the park free of roads and development. Due his insistence that the park be kept free from roads, Yard opposed the inclusion of Tamiami Trail and lands north of the Trail in the park. These lands had important biological significance and served as an important habitats for migratory birds, as well as other species of flora and fauna. He called this road a “big business highway” that carried “traffic between the resort cities of the Atlantic and the Gulf. The inclusion of Tamiami Trail in the park was a “new, undesirable and dangerous precedent.” Yard was also upset about a map that Coe circulated in 1931 that included a new road in the park looping around Cape Sable and enlarged boundaries along the southeast coast of Florida that included a portion of the railroad to Key West. Yard was furious at both of these features on Coe's map, even though this map was only circulated once and the neither the NPS nor Coe ever considered including either of these features in the park. Rather, this map was part of Coe's promotional work and was used in 1931 to elicit support from local boosters. Yard felt that Florida boosters would demand these developments from the NPS after the park's establishment. He wrote to Secretary of the Interior Ray Lyman Wilbur that “Florida, you may be sure, already counts on this loop highway for the 'million motorists' that the national park will be expected to add to the present total of her visitors.”208 Yard also convinced several organizations to oppose the ENP's authorization in 1931. The National Parks Association, the American Forestry Association, the American Society of Naturalists, the Wilson Ornithological Club, and the Ecological Society of America all opposed the park because of Yard's arguments about tourism. According to Coe, however, some members of the organizations soon felt duped by Yard once they investigated the park proposal for themselves.209 The NPS pushed back against Yard's criticisms and defended the park. Albright wrote to Yard that “we have stated all along that the Everglades should be kept as nearly as possible in its present condition and that practically all of the areas recommended for a park can be kept in its present condition. We have not made any grandiose plan for road development, etc., nor have we been asked to consider such a plan.” He argued that “there never has been a project handled on such a high plane as this one has been.” To Henry Ward, Albright wrote that “there has almost never been a park set aside that is more of a true wilderness area than the Everglades.”

208 Robert Sterling Yard, 6 January 1931, B230, RG 79, National Archives, College Park, MD; Robert Sterling Yard to Ray Lyman Wilbur, 7 January 1931, B230, RG 79, National Archives, College Park, MD. 209 EC to Robert T. Morris, 3 February 1931, B230, RG79, National Archives, College Park, MD. 114

Additionally, most of the park, “because so impossible of access, will have to remain in its primitive condition. This is in addition to the fact that its best use is that of a wild-life refuge.” Small areas of the park would be opened up to tourism, but this would be done “without injury to the major use of the park.”210 Albright addressed Yard's claims that real estate interests and boosters were behind the park. According to Alright there was no “evidence that Florida promotion experts” were behind the park. He noted that in the case of eastern parks, that “have to be acquired by public subscription without expense to the United States,” tourism and the very real economic advantages of a park's establishment were inevitably going to be discussed. In the case of the ENP, Albright wrote that the “real force behind the movement to save the Everglades and establish the park,” were “innumerable . . . nature lovers and scientists who have nothing else than the conservation of the wildlife and flora at heart.” He also responded to Yard's criticisms of the park boundaries, noting that these were not the final boundaries but only the maximum boundaries that the park could potentially encompass. These boundaries “were for the purposes of report to Congress only, and were drawn so as not to avoid inclusion of any areas in the last analysis.”211 Although there were differences of opinion between Coe and Yard, to a large extent this controversy was a misunderstanding. Yard had voiced his support for the establishment of Everglades National Park repeatedly after 1930 and he had even endorsed limited tourism in the park. He wrote to Horace Albright that “every national park necessarily has a center of congested visitation,” and that this “should not be considered an evil under modern travel conditions,” but rather it was a benefit. By developing one area for tourism, “it saves the vast wildernesses of the parks from being overrun.” Coe expressed his agreement with this position. He wrote to Henry Ward that “I fully agree with many of Mr. Yard's attitudes toward National Park standards.” Coe thought that if Yard had “been disposed to give this Everglades Park project as searching a study from its positive side as he has from its negative side,” that Yard would likely have not opposed the park's authorization. Horace Albright agreed that Yard's opposition to the ENP was mostly due to a misunderstanding and he wrote in 1931 that the

210 Horace Albright to Robert Sterling Yard, 5 January 1931, B230, RG 79, National Archives, College Park, MD; Horace Albright to Henry Ward, 24 January 1931, B230, RG 79, National Archives, College Park, MD. 211 Horace Albright memo to the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, 16 January 1931, B230, RG 79, National Archives, College Park, MD. 115

position of Yard and the NPS on the ENP were not far apart. According to Albright, many of Yard's statements were “not based on the facts, because he was not fully acquainted with those facts.” Albright wrote that if Yard had sought him out at the beginning of this controversy, he “could have explained” the ENP proposal “to his satisfaction,” and largely averted the entire matter.212 Ward eventually, because of his discussions with Albright and due to the conclusion of William Wharton and Fredrick Law Olmsted Jr., dropped his opposition to the park. Instead he pushed for an amendment to the park bill that would ensure the preservation of the Everglades as a wilderness. As early as 1931 Ernest Coe and Ruth Bryan Owen agreed to the amendment, although it was not attached to the ENP bill until 1934. In 1931, at the Cosmos Club in Washington D.C., Coe discussed this amendment with Robert Sterling Yard and T. Gilbert Pearson. Yard informed Ray Lyman Wilbur, the Secretary of the Interior, that “Mr. Coe is so enthusiastic over these provisos that he said positively that he would rather see the bill go over to the next Congress so as to have their ideas embodied in the text than to let the present bill pass without them.” T. Gilbert Pearson also “agreed to the soundness and practicability of the provisos.” Yard assured Wilbur that if an amendment preserving the Everglades as a wilderness was attached to the ENP bill, it would “satisfy all objectors to the present bill,” and it would in fact, “bring great rejoicing to the national park public.”213 In 1934, as the ENP bill worked its way through Congress yet again, the NPS and conservation organizations discussed the particulars of this amendment. Arno Cammerer, Horace Albright's successor as superintendent of the NPS, met with representatives of the NPA and the AFA to discuss this amendment. These parties agreed to the actual text of the wilderness amendment, and they agreed to another amendment forbidding the federal government from spending money in the park area for five years after the parks' authorization. They also discussed the park's boundaries, which the NPS had already decided would be planned by a committee of scientists and park experts. The AFA and the NPA desired some control over the

212 Robert Sterling Yard to Horace Albright, 3 February 1931, B230, RG 79, National Archives, College Park, MD; EC to Henry Ward, 10 February 1931, B230, RG 79, National Archives, College Park, MD;Horace Albright memo to the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, 16 January 1931, B230, RG 79, National Archives, College Park, MD. 213 Robert Sterling Yard to Ray Lyman Wilbur, 10 February 1931, B230, RG 79, National Archives, College Park, MD. 116

makeup of this committee, but the park service rejected this request.214 Cammerer and Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes agreed to support the amendment, although both found it unnecessary and redundant to the NPS's mission. Ickes wrote that the purpose of this amendment was “thoroughly taken care of in the organic act creating the National Park Service,” but added that he “would not object to a restatement on this principle” in order to facilitate this bill's passage. Cammerer agreed that this amendment was redundant, but he saw no harm in legally reaffirming the service's desire to preserve the Everglades as a wilderness. Cammerer wrote that the amendment was being pushed by conservation organizations “in an excess of caution,” and that as long as the amendment did not harm the bill's chances for passage in the House, he was in favor of this “restatement of principle.”215 The organic act which established the NPS in 1916, stated that the purpose of the NPS was to “conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and wild life” in the parks “in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” This act also, however, mandated that the NPS develop the parks for the enjoyment of the people. The park service was directed to “promote and regulate the use” of national parks. Richard Sellars argues in Preserving Nature in the National Parks that the preservation of nature and wilderness were not even among the concerns of those who lobbied for the 1916 Organic Act. Sellars writes that “an examination of the motivations and perceptions of the Park Service's founders reveals that their principle concerns were the preservation of scenery, the economic benefits of tourism, and efficient management of the parks.” Regardless of the aims of the service's founders, by the 1930s, NPS officials were using the organic act to downplay the contradiction inherent in the park services' mission. This contradiction between use and preservation was something Yard and other wilderness advocates dwelled on throughout the 1920s and '30s as they advocated for precise definitions and classification of wilderness in federal lands.216 Ernest Coe bears some responsibility for this amendment's existence as well. Coe's emphasis on tourism in his promotional work brought to the surface contradictions within the park service's mission. Conservationists and wilderness advocates who were associated with the

214 National Parks Bulletin, v12, n60, May 1934, 4-5. 215 Harold Ickes to Louis DeRouen, 9 April 1934, B232, RG79, National Archives, College Park, MD; Arno Cammerer to Poole, 2 April 1934, B232, RG79, National Archives, College Park, MD. 216 The National Park Service Organic Act, 25 August 1916; Sellars, 29. 117

NPS, like Yard and others in the NPA, used this as an opportunity to discuss this contradiction and to push the NPS more firmly in the direction of wilderness. The resulting wilderness amendment was a clear and legal endorsement of wilderness and the need to preserve the Everglades' biota from human interference.

118

5. DEVELOPMENT AND WILDERNESS IN EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK

“Said area or areas shall be permanently preserved as a wilderness and no development of the project or plan for the entertainment of visitors shall be undertaken which will interfere with the preservation intact of the unique flora and fauna and the essential primitive natural conditions now prevailing in this area.”217

“With the proposed Everglades National Park included in the national park system, one can visit America's tropics amid scenes preserved in their primitive naturalness.”218

Introduction

The wilderness amendment to the 1934 federal authorization of Everglades National Park marks the first time that the idea of wilderness was endorsed by the federal government. A year before the creation of the Wilderness Society and 30 years before the passage of the Wilderness Act, the federal government authorized the creation of the ENP as a wilderness. This amendment was reflection of how Coe and the NPS saw the future of Everglades National Park, and was did not operate as a restriction on the service's plans for the park. Coe and the park service had always wanted the park to preserve the primitive wilderness of the Everglades. Throughout his promotional work Coe argued that the creation of the park would preserve wilderness. Coe believed that the primary purpose of any national park was the preservation of flora and fauna. He did acknowledge, however, that parks also had educational, inspirational, democratic and scientific purposes. Coe's understanding about the purposes of national parks was heavily influenced by George Wright's Fauna of the National Parks. Here, Wright argued that national parks existed to preserve wildlife. Although Wright conceded that tourism would always be an important factor in parks, he saw the needs of tourists as subordinate to the needs of wildlife.219 Everglades National Park needed to be maintained as a wilderness in order to fulfill this purpose. Only as a wilderness could the park adequately protect the park's biota from human activity. One of the main arguments for the park's creation revolved around the history of the

217 Congressional Record, House, 73rd Congress, 9504. 218 ENPA Bulletin, 20 May 1933, John Pennekamp Papers, PK Younge Library, University of Florida (UF). 219 George Wright, Thomas Dixon, and Ben Thompson, Fauna of the National Parks of the United States, U.S.: Government Printing Office, 1933. 119

commercial exploitation of the Everglades' biota. The flora and fauna of the Glades was being destroyed by hunters, trappers, collectors, timber companies, and others who profited off the commodification of animal and plant life in the Everglades. The park would end this commercial exploitation, and would prevent any further disruption of the Everglades biota by keeping most of the park inaccessible. This rationale for wilderness was very different from the concerns of contemporary wilderness advocates. As Paul Sutter shows in Driven Wild, these advocates were critical of automobile tourism on public lands. They believed that automobile tourism was destroying America's natural areas and they embraced wilderness in order to keep these natural areas safe from tourism. However, in the Everglades, commercial exploitation, not tourism, was destroying the biological contents of the area. Coe and others did not embrace primitiveness in the ENP for fear of tourism, but rather as a necessary precondition to the preservation of the Everglades' flora and fauna. The National Park Service agreed with Coe's rationale for maintaining the Everglades as a wilderness.220 Despite Coe's embrace of wilderness values, he also discussed the development of the park, in both specific and general terms. Although he always supported keeping the vast majority of the park a roadless wilderness, Coe often discussed development in the park with local audiences to bolster support for the park. In 1930 and again in 1935, Coe even discussed the creation of a new road in the park that would connect the west coast of Florida to Flamingo, Cape Sable, and Royal Palm State Park. Coe usually, however, discussed developing areas in the park in places that were already developed, like Flamingo and the RPSP. Essentially, he supported maintaining the status quo in the Everglades with regards to wilderness. Developed areas would remain developed and wilderness areas would be left as wilderness. Coe also, in a move that was decades ahead of its time, suggested that the park could be zoned to protect wilderness. Coe also wrote about roads more generally. He was enthusiastic about the building of roads to the park, and wrote about how roads needed to be planned aesthetically and unobtrusively. Additionally, Coe wanted the Tamiami Trail included in the park, as well as lands north of the Trail which he argued were needed to preserve birdlife. Despite his enthusiasm

220 Paul Sutter, Driven Wild: How the Fight against Automobiles Launched the Modern Wilderness Movement, University of Washington Press, 2002. 120

about roads, Coe also at times opposed the construction of roads in the park and criticized the construction of the Tamiami Trail. Coe's attitudes about development in the park, once he dropped the notion of a new scenic highway in the park, were supported by conservationists and NPS officials, including George Wright and Daniel Beard. However, Coe's talk about development and tourism had unintended side effects. Later park advocates, like Florida Senator Spessard Holland and Miami Herald Editor John Pennekamp, pushed for more development in the park than either Coe or the NPS desired.

The Everglades as a Primitive Wilderness

Coe discussed wilderness in the Everglades frequently in his promotional literature before and after the federal government's authorization of the ENP. Although the existence of the wilderness amendment was due to other factors, it did reflect Coe and the NPS's vision for Everglades National Park. This amendment did not change their plans for the park, nor did it alter their perceptions of the future of the park. Coe frequently talked about the primitive character of the Everglades and argued that the creation of the park would preserve the wilderness of the Everglades. In a lecture delivered in 1929 he stated that the Everglades was a “great wilderness area.” In 1930 he wrote that the park would be “a great nature wilderness area.” In a conciliatory letter to Robert Sterling Yard he stated that the Everglades “contains one of the most important wilderness areas within our country.” In this letter Coe also expressed his desire “to be a member of the new 'Wilderness Society,'” and asked for “a copy of the Organization's purposes and a membership application.” David Fairchild also noted the wild qualities of the Everglades. When at the fishing village Flamingo with NSP officials who were touring the Everglades he remarked that they “were looking at the Easternmost edge . . . of real wilderness.”221 Coe frequently used the words primitive or primeval to refer to the unaltered quality of the Everglades. He did however acknowledge that native Americans had lived in the Everglades,

221 Ernest Coe (EC), Lecture, 29 October 1929, University of Miami (UM) Presidential Archives, Richter Library, University of Miami; EC, ENPA Bulletin, 17 January 1930, UM Presidential Archives, Richter Library, UM; EC to Robert Sterling Yard, 1 November 1935, David Sholtz Papers, Florida State Archives (FSA); David Fairchild (DF) to John Merriam, 22 March 1930, DF Papers, Fairchild Tropical Gardens Archive (FTGA). 121

and talked about the presence of archaeological ruins and shell mounds. He stated in 1933 that with the parks' creation the tropical scenes of the area would be “preserved in their primitive naturalness.” Coe argued that the “area is considered the last remaining great primitive wild life region in America and probably the last primitive area to come into the national park system.” The Everglades was “the only undisturbed primitive region in (the) Continental United States.” In a letter to the ENPA and ENPC written in 1935 about tourism and preservation he wrote that “the Everglades National Park will be an outstanding example” of “our primitive national parks.” In this letter he described the present state of the Everglades, writing that “at the present time, this vast territory is practically in a primeval state.” In other correspondence he wrote that the Everglades was “practically in an untrammeled primitive state,” that it was “the last stand of nature's primeval Florida,” and that it contained “primeval fastnesses.”222 Coe tried to show that the Everglades had not been altered by human activity. One of Robert Sterling Yard's criticisms of eastern parks was that they were not pristine and that their primitive features had been destroyed by human actions. Coe took pains to show that this had not happened in the Everglades, often ignoring the obvious and destructive effects of human activity in the Everglades. Coe wrote that the Everglades “has given little promise to the agriculturist or cattle-raiser owing to its peculiar physical makeup,” and that “it is largely for these reasons that this great area comes down to us in its present practically untrammeled primitive state.” In a lecture on the park, Coe went so far as to state that the Everglades was in “the same primeval state as when first the venerable navigator Ponce de Leon visited it.” David Fairchild also made this assertion, writing that “the white man, though he has otherwise much changed and 'civilized' the land, has left quite untouched wide stretches of the South Tip of the [Florida] peninsula and one penetrates there into the wilderness as though he were the first to behold such wonders.”223 Coe's insistence that the proposed park had not been damaged by humans conflicted with one of the primary rationales for the park. Coe argued that the park was needed to protect the Everglades from the commercial exploitation and commodification of the area's biota. The

222 ENPA Bulletin, 20 May 1933, John Pennekamp Papers, PK Younge Library, UF; EC, May 1934 Press Release, DF Papers, FTGA; EC to ENPA and ENPC 29 June 1935, J. Hardin Peterson Papers, PK Younge Library, UF; EC to Tony Merrill, 12 April 1941, DF Papers, FTGA; EC, ENPA Bulletin, 11 April 1929, DF Papers, FTGA; EC, ENPA Bulletin, 17 January 1930, UM Presidential Archives, Richter Library, UM. 223 EC Lecture, 28 October 1929, UM Presidential Archives, Richter Library, UM; Coe lecture at the Cosmos Club, Washington D.C., 29 October 1929, UM Presidential Archives, Richter Library, UM; DF to The National Parks Association, 21 December 1932, DF Papers, FTGA. 122

establishment of the park would put an end to these activities, preserving it for all time as a habitat for the area's flora and fauna. In Coe's promotional writings, he argued that the Everglades was unchanged, but also that it was also being destroyed, creating a confusing contradiction. He wrote in one letter that there was “no need to fear that the region . . . has been seriously modified through human agencies,” but then remarked a few sentences later that “certain forms of life including game animals have been materially reduced in numbers through the agency of hunters and trappers.” Clearly, the Everglades was being altered by human activity. Coe acknowledged this in a letter to David Fairchild when he wrote that “the nearer we can approach a return to physical conditions . . . in the Everglades area before intruded upon by man, the better.”224 This contradiction in Coe's promotional work is clearly seen in a letter to NPS superintendent Arno Cammerer. Coe explained to Cammerer that the primary purpose of the park was to create in the Everglades “an area [where] exploitation for commercial purposes will not occur.” This “guarantee,” was why Coe had “sacrificed [his] own personal interest for the past several years in an effort to help advance the interests of the Everglades National Park project.” However, in the same letter Coe argued that the Everglades had “not been exploited for commercial purposes . . . due to the same combination of conditions, physical and otherwise, which prevails to-day.” Coe noted that agriculture and land development had failed in the Everglades, but repeatedly referenced the destruction of the Everglades' biota.225

The Purposes of National Parks

Everglades National Park was to be an entirely new type of national park, one where the preservation of the area's biota took precedence over the preservation of scenery or geological features. The purpose of older parks was to cater to tourists, but the purpose of this new park was to preserve the biological features of the Everglades. The Everglades' flora and fauna had been threatened for decades and many species were on the verge of extinction. The most direct and simplest way to address this problem to many conservationists, scientists, and concerned Floridians was to take a large portion of the Everglades and make it a national park with clearly

224 EC to Tony Merrill, 12 April 1941, DF Papers, FTGA; EC to DF, 7 July 1932, DF Papers, FTGA. 225 EC to Arno Cammerer, 20 October 1933, RG79 B921, National Archives, College Park, MD. 123

delineated borders, park wardens, and federal protection. Furthermore this park would largely remain a wilderness to more adequately protect the Everglades' biota. Although the primary purpose of the park was novel, older rationales for national parks were also present in the arguments for the park. Coe, especially, argued that the park would have an inspirational value and that the wildlife and primitive scenery in the Everglades would inspire tourists to reconsider their relationships with the larger natural world. Coe and Fairchild, also argued that the park would have an educational and scientific value. Because so much of the park would be reserved for the Everglades' wildlife and plantlife, it would be a fruitful area for scientific research. The primary purpose of the ENP was to preserve the Everglade's biota, a purpose different than the purposes of any existing parks, but the parks would have inspirational, democratic, educational, and scientific purposes as well. Coe especially argued that the park would serve a democratic function. Coe explicitly rejected the elitism inherent in many of the contemporary arguments for wilderness and stated that he did not want the Everglades locked away from the general public. He did not want a park that would only be enjoyed by a small number of scientists or hardy outdoorsmen, but wanted regular Americans to be able to enjoy and learn from the Everglades. If advocates of wilderness can be criticized as elitists, then Coe had a much more democratic vision of how humans would interact with nature in the park. Although humans would only be able to visit what Coe called the 'borderlands' between wilderness and developed areas, his perceptions of tourism and wilderness in the park were accommodating to the democratic uses of national parks. Coe argued that the ENP would have “an inspirational value as a nature reservation,” explicitly connecting the preservation of wildlife and plantlife to the human perceptions of that life. This rationale of national parks was essentially the view of parks in the late 19th and early 20th century, when conservationists like John Muir argued that temples of nature needed to be set aside to preserve their aesthetic and spiritual values. Elsewhere Coe wrote that the value of the park was “based primarily on the inspirational value of a national park area left largely in its primeval state.”226 The park would be inspirational to tourists, but the preservation of the Everglades would also provide scientists with countless research opportunities. Many scientists actively worked

226 EC to MO Harrison, 18 July 1931, David Carlton Papers, FSA. 124

for the park, and Coe's understanding of the Everglades and his thinking about the Everglade's biology was influenced by scientific experts. Coe wrote that “the scientist and nature lover,” would all be “assured for now and all time of an almost unlimited field of a most delightful character . . . rich in its opportunities for Tropical research.” Writing to Ben Thompson, an NPS official and a co-author of Fauna of the National Parks, Coe argued that the park would be “a nature sanctuary . . . wherein we can study the creatures and plant life of these woods and waters, and learn more about them in an intimate way.” In a series of radio lectures delivered in 1931 Coe argued that “National Parks are now very generally looked upon as super-nature study universities in that they offer opportunities for original research work not obtainable elsewhere.” The ENP would be “unique in many respects, as compared with the other national parks.” This uniqueness was “especially true of its importance for biological research.”227 Coe's understanding of National Parks and their purposes was heavily influenced by George Wright's Fauna in the National Parks. Just as Coe's perception of the Everglades was influenced by scientists, Coe's perception of national parks, and his views about the purposes and uses of national parks was informed by scientific experts like Wright and his colleagues. In Fauna, Wright argued that “the preservation of the native values of wilderness life,” was the “very foundation upon which the National Park Service is built.” To Wright, “the aim of the National Park Service [was] to maintain primitive conditions in the national parks.” Wright believed there were two functions of national parks. Paraphrasing the Organic Act that established the NPS, and addressing the central paradox of national parks, he wrote that the first function of parks was the preservation of “the flora and fauna in the primitive state,” and the other was “to provide the people with maximum opportunity for the observation thereof.”228 Wright thought that the first function was more important that the second, and that in fact, this second purpose was dependent on the first. He argued that wildlife was the main attraction in many parks. Wright wrote that “the national parks owe much of their unique charm to the unusual opportunities they afford for observing animals amid the intimacies of wild settings,” and that this wildlife was “one of the causes contributing to their constantly increasing popularity.” To Wright, seeing wildlife in its natural setting, “is a fresh thrill and it brings the

227 EC, ENPA Bulletin, 17 January 1930, Reclaiming the Everglades website; EC to Ben Thompson, 26 June 1936, EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; EC, WIOD Radio broadcast, 13 April 1931, UM Presidential Papers, Richter Library, UM. 228 Richard Sellars, Preserving Nature in the National Parks, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997, 91- 148; Wright, iv, 48, 147. 125

realization that the unique charm of the animals in a national park lies in their wildness, not their tameness, and in their primitive struggle to survive rather than their fat certainty of an easy living.” Coe agreed that the purpose of the ENP was to preserve its wildlife, but expanded Wright's arguments to include the Everglades flora.229

A Different Rationale for Wilderness

The main reason Everglades National Park was needed was to end the commercial exploitation of life in the Everglades. Although there was also talk of protecting the land itself from commercial, agricultural, or residential development, and a smattering of chatter about the dangers of canals and drainage, protecting plant and wildlife was the overriding goal of the park. Although protecting birdlife was not a new impetus, the fight for the ENP was at the forefront of a movement that recognized that all forms of life had worth and deserved a measure of protection. Traditionally, conservationists and wildlife advocates were never concerned about the fate of predators like the alligator or the panther, yet Coe and the NPS cited the protection of these animals as a positive good. The movement for the establishment of the ENP in the 1930s was the strongest iteration of the need to protect plant life. Although conservationists fought to save Redwood trees in California, those magnificent and enormous trees had a scenic and inspirational value that palm trees, mahoganies, and mangroves could not compete with. The ENP would explicitly preserve plants, like orchids and other epiphytes, as well as larger varieties of trees like mangroves and palms. The fight to create Everglades National Park was connected to the belief that all life forms had a right to exist, not just humans, game animals, and scenically significant species of flora. Coe and the NPS wanted the vast majority of the park to remain a wilderness in order to better protect this biota. He wrote in 1930 that through the establishment of the park the Everglades “could remain through time largely within the province of nature's ruling.” In this “great area primeval . . . wildlife could continue on in normal balance, reproducing itself through the years.” Coe wanted the primitive areas of the Everglades protected as a national park to stop the commercial exploitation of the Everglades' biota. The Everglades would remain a wilderness for the benefit of the flora and fauna of the area. Areas of the park would be developed for

229 Wright, 2, 54. 126

human use, but Coe wanted the vast wilderness areas of the Everglades kept as wilderness for a very non-human reason.230 On the other hand, wilderness advocates like Robert Sterling Yard and other members of the Wilderness Society embraced the idea of wilderness for much different reasons. These activists saw wilderness as a solution to the problem of automobile tourism in natural areas. To them, wilderness was a human-centered concept. They wanted wilderness to act as “an antidote to society,” or to be a refuge from civilization. Paul Sutter examines these wilderness advocates' consumerist critique of tourism and argues that they saw wilderness areas as public utilities that were being overdeveloped and overcommercialized. Wilderness to these activists was a recreational resource, and existed to provide humans with emotional, physical, and spiritual benefits.231 The commercial exploitation of the Everglades was central to the history of the area, and was a major concern of Coe and the ENPA. Long before Coe moved to Florida, much of the Everglades' biota had been destroyed. This destruction had been the focus of many local and national conservationists. In the Everglades birds were shot for their plumes, gators hunted for their hides, and the flesh of deer, turtles and other animals were bought and sold on the market. The flora of the Everglades was likewise exploited for financial gain. Coontie plants in the Everglades were harvested for arrowroot powder to extinction, royal palms were uprooted and sold to landscape South Florida, hammocks of virgin forest were cut down for timber, and exotic orchids were taken out of the Everglades by the truckload and sold as ornamental decorations. Nature in the Everglades was commodified as biological organisms became goods that were bought and sold on the free market. The plume feathers of birds, alligator hides, arrowroot powder, palm trees, and orchids were no longer part of the Everglades' ecosystem, but were removed from the Everglades and became commodities with standardized prices dependent on supply and demand.232 Most of the attention before the establishment of the park focused on the fate of wading birds in the Everglades. Historians Mark Derr, Jack Davis, and Leslie Kemp Poole all examine how a market for women's hats created demand for the plumes of wading birds. This millinery

230 EC, “Submitted Suggestions” 1 March 1930, RG79 B229, National Archives, College Park, MD. 231 Paul Sutter, Driven Wild: How the Fight Against Automobiles Launched the Modern Wilderness Movement. University of Washington Press, 2002, 242, 239- 248 232 William Cronon, Nature's Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West, W.W. Norton, 1991. 127

trade had enormous effects on bird populations in the Everglades. According to Poole, by the 1880s this plume hunting “had accounted for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of birds.” Some species, like Flamingos disappeared entirely from the area, while the populations of others, like reddish egrets, white ibis, roseate spoonbills and other types of herons, and egrets faced precipitous drops in population. Orinthologist William T. Hornaday estimated that bird populations in the Everglades between 1881 and 1898 declined by 77 percent. Plume birds in the Everglades could be shot so easily because this was where they reproduced. Huge rookeries of thousands of nests scattered throughout the Everglades could easily be approached by humans. Huge profits were made in a matter of days as hunters 'shot out' entire rookeries.233 Local and national conservationists, and state and federal legislators futilely tried to protect these bird populations. Although they were successful in attaining legislation to protect these bird populations, these laws had little effect. Mark Derr succinctly summed up the situation in four words: “conservation laws meant nothing.” In 1900 the federal government passed the Lacy Act outlawing the sale of these plumes in interstate commerce but this law was not enforced. Likewise, in 1891 the State of Florida passed legislation protecting wading birds, as did the State of New York in 1910, but these laws were likewise not enforced. The National Audubon Society hired game wardens beginning in 1901, but because too few wardens were policing too large an area they had little effect. A national park in the Everglades was seen as a more permanent and effective way of protecting the lives of these birds. Hunting of any kind would be outlawed in the park, and the park would hire rangers to police the park and its borders. Additionally, most of the park would be inaccessible and left in a primitive state, allowing these birds to migrate and reproduce without any human interference. The park, by cordoning off a large section of the Everglades, would also protect the habitats of these birds. Residential, commercial, and agricultural expansion would be halted by the park's borders, thus protecting these rookeries from multiple avenues of exploitation.234 Coe explicitly connected the fate of migratory birds to the ENP, arguing that the main

233 Mark Derr, Some Kind of Paradise: A Chronicle of Man and the Land in Florida, University Presses of Florida, 1998; Leslie Kemp Poole, “The Women of the Early Florida Audubon Society: Agents of History in the Fight to Save State Birds,” Florida Historical Quarterly, 2007, 85(3); Jack Davis, “Alligators and Plume Birds: The Despoilation of Florida's Living Aesthetic,” in Jack Davis and Raymond Arsenault, eds., Paradise Lost?: The Environmental History of Florida, University Presses of Florida, 2005; William T. Hornaday, Our Vanishing Wild Life: Its Extermination and Preservation, New York: New York Zoological Society, 1913, from Derr, 137; Derr, 136-7. 234 Derr, 137; Poole, Deer 137-8. 128

function of the park would be to protect these birds from hunters and other threats. In response to an editorial in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on migratory birds, Coe explained how the ENP would preserve these habitats. He wrote that the park was “the natural winter home of vast numbers of migratory birds from the north, . . . the summer home of other birds residing more south in the winter,” and the “stopping place for that vast army of migratory birds which spend their summers in the north of American and their winters in South America.” Coe argued that “the early establishment of the Everglades National Park” would aid in “the safeguarding of our migratory birds.” The park was an important tool in the fight for “the preservation and perpetuation of our native wild life both migratory and permanent.”235 Although the fate of migratory birds received the most attention, both from contemporary conservationists and from later historians, many other plant and animal species were also threatened. Alligators, a species most conservationists cared little about at the time, suffered precipitous declines in population as demand for gator hides increased. According to Mark Derr, between 1880 and 1894, hunters in Florida “killed at least 2.5 million” alligators. Gators, like birds, were easy prey; they were slow, unafraid of humans, and easy to spot, especially at night with a bright light. Hunters would typically “remove the smooth skin of their bellies and their teeth for necklaces and bracelets, then leave the carcasses to scavengers and decay.” Other traditional game animals like deer were also threatened by human activity in the Everglades. The Key deer, a subspecies of deer unique to the area, faced declining populations. Daniel Beard, who would later become the first superintendent of Everglades National Park, noted in 1942 that “deer are being exterminated by professional hunters.” He added that “black bears and lions [panthers] are getting killed off, too.” Beard noted that these “populations have dropped off markedly in the past four years and both species are definitely endangered.”236 Coe, as a former landscape architect, was particularly concerned with the destruction of the Everglades' flora. According to Coe, “before the sawmill came into the Florida peninsula, vast acres were covered with primeval forests.” He wrote to Arthur Demaray, an NPS official, about bald cypresses in the park. Due to logging, many of these trees had been cut down, but Coe argued “that it is only a matter of time under the protection afforded as a National Park

235 EC to Charles Howell, 19 August 1934, J. Hardin Peterson Papers, PKY, UF. 236 Derr, 141; Daniel Beard memo to Regional Biologist Taylor, 12 May 1942, B920, RG79, National Archives, College Park, MD. 129

when many of the noble giants . . . may assume even these greater proportions.”237 Other conservationists saw the protection of Everglades flora as a rationale for the creation of the park as well. John Baker and the National Association of Audubon Societies supported the inclusion of the Turner River in the park because “a lumbering operation is being carried on” at that location, which included “a magnificent stand of cypress.” This cypress stand was an important habitat and “teems with many forms of spectacular birds and animals, including the rare Swallow-tailed Kite, quantities of wild Turkeys and Deer and great numbers of Egrets, Herons and Ibises.” Baker even speculated that “the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, now nearly extinct, may exist in small numbers there.”238 Although not being logged, palm trees were removed from the Everglades for landscaping purposes. The most famous example were the royal palms at the Hialeah race track, but other private properties were also being landscaped with trees transplanted from the Everglades. A concerned Floridian, Mrs. Marian McAdow wrote to Coe about this problem. He replied that the royal palm would “suffer the same fate that much of our other native plant life, as well as animal life, is threatened with,” and that “extinction stares it in the face.” The “realization of this impending fate” was what gave the ENP “much of its strength of appeal.”239 Humans even attempted to commodify trees like the mangrove. According to Florida historian Charlton Tebeau, buttonwood, a type of mangrove, was “an important source of firewood and charcoal through the first quarter of the twentieth century.” Beginning in 1904, the Manetta Company was “engaged in a major effort to extract tannic acid from the great mangrove forest, principally along the Shark [river], and also thought that the tall straight trees as much as sixteen inches in diameter might produce hardwood lumber of excellent quality and beauty.” These efforts largely failed, because a hurricane in 1910 destroyed most of the infrastructure for this operation and because “no means could be found to dry the boards without their cracking.”240 The desire to protect exotic orchids in the Everglades was a particular concern of Coe, and his wife, Anna Coe. Anna Coe was the president of the Coral Gables Garden Club, and according to some, her concern about landscapers and nurseries taking orchids out of the

237 EC to Arthur Demaray, 12 May 1931, RG79 B233, National Archives, College Park, MD. 238 John Baker to Arthur Demaray, 7 August 1936, RG79 B911, National Archives, College Park, MD. 239 EC to Marian McAdow, 2 February 1932, RG79, B233, National Archives, College Park, MD. 240 Charlton Tebeau, Man in the Everglades: 2000 Years of Human History in the Everglades National Park, Coral Gables, Florida: University of Miami Press, 1968, 2nd Revised Edition, 25, 118. 130

Everglades by the truckload led to her husband's campaign for a national park. Coe remarked on her death in 1940 that she “really was the mother of the national park project,” and that “its establishment will be an enduring monument to one whose life of unselfish devotion to others endeared her to a host of friends.”241 Amidst the controversies with Robert Sterling Yard over tourism in the park, various experts and conservationists argued that the potential damage caused by tourism to the Everglades was nothing compared to the damage that hunters, collectors, and timber companies were currently doing to the Everglades. Although wilderness advocates were concerned about the quality of recreation in the ENP and the damage tourism would do to public lands, advocates for the ENP were more focused on traditional preservationist concerns like fighting the commercial exploitation of nature. Conservationist Robert T. Morris expressed this concern in 1931 to T. Gilbert Pearson, and detailed the destruction that “lawless elements” were causing the in the Everglades. Because the area had no federal protection, and because state laws and wardens were easily ignored the Everglades biota was easily commodified. Morris listed examples of this destruction, noting that tourists would not commit these crimes. His list included: “Egret Rookeries raided for their plumes despite recent policing – Alligators destroyed in great quantities by hide hunters – Deer and turkeys killed in all seasons without any kind of regard for law – Green turtles being exterminated – Brown pelicans slaughtered in their nests – Rare orchids being collected to the point of extermination.” Thomas Barbour, an ardent park supporter and the director of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University expressed similar sentiments about tourism and the exploitation of the Everglades to Ernest Coe in 1931. Barbour wrote that he was “not afraid at all of what the tourist will do because he will stick to the roads and the roads will be few.” The danger to the Everglades was not tourists, but rather “the hunters, campers, and charcoal burners and bark gatherers who now have unrestricted access to the region.”242 Coe typically wrote about the commercial exploitation of the Everglades more generally. In 1937 he noted that the Everglades' “native wild life, both plant and animal, through lack of protection is being decimated by the collector and hunter, both on land and water, and by fire which continues, through lack of protection against it, to do its destructive work.” In 1941 he

241 Miami Herald, 25 July 1940, SH to EC 26 July 1940, SH Papers, PK Younge Library , UF. 242 Robert T. Morris to T. Gilbert Pearson, 17 January 1931, RG79, B230, National Archives, College Park, MD; Thomas Barbour to EC, 25 May 1931, RG79 B230, National Archives, College Park, MD. 131

wrote that “certain forms of life including game animals have been materially reduced in numbers through the agency of hunters and trappers.” In a letter to Ben Thompson, one of the co-authors of Fauna of the National Parks and an assistant to Horace Albright, Coe argued that “the wildlife of Florida is doomed” to extinction “unless provisions which the Everglades National Park project will assure, are established.” Coe explained to Edward Pou, an important member of the House of Representatives, that without the park “the native wildlife, both plant and animal, will continue to be ruthlessly destroyed; the flora, by commercial plant collectors, who have already seriously reduced its rare orchids, palms and other plants . . . and the fauna by hunters, trappers and thoughtless tourists who are together destroying the animal life of accessible sections and every year penetrating further into the interior of this region.”243 The National Park Service's justification for the park also revolved around the need to protect the biological contents of the area from commercial exploitation. In 1935 the NPS sent Harold Bryant and Roger Toll, two rising stars within the service, to the Everglades to make an initial determination of the park's future boundaries. The Bryant-Toll report discussed human activity in the Everglades and the need to protect the area's' flora and fauna. Bryant and Toll argued that “the strongest argument for the creation of the national park” was “the opportunity to preserve the unique plants and animals of this region for future generations to see and study.” Although, by the 1930s, the market for bird plumes was not as large as it once was, their report noted that “poachers who procured boat-loads of birds from the rookeries to sell as food in the West Indies,” were “causing reduction in the numbers of birds.” Bryant and Toll wrote that “several species of birds such as the sandhill crane, roseate spoonbill, wild turkey, Everglades kite, and ivory-billed woodpecker,” were “found in greatly reduced numbers.” Alligators were also threatened because they “were long sought for their skins,” and because many shot them “as an object of sport.” Gators were “greatly diminished in numbers,” and crocodiles were “a rarity.” Other animals such as manatees, mink, deer, bears and panthers were all “so greatly depleted in numbers as to be seen only occasionally.”244 Bryant and Toll also found that plant life was threatened by commercial exploitation and other human activities. The royal palm was in danger because “demand for landscape use . . .

243 EC, ENPA plan, 6 February 1937, DF Papers, FTGA; EC to Tony Merrill, 12 April 1941, DF Papers, FTGA; EC to Ben Thompson, 26 June 1936, EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; EC to Edward Pou, 16 February 1933, Peterson papers, PK Younge Library, UF. 244 Bryant-Toll Report to the Director, National Park Service, 14 January 1935, SH Papers, PK Younge Library, UF. 132

has led to the removal of hundreds from their native habitat.” Orchids faced the similar threat of “commercial demand,” and hardwood trees like the mahogany, were “cut for . . . lumber leaving in many places only those of smaller size.” The wholesale destruction of habitats was also occurring in the area. Bryant and Toll also noted that “extensive drainage and a habit of setting fires” were “adverse factors in accounting for” the decrease of the Everglades' flora and fauna.245

Daniel Beard's Wildlife Reconnaissance

The strongest statements about the park's role in protecting the Everglade's biota from commercial exploitation are found in Daniel Beard's Wildlife Reconnaissance, the first survey of wildlife in the Everglades. Due to the nature of Coe's promotional work he often was unable to thoroughly discuss the immense damage that human activity had done to the Everglades. Coe wanted to convince Americans that the Everglades had immense biological wonders that needed to be protected, and wanted to present the Everglades as a primeval area untouched by human hands. Because of this, he was frequently vague when discussing the harm that had been done to the Everglade's ecosystems.246 Daniel Beard had no such limitations and most of his writings were confidential or circulated only within the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service. In 1938, when he wrote Wildlife Reconnaissance, Beard was an Assistant Wildlife Technician with the Wildlife Division of the NPS. Beard, whose father was Daniel C. Beard, a noted naturalist and one of the founders of the Boy Scouts of America, entered the park service in 1934. He came to the Everglades in 1937 and throughout 1938 examined the wildlife in the proposed park, producing Wildlife Reconnaissance that year. He then became an NPS regional biologist at Omaha, Nebraska and oversaw a region that included Yellowstone, Glacier, and Rocky Mountain National Parks. In 1942 he was put in charge of Dinosaur National Monument, a post he held until 1944 when he was assigned duty in the US Army. In 1945 at the request of the NPS, Beard was reassigned to the Fish and Wildlife Service and was put in charge of the Everglades wildlife refuge, a precursor to the ENP established in 1945 as a way to protect the Everglades' biota while negotiations over oil drilling in the park area were resolved. When the Everglades was

245 Bryant-Toll Report to the Director, National Park Service, 14 January 1935, SH Papers, PK Younge Library, UF. 246 Beard, Wildlife Reconnaissance, US Government Printing Office, 1938. 133

established in 1947, Beard became the first superintendent of the park, providing crucial early leadership for the new park. Beard's Wildlife Reconnaissance is a remarkable document. It was a survey of wildlife in the proposed park, similar to George Wright's Fauna, but also discussed water levels in the Everglades. Beard discussed the effects that the drainage of the northern Everglades had on the southern sections of these wetlands. Although many conservationists and scientists had discussed drainage, they all described it as a localized problem, and none had connected the drainage of the northern sections of the Everglades to conditions in the lower Glades. Beard was the first to argue that “the most important problem to be settled” in the ENP “is that of restoring water levels.” Beard described the historic flow of water south from Lake Okeechobee to the lower Glades and the Florida Bay. He discussed how drainage efforts and canalization diversted this water east to the Atlantic Ocean. Beard admitted that he was “not a drainage engineer” and was “not prepared to give a technical answer” to the question of water levels in the park, but stated that it was obvious to all in the area that the water levels in the Everglades were decreased because of drainage. These decreased water levels had extraordinary negative effects on the wildlife of the Everglades, destroying habitats and food sources for many species of birds and other animals.247 Beard wrote about drainage in terms of its ecological impact on the parks wildlife. He argued that the drainage of the northern sections of the Everglades “cut off the western drainage flow through the Everglades basin” and “caused ecological changes in the headwaters of the rivers leading to the Gulf.” One of these changes was that bird rookeries moved out the area because “feeding ground in the glades” were drying up, and “a lowered water table caused a dearth of food.” Beard also noted that drainage had destroyed “the ecological communities known as 'gator holes,'” which acted as “concentration points for wildlife during the dry seasons.” In fact, Beard believed that the restoration of these gator holes was “one of the principal keys to restoring wildlife in the park.” These gator holes “enable Florida Ducks, Black- necked Stilts and other birds to nest,” and created habitats where “fresh water crayfishes,” an important food sources for many bird species, thrived.248 The fate of the everglade kite was used by Beard to show the effects of drainage on native

247 Beard, Wildlife Reconnaissance, 46, 49. 248 Beard, Wildlife Reconnaissance, 50. (underline in original) 134

species. This bird had “specialized feeding habits,” that consisted of one type of food, “a large, fresh-water snail of the genus Ampullaria,” popularly known as the apple snail. Beard explained that “after drainage canals were dug, the snail Ampullaria became rare. Water that normally drained into the great Everglades drainage basin was diverted” and “organisms like the Ampullaria that required water for there existence could not live very long” due to the lack of water. As its food source declined, so did the population of the everglades kite.249 Beard also addressed the impacts of human activities other than drainage. Hunting had enormous effects on wildlife populations in the Everglades. According to Beard, “there has been ruthless hunting in the Everglades Park area for many years.” Because of this “the wildlife population has been greatly decimated.” In the pine rockland areas of the Everglades “there used to be deer, bear, and wandering panther up to about 1920.” But because of hunting, “now none of those species are found.” Likewise, Beard argued that Cape Sable “must have been a very important concentration point of wildlife and of superlative botanical interest; but alas, fires, rifles, traps, dredges, and hurricanes, have played havoc.”250 Beard outlined the activities of various hunters and concluded that “at the present time, most game species are losing ground except in the most inaccessible sections of the proposed park.” Birds especially were still targeted for their plumes. Beard wrote about species like the Reddish Egret, which was “unable to withstand the slaughter by plume hunters. As a result “the species was completely extirpated from Florida.” After plume hunting stopped, “scattered records of Reddish Egrets started to trickle in, but the species has never been established again” in the Everglades.251 Alligators, which Beard saw as vital to the ecological health of the Everglades, had long been targeted by hunters for their hides. Beard's survey found that gators were “found only in the very remote sections of the Everglades.” Because of the activity of hunters they were “a rare species where once they were abundant.” Despite their status in 1938, Beard was “confident that the species will come back with rapidity a few years after the park is established and again be present in primitive numbers [except where water levels are affected].” With adequate protection, Beard believed that “the Everglades Park can eventually be the finest alligator

249 Beard, Wildlife Reconnaissance, 82, 82-4. 250 Beard, Wildlife Reconnaissance, 11, 17. 251 Beard, Wildlife Reconnaissance, 58, 68. 135

sanctuary in the United States.”252 Although Beard's report concerned itself with wildlife, he also wrote about lumbering in the park, although he noted that so far it had been conducted “on a small scale” and was not a “serious threat to the attractiveness of the Everglades Park.” A sawmill was operating at Long Pine Key and had “stripped much of the area of the tallest and straightest tress.” Ernest Coe had lodged a complaint with the State of Florida, which owned the land in question, but “to no avail.” Beard did not think this lumbering activity was “as disastrous as one might suspect,” because they only took certain trees, but was alarmed at the construction of a new sawmill on Barron Collier's lands on the west coast. This mill was to be “one of the largest mills in the southern part of the State,” and would destroy a significant stand of cypress in the park area.253 Collectors also caused significant damage to the biota of the Everglades. 'Lig' hunters, a term applied to those who collected snails of the genus Liguus and Osystyla, were especially destructive to the Everglades' biota. These colorful snails were not only an important food source for many bird species, but 'Lig' hunters were also known to set fires to entire hammocks and then pick through the ashes for snails. Beard wrote that “'Lig' hunting is developing into a destructive hobby and precious hammocks are being ruined.”254 Plant collectors also caused damage to the Everglades, but according to Beard, these activities had “fallen off.” This was partly due to “several arrests for taking palms off private lands,” but also because the plants in question, mainly orchids, but also palms and ferns, had become rare and hard to find. Royal Palms were taken from the Glades in large numbers, and in 1938 existed in the park area in only seven locations. Saw-cabbage palms were also “taken out for ornamental purposes” and existed in diminished numbers. Many collectors also sought bird and reptile eggs for their collections. Beard wrote that crocodile populations were at particular risk from egg collectors. These reptiles “do not hatch very well,” and the eggs were easily found by collectors. A few years before 1938, “someone picked up over 200.” The species was at such a risk that Beard warned “one man may eliminate the species soon.”255 Beard opened his report by stating that “primitive conditions [in the Everglades] have been changed by the hand of man, abundant wildlife resources exploited, woodland and prairie

252 Beard, Wildlife Reconnaissance, 85 253 Beard, Wildlife Reconnaissance, 59. 254 Beard, Wildlife Reconnaissance, 61. 255 Beard, Wildlife Reconnaissance, 61, 88, 89, 87. 136

burned and reburned, water levels altered, and all the attendant, less obvious ecological conditions disturbed.” He argued that the situation in the Everglades was dire, but noted that “wise administration, coupled with the truly amazing fertility of the tropics should begin to show results in about five years.” He pessimistically stated that “in fifty years, the Everglades National Park is capable of becoming an outstanding place.” However, by May 1947, months before the parks establishment, Beard revised his statement, claiming that “it won't take 50 years.” After spending three years in the area managing it as a wildlife refuge, Beard wrote that although “fires, poaching, overfishing and drainage have been rampant for years” in the Everglades, “the 'seed stock' remains and the fertility of the lands and waters is amazing.” By 1947, the year of the park's establishment, Beard was optimistic about the Everglades' powers of regeneration.256

Development and Roads in the Park

In addition to his defense of tourism and his discussions of wilderness, Coe also discussed development in the park. These statements encompassed both specific developments, like roads and concessions, and development in general. Coe largely supported the status quo of wilderness in the Everglades. He advocated for increased development of areas in the proposed park that were already developed and supported keeping the wilderness of the park inaccessible and primitive. Coe also supported the zoning of the ENP to better safeguard the park's wilderness. Although the park service would not zone wilderness in parks till the 1960s, they stalwartly argued that roads and development in the park would be kept to minimum to protect the Everglades' wilderness. When Coe first suggested the ENP to the NPS in 1928, he emphasized the Everglades' natural features and flora and fauna. He did note that “the building of necessary roads,” could be done cheaply and easily, but did not discuss the development of the park or tourism in the Everglades in any detail. However, when communicating to local boosters he emphasized a different set of facts. When he formed the ENPA in 1928, Coe wrote an agenda for the organization. Included was a detailed plan for development in the park, development that Coe

256 Beard, Wildlife Reconnaissance, 1; Daniel Beard to Herbert Evison, 12 May 1947, RG79 B901, National Archives, College Park, MD. 137

noted, the federal government would finance. Although he also discussed the importance of the Everglades' biota, and its central place to the identity of the Everglades, he also wrote that federal funds would be used in the park for “the construction of a highway.” This highway would connect the east and west coasts of Florida to Cape Sable and would provide “ample access . . . to the Cape Sable beaches.” These same federal funds would be used “for the constructing of necessary buildings at the Cape Sable beaches to provide suitable accommodations” for tourists. This “scenic highway” would run “through the miles of alluring Everglade, cypress hammock and lake country,” and would “traverse rookeries where great numbers of strange birds have for ages made their nesting home.” It would “lead to the Cape Sable beaches, through thousands of great coconut palms” and would give “the sightseer a personal experience of the tropics in its fullest expression.”257 By 1930, after the NPS had investigated the Everglades and agreed that it measured up to national park standards, Coe presented another substantial plan for development in the park. He sent a series of suggestions about development in the park to the NPS and distributed this document more widely to influence local Florida politics in anticipation of the federal government's authorization of the ENP. This document also made its way into the hands of conservationists like Robert Sterling Yard and Henry Ward who vigorously protested its contents to Coe and to the NPS. Here Coe promoted the construction of a “Trunk Park Highway” which would be “a means of access to a great variety of the park interests.” Coe distinguished between different types of tourists and argued that this highway would allow casual tourists “to hurry through, or to approach some certain objective, an opportunity to do so more expeditiously.” This highway would allow tourists to view “the most attractive features of the entire park area,” and would allow them access to the park's “numerous waterway lanes.” This highway would also “approach the Cape Sable beaches from both the east and the west.” Most importantly, it “would accommodate . . . auto touring and economic transportation [in the park] acceptably and economically, leaving the rest of the great area practically in its primitive wildness.” According to Coe, this road would only take up “a negligible quantity in its relation to the area as a

257 EC, “Preliminary Consideration . . .,” 1928, RG79 B230, National Archives, College Park, Maryland; EC, “Progressive Sequence of Action,” 6 December 1928, David Fairchild Papers, Fairchild Tropical Gardens Archive. 138

whole.”258 Coe also discussed trails in the park, “radiating from the main park highway.” These trails would “lead into the regions exhibiting a special feature, or a series of special features, of interest for those wishing to take hiking trips . . . of both short and longer lengths.” In the midst of this expansive plan for development, Coe claimed that the “physical character of most of this proposed park area is . . . of such a nature that the hiking tourist will be quite likely to remain on these trails as laid out, rather than going about as freely as is sometimes the case within park areas.” Because the Everglades was so primitive, so wet, and so daunting, tourists would literally be unable to travel anywhere other than where the NPS provided accommodations for travel. Coe argued that the nature of the Everglades “will help to solve one of the perplexing problems . . . now confronting some of the national parks where in special instances too constant travel is wearing threadbare much esteemed features.” Coe repeatedly argued, even when he discussed development to Florida boosters, politicians, and land owners, that the landscape and flora of the Everglades would limit tourists from destroying those same features.259 Coe argued that most tourists in the park would spend a negligible amount of time on land in their automobiles. Instead, they would travel via boat on the “literally hundreds of miles of waterways” in the ENP. Coe envisioned the Turner River, a small outlet near Everglades City, as an embarkation point for tourists, and saw the beaches at Cape Sable “as the peak objective for the great majority of the touring public.” He wrote that “boats carrying large number of tourists . . . could be routed down the Turner River through a land of many scenic interests” on their way to their ultimate destination, Cape Sable. Along the way they would travel “through a labyrinth of interlocking bays and river ways.”260 Cape Sable was typically the focus of much of Coe's discussions about the Everglades. He had deep love for this area in the Everglades and found its aesthetics inspiring. He foresaw development in the park centered around the Cape and thought other Americans would visit that area and also be inspired. He wrote that the primary feature of the park from the standpoint of human interest was “the Cape Sable beaches and the background of cocoanut [sic] palms.” At Cape Sable tourists could “rest under the swaying palms, pick up shells along the shore, take a plunge in the waters of the Gulf, and otherwise experience the many distinctive tropic lures” that

258 EC, “Submitted Suggestions” 1 March 1930, RG79 B229, National Archives, College Park, Maryland. 259 Ibid. 260 Ibid. 139

Cape Sable offered. Coe foresaw the construction of “over-night-stopping facilities for the tourist” at Cape Sable, as well as a more isolated “tenting colony” or “thatch-roof hut colony” at the Northwest Cape.261 Along side these plans for development Coe argued that the rest of the park would remain a roadless wilderness. He wrote that most of the park would remain in “practically the same primeval physical conditions which prevailed there before the advent of white men.” Although Coe's embrace of development and tourism in the park and his attitude towards wilderness seem incongruous and ironic, to Coe these two things were actually dependent on the other. Coe wanted to cater to tourists by developing specific sections of the park for tourism and closing off the rest of the park to humans altogether. Not only would vast sections of the park be safe from both the ravages of hunters and tourists, but tourists in other sections of the park would hopefully be inspired by their experiences in the Everglades.262 Coe also circulated a map of the proposed park outlining possible developments in the area (fig. 1 and 2). This map included a new road that went from Everglades City south along the coast looping around Cape Sable before heading east to connect to US-1. Also on this map were the existing road that went from Royal Palm State Park (RPSP) to Flamingo and other roads outside the park. These “highways adjoining the park” were important physical factors that supported Coe's arguments about the economic value of the park. Coe notated areas where marinas could be constructed to allow tourists to disembark into the Gulf of Mexico or the Florida Bay. He also outlined other harbors and possible waterways in the park, areas that Coe thought were important to the aquatic quality of tourism in the ENP.263 Most of the development in the park focused around Cape Sable. This was the intended destination for this highway through the park, and according to Coe it would be the only place in the park with overnight accommodations. Despite Coe's desire for development at Cape Sable, most of the park area on this map was labeled as “great primeval nature areas.” Most of the park, according to this map, which was Coe's most expansive statement on park development, was kept as a wilderness.264 Coe discussed these developments throughout 1930 and 1931, largely in an attempt to

261 Ibid. 262 Ibid. 263 Ibid. 264 Ibid. 140

influence the politics of the park's creation. In a desire to avoid stoking any further controversies among conservationists, he largely ceased discussing development in the park after 1931. However in 1935, after the federal government had already authorized the park, and with a member of the ENPA serving as Florida' Governor, Coe once again discussed development in the park and this scenic highway to Cape Sable. He hoped to use the prospects of development to influence Florida politics and create momentum for the park's creation. In 1935 Coe wrote to Arno Cammerer asking the NPS to consider “the subject of a main highway system within the Everglades National Park,” and outlined a few reasons why a large scenic highway would be a good idea. The highway would act to stimulate the economy, and it would help in “combating fire hazards,” and in the “protection of the wild life sanctuary features.” Coe also noted that similar park highways were being built in Great Smoky Mountain National Park and in Shenandoah National Park.265 Coe wrote again to Cammerer a few months later, this time explaining in more detail how this road would not affect the primitive character of the Everglades. According to Coe, in the Everglades tourism could be easily accommodated “without appreciatively intruding upon the primitive character of the area as a whole.” Roads in the park, like the one Coe proposed, would have positive benefits. Roadways would facilitate “the protection of the primitive areas . . . from both [the] ravages of fire and unlawful hunting.” He ended this letter to Cammerer asking “if there is some way to get what might be termed a trunk highway started soon in the ENP area.”266 Coe also communicated with Governor David Sholtz, a founding member of the ENPA, about putting pressure on the Department of the Interior to support this additional road in the park. Coe asked Sholtz to look into “the advisability of building a trunk-line park highway into the park.” He pointed out that a scenic highway had been built in the the Shenandoah National Park and that road development was also proceeding within the area that would become the Great Smoky National Park. These scenic highways were designed to allow motorists views of the majestic valleys and mountains of the Appalachians. A similar highway could be constructed in the Everglades and Coe implied that this road also could be elevated to afford tourists a better view of the landscapes in the Everglades.267 In 1935 Coe wrote again to Sholtz for the third time in three weeks about roads in the

265 EC to Arno Cammerer, 15 March 1935, J. Hardin Peterson Papers, PKY, UF. 266 EC to Arno Cammerer, 7 June 1935, David Sholtz Papers, FSA. 267 EC to David Sholtz, 14 June 1935, David Sholtz Papers, FSA. 141

park. This time he explained the relationship between tourism and preservation, but also urged Sholtz to communicate with federal authorities about development in the ENP. Coe wrote that there was “a growing fear” that in national parks “the preservation of the primitive” was being “jeopardized where provisions have been made” for tourism. According to Coe “free access” to primitive areas frequently resulted in injury to those “primitive features.” However, Everglades National Park would accommodate tourism in “a relatively small percentage” of the park, while keeping “its major portion” as “a protected primitive area.” Coe argued that not only could “the preservation of natural features and the enjoyment of people” coexist in the park “without jeopardy to either,” but they would operate in the Everglades to “the advantage of both.” Coe asked the Governor to write to the Secretary of Interior urging that the NPS investigate this matter and issue a report on development in the ENP. Coe wanted a “major portion” of the park “consecrated to the preservation of its primitive character and the protection of its native wild life,” but also wanted “provisions for the enjoyment of the people.”268 Although Coe's substantive plans for development in the ENP suggest that Coe vigorously supported development in the park, his real attitude was much more ambivalent and ambiguous. Coe's statements about development and wilderness need to be seen in the context of his promotional work. Coe tailored his promotional literature to reach different audiences. He told Florida boosters what they wanted hear about tourism, economics, and development, while emphasizing to NPS officials and conservationists the biological value of the Everglades. Coe's true attitude towards development and roads in the park undoubtedly lay somewhere in the middle. He supported the limited development of specific areas in the park, and expressed lukewarm support for a road to Cape Sable in the 1930s, frequently using it to drum up support for the park in Florida. However, he also steadfastly maintained that the vast majority of the ENP would remain a roadless wilderness. Before local audiences, Coe spoke about extensive development in the park. For example, in 1940 Coe wrote a letter about the park to all Florida gubernatorial candidates to secure their support for the park. Coe told these candidates that once the park was created the NPS would “expend millions of dollars in developing” the ENP. He argued that “it is reasonable to suppose that once” the park is established, “roads will be built, canals dredged . . . [and] camps and hotels established, with millions of dollars expended to make attractive the only

268 EC to David Shotlz, 23 June 1935, DF Papers, FTGA. 142

tropical park within the United States.”269 Conversely, when speaking with Robert Sterling Yard and others conservationists, Coe downplayed development and tourism in the park. According to Yard, when confronted with his map of the park that included extensive development, Coe called the road to Cape Sable “nothing.” He told Yard that it was “merely an inspirational line that I sketched in there myself.” When speaking before conservationists Coe declared that the road “does not mean a thing,” but was only “a practical location” for a road “if the Park Service should want a west-side highway.” Coe made similar statements about this road to Henry Ward of the Izaak Walton league of America. He told Ward that the road was just “the suggestion of an outside party and not of any significance,” a statement Ward saw as a “rather superficial excuse.”270 With regards to wilderness and development in the Everglades, Coe largely supported maintaining the status quo in the Everglades. He thought that areas that were wilderness would remain wilderness, while areas that were already developed could be further and more intelligently developed for human use. Cape Sable was an exception to this rule, but other areas where Coe foresaw development included Flamingo, Royal Palm State Park, Key Largo and the Turner River. In the 1930s, Flamingo was a fishing village, Royal Palm State Park was heavily developed, Key Largo and the Turner River were being developed and even parts of Cape Sable were an abandoned coconut grove. At Turner River and Key Largo Coe foresaw the construction of harbors and boating facilities. Likewise, Flamingo's harbor would be more extensively developed for aquatic tourism. Coe also saw RPSP as a potential center of tourist traffic. In June 1933 Coe suggested that a Civilian Conservation Corps Camp be established at Royal Palm State Park to aid in “reducing fire hazard” in the area and for “developing lanes through the forest” that would “be of service later for Park trails.” He also suggested the construction of permanent camp sites in RPSP that would later be used by ENP tourists.271 Although Coe did not seriously pursue this course of action, a CCC camp was established in Royal Palm State Park late in 1933 due to the actions of May Mann Jennings. The actions of

269 EC to candidates for nomination for Governor of Florida, 21 March 1940, SH Papers, PK Younge Library, UF. 270 Robert Sterling Yard to Ray Lyman Wilbur, 7 January 1931, RG79 B230, National Archives, College Park, Maryland, emphasis in original); Henry Ward to EC, 18 April 1932, RG79 B234, National Archives, College Park, MD. 271 EC, “Suggested Plan of the Establishment of a Camp” 1 June 1933, J. Hardin Peterson Papers, PK Younge Library, UF. 143

the CCC in RPSP were much more ambitious than those suggested by Coe. Under the direction of William Lyman Philips, the CCC significantly altered the landscape of the area. Phillips was a landscape architect who was instrumental in the 1930s and '40s in the planning and construction of many of Dade County's public parks. He also designed and planned Fairchild Tropical Garden in Miami. Although by June of 1934 the CCC camp in RPSP was closed, Phillips and his tree army planted 1,000 trees, mostly mahoganies and Royal Palms. The latter were planted by dynamiting the limestone bed to create holes for their roots. They also cleared 60 acres of land, made repairs to the park lodge, and built five miles of roads, a 5 acre deer pen, a garage, a look-out tower, and a concrete lily pool. As Coe suggested the CCC also built a campground, constructed trails, and dug fire breaks.272 Coe saw the ENP as the culmination of the national park ideal, and believed that the needs of tourists, wildlife, scientists, and wilderness lovers would all be fulfilled by the establishment of the park. He saw the park as consisting of three types of areas: small areas developed for tourism, wilderness areas where humans would be almost completely absent and borderlands between these developed areas and the Everglades' wilderness which tourists would have limited access to. Essentially, Coe called for zoning the wilderness of Everglades National Park, and idea that the NPS would not seriously consider for decades. Coe described this idea of a trifurcated park more fully in a letter to Secretary of Interior Harold Ickes. He wrote that the creation of the ENP would mean the “setting aside of a really vast primitive area within which even the trails will be those of native animals.” The park would also contain “borderland areas, within which both man and the native wildlife may co-mingle to such extent as the wildlife itself my choose to encourage.” Finally there would be areas for tourists “not disposed to rough it along the water-lanes and trails.” In these developed areas there would be “facilities for the more luxurious type of park traveling” that would accommodate “those not rugged enough to stand the hardships otherwise imposed.”273 Coe wrote on this theme again in an letter to the editor of Nature Magazine. He argued that “a national park can be a composite of many features.” He explained that most of the park

272 May Mann Jennings, RPSP report to the Florida Federation of Women's Clubs Board Meeting, 21 November 1934, DF Papers, FTGA; Dave Nelson, “Florida Crackers and Yankee Tourists: The Civilian Conservation Corps, The Florida Park Service and the Emergence of Modern Florida Tourism,” PhD Dissertation, Florida State University, Spring 2008, 121; Faith Reyher Jackson, Pioneer of Tropical Landscape Architecture: William Lyman Phillips in Florida, University Press of Florida, 1997, 127-39. 273 EC to Harold Ickes, 25 June 1936, RG79 B918, National Archives, College Park, Maryland. 144

would “be sustained in its primitive character,” but that provisions would also be made “to make parts of the area accessible.” Tourists would be able to enter these developed areas, and would “enjoy an intimate contact with much that the region presents, including the borderlands of a vast primitive region.” Coe wrote about zoning in the park to a Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) official in response to receiving a publication about the construction of recreational areas at TVA reservoirs. Quoting a government document entitled “Non-Urban Outdoor Recreation,” Coe wrote that the ENP would include “'Intensive Areas, Developed Scenic Areas, Wilderness Areas, Motorways, Trailways, Waterways, and Waysides' together with other national park features, all so correlated that each will compliment, accentuate and protect the other.” Coe explained to Senator Duncan Fletcher in similar terms that the establishment on the ENP “would preserve its integrity as a wilderness area, nature reservation, [and] bird sanctuary.”274 Although Coe discussed development in the park, the National Park Service were reluctant to discuss specific plans for the park. Coe's 1931 and 1935 statements concerning a new road to Cape Sable were more ambitious than anything the NPS had discussed. In fact, NPS officials were strongly opposed to roads in the park and wanted to maintain the Everglades as a wilderness. Horace Albright believed that “there has almost never been a park set aside that is more of a true wilderness area that the Everglades.” He wrote that when the Everglades was made a park, “the major portion,” being completely inaccessible, “will have to remain in its primitive condition.” Secretary of the Interior Ray Lyman Wilbur, in a House report on Everglades legislation asserted that “a considerable part of the area proposed as a national park would be retained in its present state as a primitive wilderness and no attempt would be made to 'develop' it for visitors.” The only development the NPS foresaw consisted of “the construction of a road through the area, the use of the Cape Sable region, and such use of water-ways.” Most of the park would “serve as isolation tracts, unvisited and relatively inaccessible to visitors, where birds and animals would find a safe haven to live and multiply under natural conditions.”275 Albright related to Henry Ward his own vision for the development in park in 1931. He

274 EC to Arthur Pack, 23 October 1935, EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; EC to Arno Cammerer, 5 March 1930, RG79 B230, National Archives, College Park, Maryland; EC to Malcolm Dill, 15 April 1935, RG79 B903, National Archives, College Park, Maryland; EC to Duncan Fletcher, 2 April 1929, RG79 B230, National Archives, College Park, Maryland. 275 Horace Albright to Henry Ward, 24 January 1931, RG79, B230, National Archives, College Park, MD; Wilbur report on HR 12381, quoted in Horace Albright to Clarence Stein, 25 April 1932, RG79 B233, National Archives, College Park, MD. 145

claimed that “we have never had any intention, if the Everglades comes to us, of opening up its wilderness areas, those great sections known as White Water Bay, the Narney River country, and the Shark River country, et cetera.” Albright did however write “that if the park is created, I shall advocate the reconstruction of the road to Cape Sable, so that everybody may get the real significance of the Everglades and see the great rookeries at Alligator Bay and enjoy the beauty of the Cape Sables country.” He argued that if this road was rebuilt, “it would mean making perhaps 25 percent of the proposed park accessible,” but that “75 percent would be closed to all but those who could afford to make the trip by boat, or to those who are hardy enough to tramp through a region which must be about the worst in the world from the standpoint of a pedestrian.”276 NPS officials actually chided Coe for discussing roads in the park and pushed back against his statements on roads. NPS superintendent Horace Albright wrote to Coe about his publicity activities in 1931 asking him “above all, don't use any maps showing that highway around Cape Sable.” Albright had received a letter from “a very important friend of the National Park Service,” who wrote that “a great deal of the trouble is the result of our dear Coe's indiscretion. I urged him not to put that highway on this map and not to be specific about the eastern boundary but he takes the bit in his teeth and bolts.”277 In 1935, when Coe was again discussing the construction of this new Cape Sable road, Arno Cammerer wrote to Coe that he was “sorry to see by recent correspondence that you have launched a publicity campaign to build highways into the proposed Everglades National Park.” Cammerer reminded Coe that “the greatest opposition met by your organization thus far has come from those who would keep this area intact without roads.” He urged that Coe “give out no further publicity relative to road building,” and communicated to Coe the NPS's belief that the only development in the park would be the “improvement of the one to Cape Sable which passes through Royal Palm State Park.” Cammerer also reminded Coe that the NPS planned on “utilizing waterways,” instead the construction of roadways.278 When local boosters pushed for immediate development in the park after its establishment in 1947, NPS officials continued to maintain that the park would be preserved as a wilderness. Newton Drury believed that many Florida boosters, in their enthusiasm “for the Park

276 Horace Albright to Henry Ward, 30 January 1931, RG79 B230, National Archives, College Park, MD. 277 Horace Albright to EC, 25 March 1931, DF Papers, FTGA. 278 Arno Cammerer to EC, 29 May 1935, RG79 B918, National Archives, College Park, MD. 146

have gone overboard in estimating the amount of money that will be spent in improvements.” Drury assured conservationist and Miami resident Augustus Houghton that “development would have to be very restrained,” and that “the character of the area as a wilderness park” would be preserved. Although Drury noted that the master plan for the park had not yet been decided upon, he expressed his belief that the park would be roadless except for the “existing road through Royal Palm State Park to Cape Sable. He added that “if we must have any road, we hope to limit it to an improvement of the existing road, including a good deal more cross drainage to permit the water to flow more nearly on its natural courses.”279 The park's first superintendent, Daniel Beard, correctly predicted in 1947 that “we are going to get all sorts of pressure to engage in bawdy developments” and that the park would be “criticized for not moving faster or building things quicker.” After the park's creation in 1947 Beard remained vigilant in fighting off the demands of Floridians like Spessard Holland and John Pennekamp that the park service begin developing the Everglades. Julius Krug, the Secretary of the Interior in 1947, explained to Everglades landowner A. Klipstein that although “Florida boosters . . . have been enthusiastic about its development as a tourist attraction . . . you may be sure that the primary values of the park will not be sacrificed for physical development.”280

Coe and Roads

Coe was generally enthusiastic about roads outside of the park. Because of this it seems likely that Coe had experience in planning roads at some point in his career as a landscape architect. He urged for the construction of roads going to the ENP and urged that roads outside and inside parks be designed efficiently and aesthetically. In 1928 he wrote to Horace Albright about the need for emphasis on “the aesthetic side of highway development.” He wrote that “our highways really are the public's narrow parks and the ones frequented by the greatest number.” Roads, according to Coe, should be “up to a maximum standards [sic] of beauty as well as utility.” He frequently corresponded with Chester Treadway, the Chairman of the State Road Department of Florida about the park and on the subject of roads. In one letter to Treadway Coe

279 Newton Drury to AS Hougton, 25 April 1947, RG79 B901, National Archives, College Park, MD. 280 Daniel Beard to Herbert Evison, 12 May 1947, RG79 B901, National Archives, College Park, MD; Julius Krug to A. Klipstein, 13 May 1947, RG79 B901, National Archives, College Park, MD. 147

wrote he was happy that Treadway also felt that a highway through the park would be a good idea as long as it “in no wise[sic] interfere[d] with the present ecological balance.” Coe added that “this is a most important consideration.” In other correspondence with Arno Cammerer, Coe wrote that roads in parks “should combine the maximum of engineering skill and the minimum of intrusion on nature's own ruling.”281 Coe wanted scenic roads that could provide tourists with views of the Everglades. Coe saw road construction in national parks through the lens of a landscape architect. Roads were more than just a system of transportation, they were another tool that planners could use to make the beauty of the Everglades more apparent. Coe wrote to Robert Sterling Yard, a hostile correspondent on the topic of roads, that “a highway in itself, where suitably designed, laid down and maintained sympathetically in its relation to the landscape may become a part of the landscape.” Coe was for a limited system of roads in the park, and communicated to Yard his belief that “any intrusion on the sublimity of the major portion of this region by highway or otherwise, should, and will meet with general disfavor.”282 The construction of highways in Florida outside of the park also piqued Coe's interest. He wrote to W.H. Haley, the President of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Highway Association that the ENPA was “interested in modern highways in all that the word is progressively implying toward higher engineering standards and aesthetic ideals.” In another letter to Haley Coe explained that roads were not just a means of travel, but were also a chance for Americans “to more completely understand and enjoy the country though which the highway passes.” In these letters to Haley Coe also gave support to the construction of the FDR highway, which was intended to link Washington D.C. with southern Florida. He encouraged Haley to “hurry along the” construction of this highway which would connect the capital to the park, which would be “a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.”283 Coe was vocal in his support of highways outside the Everglades that would lead to the park. He wrote to Florida Senator Duncan Fletcher in 1928 about “a Park-highway system extending from the Georgia line south to the proposed” ENP. This, and other highways, could

281 EC to Horace Albright, 26 September 1929, RG79, B230, National Archives, College Park, MD; EC to Chester Treadway, 27 February 1933, RG79 B921, National Archives, College Park, MD; EC to Arno Cammerer, 7 June 1935, David Sholtz Papers, FSA. 282 EC to Robert Sterling Yard, 22 April 1931, RG79 B233, National Archives, College Park, MD. 283 EC to WH Haley, 13 July 1935, RG79, B918, National Archives, College Park, MD; EC to WH Haley, 17 August 1935, RG79, B918, National Archives, College Park, MD; EC to WH Haley, 17 August 1935, RG79, B918, National Archives, College Park, MD. 148

be “parkways where beauty as well as facility is a dominant factor.” Coe pointed out to the park service that three highways were currently under construction that led towards the park. These highways connected Everglades National Park to other parks in the system, including the Great Smoky, Shenandoah, Acadia, and Isle Royale National Parks. Coe asked the NPS if there were plans “to correlate these activities” for the “development of an Eastern Scenic National Park highway system” that would link these parks together in the minds of the public.284 Coe was also enthusiastic about including the Tamiami Trail in the ENP. Coe consistently advocated for the largest possible park boundaries to better protect the park's wildlife. Coe frequently drove on the Tamiami Trail, parking his car along the road and delving into the wilderness he found on either side of the Trail. He wrote to Arno Cammerer about one such trip, stating what a delight it was “to be so quickly transported out into the very heart of the Everglades.” Coe found, not far from the Tamiami Trail, a “soul stirring panorama” composed of “the scattering trees, the nearby sedges and other water plants bordering the waterway in the immediate foreground.” He found “so many birds, and of such a variety, attracted to this open country” in this section of the Everglades. Back on the Tamiami Trail, with “a step on the gas . . . the car was soon again speeding along through a land of peculiar distinctiveness radiating a charm quite all its own.”285 Coe explicitly connected the Trail with access to this wilderness. He wrote to Cammerer that on “a leisurely tramp of some dozen or more miles through an area south of the Trail” near the west coast of Florida, Coe “penetrated a jungle-land, supreme in unique splendor.” He made many others stops along the Trail “at intervals of every few miles across the state,” which gave him “rich experiences” and “treasured memories.” Coe used his experiences along the Tamiami Trail to argue that a scenic road in the Everglades would not intrude on the wilderness of the park. He wrote that “while slowly sauntering about the open prairie land . . . and now and then pushing into hammocks of pine and palmetto and then again into the lower jungle-lands of cypress” and into other habitats, “I could not help but realize how little intrusion a scenic highway could possibly impose upon the present sacredness of this great wilderness country.”286 Despite his enthusiasm on the topic, Coe was critical of some roads and their effects. He

284 EC to Duncan Fletcher, 26 September 1929, RG79, B230, National Archives, College Park, MD; EC to NPS, 31 August 1935, RG79 B918, National Archives, College Park, MD. 285 EC to Arno Cammerer, 5 March 1930, RG79 B230, National Archives, College Park, Maryland. 286 Ibid. 149

wrote that “the development of highways in south Florida has already seriously encroached on the territory [that was] formerly the Seminole's almost unintruded upon domain.” The Trail “bisected” the Seminole's “last great untrammeled hunting ground.” Not only did it infringe on the Seminole's hunting grounds, it also penetrated “the fastnesses of the Everglades where, previous to the building of these highways, it was practically a primeval wilderness.” Although Coe normally argued that roads like the Trail could coexist with wilderness, here he acknowledged that these roads could destroy that wilderness as well.287 Coe on one occasion actually opposed road construction in the park area for fear that this road would be designed and constructed in a way inconsistent with NPS standards. He wrote to Chester Treadway about a state plan to expand the road to the Royal Palm State Park into “a wide highway.” Coe asked that “before anything definite is decided upon regarding such a plan it is urgently advised that the National Park Service . . . be counseled,” because “it may be that such a highway would not fit into the Everglades Park plan which is being worked out” by the NPS.288

Development and Other Voices

Coe's position on tourism and development in the park, especially after he dropped the notion of a new highway to Cape Sable, received substantial support from conservationists. George Wright, the author of Fauna in the National Parks approved of limited amounts of tourism in the ENP. He wrote to Coe that tourists to the Everglades would not be able to “wander at will over the landscape,” because of “the terrain of the Everglades themselves.” Tourism in the Everglades would be “absolutely confined to the roads and the developed areas.” Wright, referring to Robert Sterling Yard, wrote that “the argument was advanced that national park status would bring development and people and that these would be detrimental to the breeding colonies” of migratory birds in the area. Wright disagreed with this argument, stating that tourism and preservation could coexist in the park. He agreed with Coe that limited development in the park would not harm the primitive nature of the Everglades' wilderness.289 Daniel Beard was another important voice who endorsed Coe's vision for the park, minus

287 EC to Henry Cloud, 8 December 1931, RG79 B234, National Archives, College Park, MD. 288 EC to CB Treadway, 30 October 1934, David Sholtz Papers, FSA. 289 George Wright to EC, 9 October 1931, EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 150

of course, Coe's additional scenic highway. Beard believed that due to the nature of the Everglades a limited amount of tourism could coexist with wilderness. In Wildlife Reconnaissance, Beard evaluated the prospects of road building, tourism and wilderness in the park in detail. According to Beard, the Everglades would “always be a wilderness capable of overwhelming the puny efforts of mankind by the sheer exuberance of its own life.” In the Everglades, the reality of its wilderness was larger than anything that humans could subvert or designate. Human activity would never be able to destroy this wilderness, and likewise, human definition and designation of this wilderness were unnecessary. The NPS's own definitions of wilderness areas were dependent on a certain number of acres being roadless, but according to Beard, “the so-many-acres-makes-a-wilderness angle means little in southern Florida,” because “there will be always be places where one can be completely isolated in the Everglades Park.” Although one road would exist in the park, that fact was still largely irrelevant to the reality of the Everglades' wilderness. Beard argued that “five miles from a highway in this country is real wilderness and there is not one person in a hundred who will go even a few hundred feet from the beaten path.” Recreation in the ENP would be severely limited due to the Everglades themselves. Beard wrote that “hiking is practically out of the question except for the very hardy few who can brave the sawgrass.” Likewise, “camping will be more restricted than in most [National Park] Service areas.” Just as Coe had argued, Beard believed that boating would be the main recreational activity and method of transportation in the park.290 David Farchild also wrote about the development of the ENP and the need to preserve it as wilderness. Fairchild was skeptical that tourism would exist in the park in any significant amount. He thought tourism in the park would be limited to “air parties over the area,” and a “tour up the Shark River,” but did not foresee that many tourists would drive into the Everglades, or camp or hike in the area. According to Fairchild, most people did not “realize that over the Everglades, flying is usually good and that the quick transport of crowds will come through the air in our lifetimes.” Fairchild wrote to John Merriam of the Carnegie Institute about this subject, explaining that the ENP “will never attract many of the boulevardier type of humans.” Tourists would be restricted to “narrow foot trails through” the Everglades, and “no one but the trained naturalist will ever stray far from those trails.”291

290 Daniel Beard, Wildlife Reconnaissance, US Government Printing Office, 1938, 2, 101. 291 DF to EC, 26 September 1930, DF Papers, FTGA; DF to John Merriam, 22 March 1930, DF Papers, 151

Fairchild argued that the establishment of the park would not change the nature of the Everglades, nor would it alter the primitive character of the area. The establishment of the park “will bring the expenditure of less than a million dollars scattered over several years. It will lead to the construction of some roads and trails and perhaps a museum or two and I hope a carefully guarded tour of the Shark River.” Fairchild noted that although the NPS was considering the construction of a hotel at Flamingo, Fairchild argued that this hotel was unnecessary because “it is too close to Miami where hotels are in superabundance,” and that “a hotel on the area would be a dead failure.” Fairchild noted that “the little Hotel in the Royal Palm park has had such a hard time” succeeding and was on the verge of failure.292 Coe used tourism to increase support for the park in Florida, particularly among boosters, politicians, and businessmen. He did not anticipate the unintended consequences of these actions. Because of Coe's arguments, these interests expected the park service to develop the park in a manner consistent with their desires and were vocal about the need for development after the park's establishment and. However, the NPS successfully resisted these calls for development and remained committed to the Everglades' wilderness. According to a 1930 Miami Herald article, the Senate committee visiting the Everglades was there to consider “the advisability of polishing up the vast Cape Sable region on the southern tip of Florida by making it a national park, one that would be a center of attraction for the entire country, something akin to a parlor entrance to the United States in the important air traffic that has already been developed among South American countries.” Senator Henry Ashurst of Arizona noted that the Florida peninsula was “a 'finger of destiny' pointing in the direction of future American commercial expansion, and that the Everglades was like “the nail of the finger,” that would be polished by being made a national park.293 G.O. Palmer, who took over an inactive Everglades National Park Commission in 1937, also believed that the ENP would be developed by the Park Service. He wrote to Governor Cone that with the park's establishment the federal government would “build roads, probably open canals to the inland waterways, establish camps, play grounds, lease sites for hotels, and within a short while expend millions of dollars within the area.” He compared the development of Yellowstone National Park to what could soon occur in the Everglades, writing that Yellowstone

FTGA. 292 DF to EC, 26 September 1930, DF Papers, FTGA. 293 Miami Herald, 29 December 1930, 1. 152

had “five or more large hotels within the Park, as well as smaller lodges, cabins, cafeterias, public camp grounds, swimming pools, boats and saddle horses . . . and practically every form of amusement to attract the tourist.”294 Spessard Holland and John Pennekamp, the park's main advocates during the 1940s also believed that the park would be developed for tourism. After the park was officially established in 1947 Holland pressured NPS officials to develop the park to accommodate tourism. He wrote to John Baker, the President of the National Audubon Society that he was “pushing in every way possible to get the Park Service to install some entertainment and sightseeing facilities in the ENP area prior to next season.” Holland wrote multiple letters after 1947 to Newton Drury, the Superintendent of the NPS, urging him to speed up development of the park, stating that he regarded “the enhancement of opportunities for satisfactory visitation during the next tourist season as of tremendous importance in connection with the good will and public relations problems as the same will affect our securing needed legislation from the next Congress.” Pennekamp also desired more development in the park and wrote about this issue as late as 1956. He wrote to Senator Holland about the refusal of the NPS to establish overnight accommodations in the park. Pennekamp thought that Superintendent Wirth “has been so unreasoning and obdurate in this matter that his conduct simply beggars explanation,” and that his decision on this issue would “prove disastrous to the Park.”295

294 GO Palmer to Fred Cone, 28 February 1938, Cone Papers, FSA. 295 SH to John Baker, 21 June 1948, SH Papers, PKY, UF; SH to Newton Drury, 4 June 1948, SH Papers, PKY, UF; John Pennekamp to SH, 9 April 1954, PKY, UF. 153

6. THE EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK COMMISSION

Introduction

The federal government's authorization of Everglades National Park in May 1934 brought the park's establishment one step closer to realization. The next step was to determine the park's potential boundaries. In December 1934 the NPS sent a committee to Florida to investigate the park area and write a report on its findings. This committee consisted of Harold Bryant, the Assistant Director of the NPS, Roger Toll, the superintendent of Yellowstone National Park, Olive Taylor, an NPS engineer, and George Wright. Ernest Coe was with this group for most of their stay in Florida, and their final boundary report largely endorsed the boundaries Coe had advocated for since 1928. After the Park Service determined these boundaries, Ernest Coe began the difficult process of determining land ownership in the Everglades. Land ownership in the park area was so confused due to the collapse of the Florida land boom and widespread tax delinquency during the Great Depression. Coe looked to the federal government, and to the New Deal specifically, for monetary and institutional support in his efforts to assemble data on land ownership. Landowners also saw the federal and state governments as benefactors. During the Florida boom, individuals and land companies had bought enormous amounts of Everglades land at high prices, but now held worthless titles to land that was underwater, inaccessible, and worthless. These owners saw the park as a way to redress this economic disaster. For many, the park was a bailout. The park's creation and the land boom also relate to the relationship between private property and wetlands. The land boom was a failed attempt to privatize Everglade's lands, while the creation of the park attempted to redress this situation by making these wetlands public property again. After the completion of the NPS's boundary report, Governor Sholtz appointed the Everglades National Park Commission (ENPC). The Commission was a state agency charged with acquiring the lands needed for the park's establishment. Governor Sholtz was a founding member of the ENPA, and put Coe in charge of the Commission, but appointed a mixture of park advocates, large landowners, and businessmen to the ENPC. The Commission did very little in 1935, and did not even hold a meeting in the first eight

154

months of its existence. Coe desired to finish determining landownership in the park area before engaging in other tasks related to land acquisition. He believed that when all the facts about landholdings in the Everglades were gathered and made clear they would show that the value of the land in question was much less than many owners thought. However, the Commission's inactivity angered many members who saw the ENPC's inactivity as evidence of Coe's desire to run the Commission in a dictatorial fashion.

Park Boundaries

In December 1934, The NPS sent a delegation to the Everglades to determine the park's boundaries. Coe assumed that the park service would determine the park's boundaries and that the State of Florida would accept these boundaries without question. Hoever, the park's boundaries would be a source of controversy from the moment the park service released their boundary report in 1934 until 1957, when the park boundaries were finalized. According to the 1934 federal law authorizing the park, the Secretary of the Interior held the authority to establish the park boundaries. Coe wrote that “the work of determining the boundary lines for the Park will be undertaken . . . by a staff from the National Park Service. When this work is completed, a map defining the area will be turned over by the Secretary of the Interior to the State of Florida.” Although Coe assumed that the State of Florida would uncritically accept the NPS's judgment about boundaries, there were many powerful real estate interests, political interest, and other forces in Florida that were concerned about park boundaries.296 The NPS's boundary committee was headed by Harold Bryant, the Assistant Director of the NPS, and Roger Toll, the Superintendent of Yellowstone National Park. Accompanying them were Oliver Taylor, the Service's Deputy Chief Engineer, and George Wright, the author of Fauna of the National Parks. The starting point for their investigation was a report by the Department of Interior as a result of their 1930 trip into the Everglades to determine whether the Everglades was worthy of national park status. Bryant, Toll, Taylor and Wright spent 11 days studying the park's boundaries. They traveled extensively through the Everglades and discussed this issue with interested parties in Miami, Everglades City, and Key West. They drove to Key Largo, Homestead, Royal Palm State Park, Flamingo, and Everglades City. They took a blimp

296 EC, June 25, 1934, David Sholtz Papers, Box 40, Folder 6, FSA. 155

ride from Miami to the Florida Bay over the Everglades, and traveled via boat from Everglades City to Chokoloskee and the Ten Thousand Islands. They also took a Coast Guard vessel from Key West to Fort Jefferson National Monument at Dry Tortugas, and took a glass-bottom boat ride around Biscayne Bay and Key Largo.297 They also discussed the park's boundaries with John C. Gifford, David Fairchild and other Floridian naturalists, D. Graham Copeland, a representative of landowner Barron Collier, Harriet Bedell, an Episcopalian Missionary to Seminole Indians, Federal Emergency Relief Agency officials, and other interested parties in Key West. They also attended Rotary Club and ENPA meetings in Miami. After 11 days of extensive travel in the park area they left Miami for Tallahassee, where they further discussed the park boundaries with state officials like Arthur Treadway, the Chairman of the State Road Department, Fred Elliot, the State Engineer and Secretary of the Internal Improvement Fund, and other state politicians. Bryant and Toll also read extensively about the Everglades. They considered a large number of documents in the course of writing their boundary report, including correspondence from Florida naturalists and Everglades experts, books and articles on the Everglades, government reports and memorandum, newspaper clippings, and materials from Ernest Coe and the ENPA.298 Ernest Coe played a large part in these boundary determinations and took an active role in planning this trip. He recommended to the NPS that the “headquarters for the Service Staff be established in Miami,” and informed the NPS that the ENPA would be ready “at all times to render every help within their power.” The NPS delegation met Coe when they arrived in Miami and spent most of their first day in Miami with him talking about the park. Coe accompanied them to Key Largo and along their drive to Everglades City. He also joined the party on their boat ride from Everglades City to the Ten Thousand Islands. At the end of their investigation, the party “called on Mr. Coe and discussed [their] conclusions with him.”299 Bryant and Toll's final conclusions basically adhered to the maximum boundaries that were laid out by the National Park Service in 1930. These boundaries in turn were based on Coe's original park boundaries suggested in 1928. Bryant and Toll, however, argued that those maximum boundaries laid out in 1930 should be the minimum boundaries for the park. They

297 Harold Bryant and Roger Toll, “Everglades Inspection Trip Itinerary,” RG 79 B904, National Archives, College Park, MD. 298 Roger Toll, “Supplemental Data Regarding the Proposed Tropic Everglades National Park to accompany report to Horace M. Albright,” No Date, RG79 Box 229, National Archives, College Park, MD. 299 Ibid. 156

also suggested expanding the park boundaries to include a section of Key Largo, an area they visited with Ernest Coe, who was very vocal about the inclusion of Key Largo in Everglades National Park.300 Bryant and Toll argued that a large park was needed for to fulfill the park's purpose. Because the park was to be maintained as a wilderness and because it would preserve a large number of species of flora and fauna, including migratory birds whose feeding and breeding habits varied widely from year to year, a large park was needed. Bryant and Toll argued that only a large park could adequately protect the natural features in the park from “drainage developments [and] commercial exploitation.” They also urged that “some adequate area bordering on the Atlantic Ocean, preferably Old Rhodes Key and the whole of Key Largo,” be included in the park so that “the marine gardens typical of this shoreline and the other biological and geological features of this unique group of keys,” could also be preserved.301 George Wright, whose main argument in Fauna of the National Parks was that park boundaries needed to be determined by the needs of wildlife, influenced this report. He also suggested a more practical reason for insisting that the park service make the 1930 maximum boundaries the new minimum boundaries for the park. He that “we should hold to our principal argument which is that the maximum boundaries are the very minimum necessary to make this a national park of standards commensurate with our existing system.” Wright argued that the service should “not propose concessions” on the boundary issue “before any have been asked,” and that the state of Florida, “not the Secretary of the Interior, should be on the defensive” with regards to boundaries. Wright knew that the boundaries would be contested by the State of Florida, and that eliminations would be proposed by real estate interests, and therefore proposed the largest boundaries possible to limit these concessions.302 Bryant and Toll concluded their report by addressing the difficulty in determining park boundaries in just eleven days. They wrote that “it is obvious that in a project of this size and complexity some subsequent minor adjustments to the boundary lines will become necessary.” They recommended that “such adjustments [be] made upon agreement between the State of

300 Harold Bryant report to the Director of the National Park Service, January 14, 1935, Spessard Holland (SH) Papers, PK Younge Library, University of Florida (UF). 301 Harold Bryant report to the Director of the National Park Service, January 14, 1935, SH Papers, PK Younge Library, UF. 302 George Wright, Memorandum to the Director, 4 February 1935, RG 79 B914, National Archives, College Park, MD. 157

Florida and the Secretary of the Interior upon recommendation of the National Park Service.” Ernest Coe ignored this conclusion and assumed that this report was the last word on the ENP's boundaries. However, this conclusion was embraced by Floridian land interests as they pushed for changes to the park's boundaries.303 In fact, boundary adjustments would be made by the park service immediately after they received the report. On January 15, 1935 Cammerer wrote to Coe explaining these changes. They including eliminating much of the Key Largo area that Bryant and Toll had added to the park. Cammerer eliminated “all extensive developments” on the lower part of Key Largo, and the “privately owned keys West of Upper and Lower Matecumbe.” A portion of upper Key Largo remained in the boundaries, but most of the Keys were eliminated, likely because these lands would be very expensive and difficult to acquire. Coe quickly wrote back to Cammerer advising against these adjustments and urging that these areas in the Keys be restored to the park's boundaries. Throughout the fight for the park Coe consistently clung to these maximum boundaries as the only acceptable boundaries for the park. Although he deferred to the NPS on almost every issue, on the issue of boundaries, Coe constantly cajoled and pleaded for the Service to endorse these large boundaries. He wrote to Cammerer asking that “no final decision be made regarding this boundary line until the problem has been given further study.”304 Coe fought for Key Largo's inclusion in the park for multiple reasons. It had biological importance to the park, it possessed coral reefs that needed to be preserved, it had a great deal of scenic and aesthetic value, and it could accommodate tourism, specifically boat tourism. Coe's vision for the park as being able to serve multiple functions, among them biological preservation and tourism were dependent on the park's boundaries. Coe fought vigorously against any change in these boundaries because changing the boundaries would invalidate the park's ability to accomplish these multiple functions. He argued that “the preservation of the biological features of the Everglades National Park . . . are dependent, in a large measure upon the inclusion of the waters and islands in Florida Bay, Black Water, Barnes and part of Card Sounds.” The Keys around Key Largo possessed “scenic charms not otherwise exampled within the park area . . . including marine gardens,” by which Coe meant coral reefs. The shore of Key Largo had

303 Ibid. 304 Arno Cammerer to EC, January 15, 1935, David Sholtz Papers, FSA; EC to Governor Sholtz, April 9, 1935, David Sholtz Papers, FSA; EC to Arno Cammerer, 19 January 1935, David Fairchild (DF) Papers, Fairchild Tropical Garden Archive (FTGA). 158

“opportunities to create landing facilities for boats . . . within the protected water of Card Sound and among scenic surroundings of great individual character and charm.”305

Coe, Landowners, and the Federal Government

Determining land ownership within the proposed park was difficult because of the Florida land boom and the Great Depression. The Florida land boom of the 1920s was a veritable orgy of real estate activity, an instance of capitalism gone wild. Land in the Everglades was bought, sold, and resold at a frantic pace from 1920 to 1926. During the boom real estate agents claimed that Florida would eventually drain this land, but most of this real estate in the southern section of the Everglades would never be canalized, diked, or leveed. Although during this land boom, land prices skyrocketed, when the boom when bust in 1926, many were left with worthless land. During the Great Depression, taxes went unpaid on most of this land. Because of these factors many landowners saw the park as a way to recoup on a bad investment. They sought out the ENPC and the federal government during the Depression asking to sell these lands. The park was seen by some landowners, who had paid hundreds of dollars for land that was underwater, inaccessible, and economically worthless, as a bailout.306 Ann Vilesis, in Discovering the Unknown Landscape, argues that wetlands have an ambiguous status as private property. Although wetlands were treated as private property in the United States, Vilesis argues that there was always an element of the 'commons' present in wetlands. Land was always seen as a private resource in western cultures, but water is always a public resource. Wetlands, as lands that are frequently underwater, occupy an ambiguous position. Additionally, wetlands are often seen as public nuisance. They flood into other private properties and can support mosquito populations. Likewise, wetlands can be seen as a public good. They purify and clean water and create rich biological areas full of game and fish. Because of these dual roles, wetlands create the need for public works. Drainage efforts, flood control, and the construction of levees and dams, or in the twentieth century, the preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration of wetlands have been pursued by state and federal

305 EC to Arno Cammerer, 19 January 1935, DF Papers, FTGA. 306 David Nolan, Fifty Feet in Paradise: The Booming of Florida, San Diego: Harcourt Barace, Jovanovich, 1984. 159

governments.307 The land boom of the 1920s was an attempt to take these public wetlands and convert them into private property without regard to their ambiguous status as 'land.' Real estate agents and buyers hungry for cheap land and quick riches imposed their beliefs about private property onto wetlands, often without even seeing, surveying, or asking questions about the lands they were buying and selling. Only when the speculative boom went bust did these new landowners begin to question the wisdom of buying Everglades land unseen. This ideological system of private property was ill-suited to blind application in the Everglades, and after the boom, problems relating the application of private property to these wetlands abounded. Most of this land had never been surveyed and owners frequently had difficulty in even determining where their land was. Getting to this land was also difficult because most of it was inaccessible and far from anything that even resembled a road. Seasonal fluctuations in water levels also meant that much of this land was underwater most of the year. Because this land had no economic value, taxes quickly piled up on much of this land, especially after the onset of the Great Depression. This misapplication of private property onto Everglades land was implicitly acknowledged by landowners, many of whom saw the creation of a national park in the Everglades as a government bailout. The government was called on to fix the problems created by the privatization of the Everglades by converting this land back into a public resource. Small and large landowners both looked to the government to redress their economic losses caused by the bust of Florida's real estate market. Many land owners did not care about protecting the Everglades' biota or about the park's value as a tourist attraction. These land owners, especially the destitute owners of small plots of land in the failed subdivisions of Poinciana and Pinecrest, saw the ENPC's actions as part of the New Deal's efforts to provide relief to Americans stricken by the Depression. John Baker, the president of the National Audubon Society, described the situation many of these landowners were in during the 1930s. In 1947, before the a House subcommittee hearing, he stated that “these owners got left holding the speculative investment bag when the Florida real estate bubble burst in 1925, and about the only thing they have been able to do with the lands since that time has been to pay taxes on them.”308 Many large landowners saw the park as a way to recoup on a bad investment and were

307 Ann Vilesis, Discovering the Unknown Landscape, Island Press, 1997, 5-7. 308 John Baker, Statement at H.R. 3378 Hearing before the House Subcommittee on Public Lands, 16 July 1947, Peterson Papers, PK Younge Library, University of Florida (UF). 160

initially enthusiastic about the government purchasing their lands. Ivar Axelson, whose family controlled the Chevelier land company and owned a large portions of land in the park area themselves, claimed in 1934 that he could “deliver this land at a nominal price.” Although Axelson, and his father-in-law D. A. McDougal, later became two of the parks most vociferous critics in the early '40s, they supported the park in the 1930s. According to Harold Bryant, McDougal had “payed the taxes for several years, sinking his personal fortune” into the Chevelier company as other stockholders in the company ignored their assets and responsibilities. However since 1935, “the taxes had remained unpaid for several years.” McDougal “was anxious to know if the park project would help him salvage the wreck.” McDougal had indicated to Bryant that “his company would be glad to sell out at a small fraction of original values” to the government.309 Some of these large landowners were quietly supportive of Coe early in his work to establish the park. Coe's initial report delivered to the NPS on the Everglades, written in 1928, included a brief discussion of landownership in the area. He wrote that most of the land is “in the hands of private interests,” and that many of these owners, “including the Model Land Company [MLC], A Florida East Coast Railroad subsidiary,” “would be greatly subserved [sic] by the establishing of a National Park.” Coe thought “releases of holdings . . . could be consummated on favorable terms.” Coe was not idly speculating about the interests of the MLC. As a member of the Miami Rotary Club, he spoke with fellow Rotarian and MLC employee Frank Pepper about the park frequently. J.W. Hoffman, the Vice President of the MLC used Pepper's connections with Coe to find out confidential information about the park's progress early as 1931.310 Many landowners were enthusiastic about trading their Everglades lands to the state for other lands outside the park area. The method of land acquisition was frequently suggested by Coe and other park supporters, but was never used, as the state lands in question were used in 1947 to create the water conservation districts southeast of Lake Okeechobee. Frank Pepper of the MLC wrote to J.W. Hoffman that “it is our opinion it would be a good deal for the Model

309 Ivar Axelson, Memorandum on Tropic Everglades National Park, 5 March 1934, Mary McDougal-Axelson Papers, Richter Library, University of Miami (UM); Harold Bryant, Memorandum to the Director, NPS, 3 January 1935, RG79, B914, National Archives, College Park, MD. 310 EC, “The Preliminary Consideration of Proposition Having in View the Establishing of a Tropic National Park in the South Everglades Section of the Florida Mainland,” 1928, RG79, B239, National Archives, College Park, MD; Frank Pepper to J.W. Hoffman, 1 May 1931, Reclaiming the Everglades website. 161

Land Company if it could make an exchange of almost any of these lands at present owned by the State.” D.A. McDougal was also enthusiastic about the possibility of these land exchanges. He explained to his son-in-law, Ivar Axelson, that according to Coe, “the state would swap lands with people who owed a lot of back taxes, and the state would accept the land from individuals, with the tax against it. Thus the party that owes a lot of back taxes can exchange his land with the taxes against it and receive land from the state that is free from taxes.” McDougal suggested that “we might trade off half our Gulf Coastal lands and get some lands that we could sell for more money, and sell quicker, and at the same time get rid of our tax burden.” McDougal thought that those state lands were “improved land that is in cultivation,” and were worth much more than the undrained and inaccessible lands McDougal owned.311 Small landowners were also enthusiastic about the park and about the possibility of selling their land to the State of Florida, particularly those that lived out of state and had purchased small plots of land in the subdivisions of Pinecrest and Poinciana. According to Alfred Manly, the project manager in charge of land acquisition after the parks' establishment in 1947, Poinciana “was a townsite platted and sold largely by out-of-state advertising in the Florida boom.” It consisted of “1,920 acres, . . . was purely a paper subdivision and there was never any development.” As soon as the ENPC came into existence, the Commission received a stream of letters from citizens all over the country who owned land in these two developments.312 Mrs. Raphie Adams of Tampa, was one individual who wrote to Coe about her lands in Poinciana. She bought a lot in Poinciana “ in boom time and certainly at top price.” She wrote that “since then I have lost everything I owned and have been without work for a long time.” She pleaded that “if I could get even a few dollars for the lot it would be a help.” Mrs J. H. Hill of Texas wrote to Coe stating she wished to sell her Everglades land. She wrote that “I need this money very much and will certainly appreciate any information you might give me in regards to whether or not I can sell now.” Mrs. G. A. Ginger of Marion Wayne County, New York wrote asking “what the chances of getting rid of” her lands in Poinciana were, and what, if any money she could receive from their sale. She wrote that “we have so far put 1,000 dollars in them and owe a little back taxes,” but hoped that the sale of her lands could allow her to both pay those

311 Frank Pepper to JW Hoffman, 10 February 1938, Model Land Company Papers, Ricther Library, UM; DA McDougal to Ivar Axelson, 7 March 1937, Mary McDougal-Axelson Papers, Richter Library, UM. 312 AB Manly, “Statement by A.B. Manly concerning the lands in northwestern Monroe county within compromise boundaries described in House bills 6641 & 6653,” DF Papers, FTGA. 162

taxes and realize a small amount of money from the sale. Other land owners were more demanding about the value of their lands. Dr. Ella X. Quinn wrote to Governor Sholtz about land her sister, Miss Erma Quinn, purchased in Pinecrest in 1923. This piece of property had been purchased for 500 dollars and Quinn desired “to be reimbursed for this lot.” Her sister wrote that Erman “is now 70 years of age [and] worked laboriously for that $500 and the taxes which are paid to date.” Unfortunately, most of the lands in Poinciana were worthless and the owners of that land would likely receive very little in compensation. According to Coe, “the assessed valuation on all of Poinciana is less than 50 cents per lot.”313 Although landowners were supportive of the park, they were also concerned about how their lands would be acquired, and how much money they would receive for them. Larger landowners created an organization to represent their interests and ensure the highest possible price for their lands. J. W. Hoffman of the Model Land Company, organized the Dade-Monroe Landowners Association, an organization created “for the protection . . . of the landowners' interests.” Hoffman served as the president, and D. A. McDougal, representing the Chevelier company, was also on the executive board, as were representatives of the Waddell land holdings and the Paradise Prairie Land Company. According to Hoffman, these interests owned 450,000 acres of land in the Everglades, amounting to about half of the private lands in the park area. J.W. Hoffman explained to May Mann Jennings that this association was “not in any way for the purpose of opposing the formation of the Park.”314 At the first meeting of this organization, held on June 27, 1934, these landowners agreed on a course of action. They were in favor of the park, but decided to agree not to sell their lands for less than $5.00 an acre, a extremely high price that was undoubtedly only an opening offer in anticipation of negotiations. These landowners also agreed to make indirect recommendations to the Governor about whom to appoint to the ENPC and to contact all landowners in the park and induce them to join their organization. At the next meeting of the Dade-Monroe Landowners Association landowners representing 761,000 acres were present, as were Ernest Coe and Thomas Pancoast, who assured these landowners that they would be treated fairly. Here the

313 Mrs. Raphie Adams to EC, 22 April 1935, (EVER20062) EC Papers, South Florida Collection Management Center (SFCMC), Everglades National Park (ENP); Mrs. JH Hill to EC, 10 December 1936, (EVER20134) EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; Mrs. GA Ginger to EC, 29 July 1937, (EVER20155) EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; Dr. Ella X. Quinn to David Sholtz, 21 September 1935, (EVER20079), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; Coe to TH Russell, 25 January 1937, (EVER20848), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 314 JW Hoffman to Ivar Axleson, 3 July 1934, Mary McDougal-Axelson Papers, Richter Library, UM; JW Hoffman to May Mann Jennings 22 January 1935, May Mann Jennings Papers, PK Younge Library, UF. 163

association agreed to study the issue of mineral rights in the park and recommended that agricultural lands in the western section of the park east of Miami be left out of the park, a position that was being vigorously pursued by J. W. Hoffman of the Model Land Company. These landowners also unanimously agreed that the park should be created, “in the interest of Florida as a whole.”315 Just as these landowners looked to the government for aid, Coe looked to the federal government for help in creating the ENP. Specifically, the New Deal provided institutional and financial support for Coe's efforts at determining land ownership. Coe requested and receiving funding from both the Florida Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA), and the Works Progress Administration (WPA). As of March 23, 1935, Coe reported to the NPS that the ENPA, through the FERA had employed “three attorneys, three abstractors, two stenographers and one supervisor.” These personnel worked to determine land ownership in the park area and were being assisted by additional FERA office staff in Monroe and Collier Counties. These FERA funds were due to expire on April 25, 1935, but Coe worked to attain additional federal funding for this project.316 Coe wrote to Julius Stone, the head of the Florida FERA about the importance of FERA funding to the his efforts, and made sure that Governor Sholtz, Arno Cammerer, and others also communicated to Stone the importance of continuing funding for this project. Coe not only asked that funding be continued, but urged that Stone increase the size of his staff from nine to seventeen. Coe claimed this would enable the ENPA to finish determining land ownership within 3 months. Coe received an additional $1300 in funding to continue this FERA project but did not receive money for the larger staff he desired. In August of 1935 after these FERA projects were completed, Coe applied for WPA funding to continue the process of determining land ownership in the park area. Coe requested $2671.98 which would be used to hire three abstractors and one supervisor and to purchase office equipment. This project was funded for six months, at which time Coe reapplied and received funding for an additional six months. Coe reported to Thomas Pancoast, the Chairman of the ENPC, and Coe's biggest ally on the Commission, that the land ownership project had received funds “to the amount of $4,200,” and

315 JW Hoffman to Ivar Axleson, 3 July 1934, Mary McDougal-Axelson Papers, Richter Library; Minutes of meeting of the Dade-Monroe Land Owners Association, 25 January 1935, Mary McDougal-Axelson Papers, Richter Library, UM. 316 Ernest Coe to George M. Wright, 23 March 1935, David Sholtz Papers, FSA. 164

that an “application for further assistance has been made.” Between 1934 and 1936, Ernest Coe, independent of the State of Florida and the ENPC, acquired about $6,800 of federal money which was used to determine land ownership in the park area. This land acquisition project continued under the auspices of the ENPC, which used state monies to fund its activities.317 Coe not only relied on the New Deal for money and support, he also looked more generally to the federal government for aid, advice, and information. Coe saw the federal government, its New Deal agencies, Department of Interior and National Park Service officials and FDR himself, as powerful allies and benefactors in the fight for the park. When Coe had difficulties controlling the ENPC, he asked Arno Cammerer to attend Commission meetings, in the hopes that having NPS personnel present would bolster his own position. Likewise, when Floridian land interests protested the park's boundaries, Coe called on NPS officials to oppose these land interests, and repeatedly argued that NPS experts were the most qualified to make any boundary determinations. In 1946, when NPS officials and Florida politicians were close to establishing an ENP with much smaller boundaries than Coe desired, he wrote a desperate letter to Harold Ickes pleading with him to save the park. Coe wrote that “the destiny of the Everglades National Park project lies in your hands.” and that “Its [sic] within your power to disentangle this great national project from its present predicament.”318 Coe also frequently and unsuccessfully tried to get President Franklin Roosevelt involved with the ENP project. As Governor of New York, Roosevelt did give Coe a quote about the park to use in his publicity work, but as president, insisted that Coe note that this quote was delivered when FDR was the Governor of N.Y. and not the President of the United States. Coe continually wrote letters to President Roosevelt on the park project. He sent FDR carbon copies of correspondence on the park, and mailed the President a copy of most ENPA bulletins. In July of 1933 Coe sent FDR a coconut “in the husk,” as “a souvenir typical of the proposed Everglades National Park region.” He wrote the president in 1939, urging that on FDR's upcoming trip to Florida City he take note “of the waters of Barnes and Card Sounds and the mangrove areas traversed, and a portion of Key Largo and the waters of the Atlantic Ocean,” that he would travel through. These areas were desired by Coe for inclusion in the park but their inclusion was being

317 EC to Julius Stone, 20 April 1935 (EVER21478), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; EC, Works Progress Administration Project Proposal, 21 August 1935, (EVER21537) EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; EC to Thomas Pancoast, 1 April 1936, David Sholtz Papers, FSA. 318 EC to Harold Ickes, 30 January 1946, RG 79 Box 900, National Archives, College Park, MD. 165

disputed by real estate interests, the NPS, and the Monroe County Commission. Coe even asked FDR to join the ENPA in 1938 through the Miami Lions Club, which was conducting a membership and fundraising drive for the Association.319 Because he was unsuccessful at personally contacting President Roosevelt, Coe tried to use intermediaries to influence FDR. In 1934 He found a distant relative of the President's who lived in Miami and persuaded her to write Roosevelt about the park. Grace Lyman, who identified herself as “a distant relative who admires your splendid courage,” wrote to FDR asking him to use “your direct influence” to “overcome opposition” and “assure the passage of the [Everglades] park bill in the House.” Lyman's grandfather was a first cousin of FDR's great- grandfather, and according to Lyman “the two families . . . were very intimate in those days.” Coe not only persuaded Lyman to write to FDR, but also edited Lyman's letter, eliminated any references to Coe, typed the handwritten letter Lyman had delivered to Coe, and mailed the letter himself, listing his own address as the return address.320 Coe also used his connections with Governor David Sholtz, a member of the ENPA, and a political ally of FDR, to try to reach Roosevelt. Coe asked Sholtz in 1934 to “invite President Roosevelt to spend a week or so in Florida on a fishing-observation boat trip including the waterways of the proposed Everglades National Park.” Coe also provided a suggested itinerary for this trip and described for Sholtz some of the “scenic charms” that existed amidst this “truly primitive . . . wild life sanctuary.” Coe wrote to Sholtz again in 1934 informing him that “I would like to have an interview with President Roosevelt and can think of no more forceful introduction than a letter from you.” Despite Sholtz's support of the ENP, no introduction or invite was forthcoming.321 Despite Coe's efforts, FDR did very little to directly advance the establishment of Everglades National Park. Although FDR did sign an executive order in October 1934 withdrawing all federal lands in the ENP area from use, he never spoke publicly in favor of the

319 Marguerite LeHand to EC, 3 December 1932, RG 79, Box 230, National Archives, College Park, MD; ENP Vertical File, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) Presidential Library, Hyde Park, NY; EC to FDR, 6 July 1933, RG 79, B921, National Archives, College Park, MD; EC to FDR, 17 February 1939, Official File 6P Box 15, FDR Presidential Library, Hyde Park, NY; EC to FDR, 23 September 1938, Presidents Personal File 24, FDR Presidential Library, Hyde Park, NY. 320 Grace Lyman to FDR, 26 March 1934, Official File 6P, Box 14, FDR Presidential Library, Hyde Park, NY; EC to Grace Lyman, 27 March 1934, Official File 6P, Box 14, FDR Presidential Library, Hyde Park, NY. 321 Coe to Sholtz, 6 February 1934, David Sholtz Papers, FSA; Coe to Sholtz, 16 February 1934, David Sholtz Papers, FSA. 166

park, nor did he put forth any effort to push the federal authorization of the ENP forward in the House of Representatives. When Harold Ickes asks FDR in 1934 for help getting the ENP authorization passed, FDR only directed one of his aids to “let some of the people in the House know I am in favor of this bill, if they want to pass it without any particular trouble.”322 Despite Roosevelt's lack of interest in Everglades National Park, New Deal programs like the FERA and WPA, and the efforts of the Department of Interior and the National Park Service under FDR contributed in many meaningful ways to the creation of the ENP. Although Roosevelt himself did not take any action on the park, members of his administration and other federal employees, like Arno Cammerer, George Wright, and Harold Bryant, worked hard for the park's establishment.

Creation of the Everglades National Park Commission

After the NPS determined the park's boundaries, the State of Florida made halting steps towards acquiring the land in the park area. This land acquisition process would happen through the Everglades National Park Commission, a state agency whose members would be appointed by the Governor. The authority to create this commission had been established in 1929, when at the behest of Ernest Coe, the Florida legislature passed a law authorizing the creation of the Commission. Governor Sholtz appointed the members of the Commission in May 1935 shortly after the National Park Service certified the park's boundaries, and a full year after the federal government had authorized the park. Sholtz appointed a mix of ENPA members, landowners, and Florida businessmen to the Commission. Coe originally thought that this Commission would absorb his Association, but by 1935 NPS officials and Coe himself, wanted the Association to continue to exist alongside the State's Commission. In past attempts to create eastern parks, like in the case of Great Smoky and Mammoth Cave National Parks, state commissions operated harmoniously with private associations, both of which had different and complementary goals. State commissions were active acquiring the land, while private associations raised money and provided publicity. Coe envisioned his Association as having a similar role. According to Coe, the Association's role

322 Note attached to Ickes to FDR, 29 March 1934, Official File 6P Box 14, FDR Presidential Library, Hyde Park, NY. 167

would revolve around publicity work, lobbying, and fundraising, while the Commission would focus on land acquisition.323 Governor David Sholtz had the authority to appoint the ENPC, and although he was a founding member of the ENPA, Sholtz sought a variety of opinions concerning who to name to the Commission. Coe and other ENPA members had a measure of input, but so did Everglades landowners and Florida legislators. Coe and Sholtz communicated frequently concerning the Commission's composition. At Sholtz's request, Coe made a list of suggestion for the ENPC. Coe suggested that the ENPC be composed of ENPA members like John Shares, Thomas Pancoast, and Coe himself. He did suggest that some landowners, like C. M. Collier, the father of Barron Collier, who owned most of Collier County, and May Mann Jennings, who owned land in the park area, be named to the Commission, but also voiced his opinion that having these landowners serve on a commission that would purchase those lands may create a conflict of interest. Coe also suggested that some lawmakers, like Nathan Mayo, the Florida Commissioner of Agriculture and Florida Senator William Hodges, serve on the ENPC as well.324 Thomas Pancoast also weighed in on who should be represented on the Commission. Pancoast wrote to Sholtz that what the Commission needed were people “who could command attention and interest in people who have money that are interested in helping to establish parks.” Pancoast noted that in North Carolina, the Rockefeller Foundation had given 10 million dollars to help create Great Smoky National Park, and that perhaps a similar benefactor for the Everglades could be found through the ENPC. Pancoast also told Sholtz that the Commission will “have to sell the proposition to those who own the land within the boundaries and try to get them to either donate the land or be reasonable in their offer.” Pancoast, like Coe, did not want any of the actual landowners on the Commission, but was aware that the park needed their help if it was to become a reality. Another ENPA member, John Shares had a slightly different opinion. He communicated to Sholtz, that “the wealth of the State should appear very largely on the Commission,” so that the fundraising process could easily proceed.325 Landowners also tried to influence the makeup of the ENPC. In July of 1934, the Dade-

323 Arno Cammerer to EC, June 28, 1934, David Sholtz Papers, FSA; EC to David Sholtz, July 27, 1934, David Sholtz Papers, FSA. 324 EC to Governor Sholtz, 13 August 1934, David Sholtz Papers, FSA. 325 Thomas Pancoast to Governor Sholtz, 15 August 1934, David Sholtz Papers, FSA; Thomas Pancoast to Governor Sholtz, 1 August 1934, David Sholtz Papers, FSA; John Shares to Governor Sholtz, 22 January 1935, David Sholtz Papers, FSA. 168

Monroe Landowners Association, offered a list of names to be appointed to the Commission that they considered “satisfactory both to the landowners and to the state.” Included in this list were Ernest Coe and Thomas Pancoast, as well as large landowners such as Norberg Thomspon, who owned land in the Florida Keys.326 By March 1935, Sholtz had finalized his a of appointments to the Commission. He sent this list of names to a variety of individuals including, Halstead Ritter, the current president of the ENPA, Ernest Coe, Scott Loftin of the Model Land Company, and Florida Senators William Hodges and Walter Rose. This list included ENPA members Ernest Coe, Thomas Pancoast and Halstead Ritter; T.V. Moore, of the Florida Federation of Women's Clubs; landowning interests like Scott Loftin, of the Model Land Company, and Norberg Thompson and William Porter, both from Key West; Florida Senators William Hodges and Walter Rose; as well as May Mann Jennings, E.C. Romfh, a judge from Miami, and A.L. Cuesta, a business man from Tampa.327 Coe's reaction to this list was largely positive, although he did ask that the list contain more complete representation from all sections of the state. Specifically he asked that someone from the Northwestern section of the panhandle be named, and someone from the “extreme South end of the state,” be included on the list, which is odd because two landowners from Key West were already included. Coe's main problem with this list of names was that landowners were on it. He specifically asked Sholtz that “appointees be not owners of or indirectly personally interested in ownership of lands within the park area.”328 Scott Loftin, of the Model Land Company, had the opposite reaction to Sholtz's letter. He suggested that more landowners be appointed to the Commission. Loftin wrote that “very few persons named by you own any appreciable amount of land within the park area and on that account it is possible that the land owners' viewpoint would not be before the Commission when it came time to take action.” He also asked that his name be replaced with J. W. Hoffman's, who was the Vice-President of the Model Land Company. Loftin noted that “the Flagler interests own a great deal of land in the territory affected and Mr. Hoffman is conversant with the whole situation.”329 Sholtz's final list was composed of a mixture of ENPA members who had led the fight for

326 Scott Loftin to Governor Sholtz, 25 July 1934, David Sholtz Papers, FSA. 327 Governor Sholtz to Halstead Ritter, EC, Scott Loftin, William Hodges, and Walter Rose, 18 March 1935, David Sholtz Papers, FSA. 328 EC to Governor Sholtz, 20 March 1935, David Sholtz Papers, FSA. 329 Scott Loftin to Governor Sholtz, 26 March 1935, David Sholtz Papers, FSA. 169

the park, representatives of powerful land interests, businessmen from geographically diverse areas in Florida, and other conservation-minded citizens. The final members of the ENPC, after some individuals turned down appointments and suitable replacements were found, consisted of: Ernest Coe, Thomas Pancoast and John Shares of the ENPA; May Mann Jennings and T. V. Moore both members of the Florida Federation of Women's Clubs; representatives of landowners, such as William Porter a Key West lawyer and banker who served on the Monroe County Commission, D. Graham Copeland representing Barron Collier, J. W. Hoffman from the Model Land Company, and Norberg Thompson a landowner from Monroe County; and businessmen from different parts of Florida including Lorenzo Wilson, A. L. Cuesta Jr, and Dr. Hamilton Holt. Sholtz named Coe the Executive Chairman of the Commission, a move expected and approved of by all interested parties.330

The ENPC and Land Abstracting

Governor Sholtz named the Commission in April 1935, almost a year after the park's authorization. During this period and continuing until January of 1936, when the first ENPC meeting was held, Coe dedicated himself to the task of determining the details of land ownership within the park. Coe had started this project with FERA and WPA funding under the auspices of the ENPA and transferred the project to the ENPC when state funds became available for his use. Coe desired to finish compiling all the data on land in the park area before holding any ENPC meetings. He believed that once these records concerning landownership were complete, they would show that the lands in the ENP area were worth much less than their owners believed. Armed with this evidence, Coe thought that the land acquisition process would be easy and cheap because owners would realize that their lands were worthless and tax delinquent. The specifics of this project involved more than just who owned land and how much it was worth. Rather, Coe was compiling abstracts of every piece of land in the proposed park. An abstract was a complete history of a piece of land, and included a record of all previous sales of the land, any debt owned on the land, and the tax status of the land. These abstracts were very difficult to determine, because most of this land had been bought and sold multiple times

330 Governor Sholtz, Undated Memo, David Sholtz Papers, FSA; Minutes of the ENPC meeting, 15 January 1936, EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 170

throughout the land boom of the 1920s, and, because of the Depression, much of the land had back taxes owed on it. Multiple problems confronted Coe and his abstractors in their quest to determine land ownership. Coe explained to the WPA when applying for funds that much of the land “was sold in a speculative way many times during the 'Florida boom.'” There were many instances where the FERA project had found that “the same piece of property has been deeded out two or three times by the same individual,” and occurrences when the property had been sold “in which the person selling did not and never had had title to the property.” There also had been instances of property being taxed which did not even exist. In a different letter, Coe explained that in the ENP area, “there are private landholdings varying from a fraction of an acre in extent to those including hundreds of thousands of acres,” and that “in many instances, original purchasers have died and in other instances . . . purchasers have paid no attention to their holdings.” Because of this, “tax delinquency is very general” and determining land ownership was difficult.331 Because of these problems, Coe thought it necessary to obtain complete abstracts of all the land in the park before trying to acquire any of it. He repeatedly argued that these abstracts would be essential to the process of land acquisition and would show the proper value of Everglades land. Coe, apparently under some criticism from within the Commission because they had not begun to acquire land, wrote to all the members of the ENPC explaining why they could not begin acquiring land until the abstracts were complete. He wrote that “we cannot take land as a donation; we cannot offer to trade lands; we cannot offer to buy lands; we cannot condemn lands, WITHOUT A COMPLETE ABSTRACT OF TITLE.” If the state did, Coe claimed that he could “show you where such a deed would make the State liable for thousands of dollars in judgments, liens, etc.” Because land ownership in the Everglades was so confused, and involved so many individuals, many of whom owned small plots of land, “it would be impossible to determine who individual owners are so that negotiations might be had with them” without this abstract information.332 Coe also believed that once these land abstracts were completed, it would be clear that the value of these lands were less than some thought. He wrote in 1937 that “it is safe to say that

331 EC to William L. Wilson, Florida WPA, 6 September 1935, (EVER21541c), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; EC mailing, 24 August 1947, (EVER19419c), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 332 EC to members of the ENPC, 2 March 1937, (EVER20245), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. Emphasis in original; EC to G. O. Palmer, 19 August 1937, (EVER20678) EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 171

little real understanding of present values exists among many property owners.” These owners were unaware of “the amount of tax accumulations and other obligations” on their property. Coe repeatedly wrote that these abstract records would enable the Commission “to negotiate with owners of land within the Park project area, fully informed as to the status of the records involved.” Coe also wanted to show that many of these lands had extensive back taxes on them, making the value of those lands even less. He hoped that once the State of Florida realized how cheaply this land could be acquired, appropriations and donations would flow into the Commission's coffers. Coe hoped that many landowners who owed back taxes would see how little they stood to gain from hassling over land sales and would instead just donate their land.333 When the ENPC was created in April 1935 Coe tried to delay holding any meetings until this abstract project was completed. However, compiling these records was taking longer than Coe anticipated and he eventually held the first ENPC meeting on January 1936. Even at this first meeting, nothing notable was accomplished other than the formations of various committees and the election of Tom Pancaost as the Commission's chairman. The finance, legislative, public relations and lands and boundaries committees were all formed, but none of these, other than the land and boundaries committee, had any duties or responsibilities.334 Coe saw his relationship to the Commission the same way he saw his relationship to the Association. The Association existed as a platform to aid and finance Coe's activities, and Coe saw the Commission has having the same role. Coe was in forging ahead, overseeing the abstracting of all lands in the park area, and did not see any need for meetings. During the more than 2 years that Coe headed the Commission, he only ever held 5 Commission meetings. The first was on January 15, 1936, and the other 4 were all held between December 1936 and May 1937.335 During this period, Coe also continued his promotional work under the auspices of the Commission and the ENPA. He sent weekly reports and other items of correspondence to the other members of the Commission, informing them of the history of the park project, of the nature of the Everglades, and of the current work he was doing on behalf of the Commission. Coe also continued his usual letter-writing habits. The Association also hired a Hester Scott, a

333 EC mailing, 24 August 1947, (EVER19419c), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; EC to G. O. Palmer, 19 August 1937, (EVER20678) EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 334 Minutes of the ENPC meeting, 15 January 1935, (EVER19425a) EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 335 EC to Governor Cone, 23 June 1937, (EVER14599), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 172

woman with a background in newspapers, to write press releases about the park. Meanwhile, the other members of the Commission waited. Most ENPC members were unhappy with this situation. They wanted to contribute to making the park a reality and complained about the lack of meetings. Lorenzo Wilson, a prominent businessman from Jacksonville, Fl who was active in park issues, and May Mann Jennings, who was also a resident of Jacksonville, both urged Governor Sholtz to “name an early date” for the first meeting of the Commission. J.W. Hoffman of the Model Land Company also wrote to Governor Sholtz suggesting that “you call a meeting of the Commissioners at an early date.” After this first meeting was eventually held, Coe delayed holding additional meetings. Jennings wrote to Coe during this period asking for the date of the next meeting, and wrote to others complaining about Coe's attitude towards the Commission. She told Governor Sholtz that “there are few of us on the Board [the ENPC] who do not feel that things are moving as fast as they should. We are not satisfied to be figureheads.” At the first meeting of the Commission Jennings had proposed a motion that the Commission meet every three months, a motion which carried, but as of October 2, 1936, Jennings informed the Governor that there had only been one meeting. Jennings wrote that “we do not feel that Mr. Coe should speak without authority for the Board, without giving the members a chance to express themselves.” She argued that Coe was trying “to take over the entire functions of the Commission.” Tensions were already growing between Coe and other ENPC members. According to Jennings, there was “a growing feeling of dissatisfaction” among many on the Commission. These feelings of dissatisfaction only increased as the Commission debated the park's boundaries throughout 1936 and 1937.336

336 Lorenzo Wilson to Governor Sholtz, 1 May 1935, Governor Sholtz Papers, FSA; J.W. Hoffman to Governor Sholtz, 22 June 1935, Governor Sholtz Papers, FSA; May Mann Jennings to Governor Sholtz, 2 October 1936, Governor Sholtz Papers, FSA. 173

7. BOUNDARIES AND CONTROVERSY

Introduction

The Everglades National Park Commission under Ernest Coe was only active for two years. During this period they did little other than argue about the park's boundaries. The lands boundaries committee was tasked with preparing a report on these boundaries which would be used by the governor in his negotiations with the National Park Service over the park's final boundaries. The lands and boundaries committee was composed of D. Graham Copeland, J.W. Hoffman and William Porter, all representatives of powerful Everglades landowners. These men, and the interests they represented, all supported the creation of the park for economic reasons. The lands the park would encompass were economically worthless, and by selling those lands to the state, these interests hoped to profit off the park, or at least, recoup from bad investments made during the land boom. They also fought against the park including specific areas for the same economic reasons. Key Largo, the Turner River, and agricultural lands west of Homestead, Fl. had economic value and these interests fought to exclude those lands from the park. The lands and boundaries committee worked hard to investigate the park's boundaries and approached their task with a serious sense of duty. They met with landowners, conservationists, commercial fishermen, sportsmen, and other parties that would be affected by the park's establishment. The committee held a public hearing to discuss any proposed boundary adjustments and to give all concerned citizens a chance to speak about the park. They also met privately with many landowners to convince landowners those who were upset with Ernest Coe to support the park's establishment. The NPS and Coe also addressed those who opposed the park's boundaries, specifically, sportsmen, landowners and the commercial fishing industry. The committee's final boundary report largely endorsed the boundaries laid out by Harold Bryant and Roger Toll. However, they did exclude three areas: the area around the Turner River in the northwest section of the park, some lands in the eastern part of the park just west of Homestead, Florida, which were thought to be of agricultural value, and all lands in Key Largo. These exclusions were relatively minor, and left the vast majority of the park's boundaries intact, however, Coe was unwilling to accept these changes. Coe, heavily influenced by George Wright's Fauna in the National Parks, believed that park boundaries needed to be dictated by the

174

needs and habits of wildlife and not by market pressures and economic interests. To Coe, these changes in the park boundaries were artificial modifications that would hamper the goal of the park. This fight over park boundaries also shows real attitude towards the park. Although determining his attitudes about tourism and preservation is complicated by the promotional nature of Coe's writing, his obstinacy concerning the park's boundaries shows his concern for the Everglades' biota.337 Because of his opposition to these changes, Coe created an enormous amount of controversy within the ENPC both before and after the boundary report was formally voted on by the Commission. He tried to influence the report before it was voted on, insulting and upsetin the members of the boundary committee. The final vote to adopt the boundary report increased the rancor and divisions within the ENPC, as did the actions of Coe's allies after the report's adoption. Although his efforts to fight these boundaries adjustments reflect his desire to protect the biota of the Everglades, his actions also display a lack of pragmatism. The ENPC in 1937 could have made real progress to create the ENP, but Coe's inability to work with Everglades' landowners doomed this effort. The Commission did manage in 1937, due to the lobbying prowess of May Mann Jennings, to secure appropriations for the next two years. Despite this, the Commission's days were numbered due to Frederick Cone's successful gubernatorial campaign. Cone, a conservative anti-New Deal Governor who pledged to restrain state spending, refused to sign the ENPC's appropriation unless every member of the Commission resigned. He then appointed a skeleton commission and refused them access to these funds. Cone wanted to restrain state spending and saw spending for parks as unnecessary and irresponsible. Cone's actions effectively ended the fight for the park until 1944, when Governor Spessard Holland turned to the park as a way to sustain Florida's wartime economic growth. The end of the ENPC also signaled the end of Coe's control over the future of Everglades National Park. Coe had insulted, angered and alienated many of his enemies and allies. Although he remained involved in park issues, he was never again an effective advocate for the park and never regained had the financial backing or legal authority he had in 1937.

337 George Wright, Thomas Dixon, and Ben Thompson, Fauna of the National Parks of the United States, U.S.: Government Printing Office, 1933. 175

The Lands and Boundaries Committee

The three members of the lands and boundaries committee sought to exclude areas from the park for economic reasons. They supported the park's creation but saw some lands slated for inclusion in the park as more economically valuable outside the park. Specifically, William Porter, who represented the Monroe County Commission and Key West banks wanted Key Largo, key just south of mainland Florida that was slated for development, removed from the park. D. Graham Copeland, an employee of Barron Collier, who owned most of Collier County, wanted the area around the Turner River in the northwest section of the park removed from the ENP. Collier saw the Turner River as a valuable port. He also was constructing a sawmill near the river to convert a large cypress stand into lumber. J.W. Hoffman was the vice president of the Model Land Company (MLC), a company formed out of Henry Flagler's Everglades landholdings and the largest private land owner in the park area. Hoffman wanted lands in the eastern section of the park near Homestead, Florida removed because it was thought these lands had agricultural value. These men all used their position on the ENPC to push for these boundary adjustments, although they ignored other requests for boundary changes and worked to convince skeptical landowners and other interests about the value of the park. Although these interests saw the park primarily in economic terms, Coe and the NPS saw the park as a way to preserve the flora and fauna of the Everglades. To Coe and his allies, the areas slated for elimination from te park by the boundary committee were essential to the fulfillment of the park's purpose. Coe believed, as did George Wright, that most parks failed to protect wildlife because their boundaries were created by political and economic interests. This resulted in boundaries that did not adequately protect the habitats and ranges of park wildlife. These differences of opinion concerning the park's boundaries existed well before the ENPC's creation. As soon as Harold Bryant and Roger Toll released their report on the park boundaries, these land interests began protesting the inclusion of specific areas. D. Graham Copeland wrote NPS director Arno Cammerer to protest the Turner Rivers' inclusion in the park. Cammerer replied that although they had discussed eliminating this area from the park boundaries, the service had decided that they would not eliminate this section from the park at this time but would instead wait and go over all the minor adjustments at once. The NPS understood that adjustments would be needed but did “not want to risk making an exception in

176

the Barron Collier case at this particular moment thereby drawing criticism from others sources for not having done so in their cases.” This moderate stance on boundary adjustments by the NPS elicited a threatening response from Copeland. He wrote that he was surprised and disappointed by the decision to not exclude the Turner River basin from the ENP immediately. Copeland wrote that the request was small and simple, but that “your failure to make the change requested . . . may seriously change our attitude toward the project.”338 Cammerer quickly wrote back to Copeland to assuage his concerns. He explained that he and Collier had discussed these boundaries issues extensively and had agreed to adhere to Collier's views on the issue “so far as it did not seriously conflict with our park development plans.” Cammerer again explained that there were a large number of proposed boundary adjustments that needed to be examined and studied and that the decision had been made “to certify the entire park boundary as originally laid out and then leave such adjustments” for later determination. These adjustments were “necessary,” according to the Secretary of the Interior, and would be made “in the future upon agreement between the authorities of the State of Florida and the National Park Service.”339 In April 1936 William Porter and D. Graham Copeland met with J. H. Meyer, the lead abstractor for the ENPC, to discuss the park boundaries. Porter wrote to Coe that while in Miami talking with Meyer, he noticed that the park boundaries included a section of Key Largo, which Porter wrote “is not going to be acceptable to the Board of County Commissioners.” Because of the park, Monroe county was already losing all of its land in the mainland of Florida, and would not allow the park to also take Key Largo, which, according to Porter, was “the greatest potential of tax income in the County outside of Key West.” Porter suggested to Coe that “it would be advisable not to consider it in the first instance.” After this meeting D. Graham Copeland also wrote to Coe concerning the Turner River section, which he wanted excluded from the park at the direction of Barron Collier.340 After receiving these letters from Copeland and Porter, Coe wrote to Arno Cammerer for direction on the boundary controversy that was brewing within the ENPC. Cammerer wrote back to Coe, using almost the same language he had previously used when explaining the

338 Arno Cammerer to D. Graham Copeland, 28 March 1935, (EVER14620) EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; D. Graham Copeland to Arno Cammerer, 30 March 1935, (EVER14621) EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 339 Arno Cammerer to D. Graham Copeland, 4 April 1935, (EVER14622) EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 340 William Porter to EC, 4 April 1936, (EVER20867) EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; D. Graham Copeland to EC, 5 May 1936, (EVER14635) EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 177

boundary situation to Copeland. He explained that the Interior Department assumed that “some minor adjustments to the boundary lines no doubt will become necessary.” The Turner River was one such area that Cammerer had assumed would come under discussion for elimination, but he also thought that the area would be an excellent “northwestern entrance for the park.” Cammerer told Coe that the Turner River area “was important for our park project” but hewas unable to commit himself on whether the area should be part of the park or not for fear of angering Barron Collier. Essentially, he left the matter to Coe, telling him that “your Commission” should study the boundary issue and then make “specific recommendations to us for minor adjustments.”341 Coe also wrote to Cammerer about the Key Largo boundary. Coe explained that “there has flared up in Monroe County, . . . a vicious opposition to including any of Key Largo within the Park.” Although Coe traveled to Key West, the county seat, in an attempt to convince the County Commission of the benefits of including parts of Key Largo in the park, they remained unmoved. Coe argued there would be an economic benefit to Key Largo's inclusion in the park and that any lost property tax arising from this would be offset by tourist dollars flowing into Monroe County.342 Collier, the MLC, and the Monroe County Commission were not the only interests who objected to the park boundaries as outlined in the Bryant-Toll report. Commercial fisherman in the Keys opposed the Bay's inclusion in the park. These fishermen, who plied these waters daily, feared that the inclusion of Florida Bay in the park would destroy their industry. These commercial fishermen found natural allies in the Monroe County Commission. William Porter and the Monroe County extended their complaints about the park boundaries to include the Florida Bay. Florida sportsmen, specifically the Dade county chapter of the Izaak Walton League of America (IWLA), also opposed the boundaries laid out by Harold Bryant and Roger Toll in 1935. These sportsmen wanted smaller park boundaries that excluded any part of the cypress swamps that lay in the northwest section of the proposed park. They also wanted the northern limit of the park's boundaries south of the Tamiami Trail to allow hunting on both sides of the Trail to continue. All these interests saw the drafting of the ENPC's boundary report as a chance to influence the ENP's final boundaries. Coe also tried to influence this report to make it

341 Arno Cammerer to EC, 9 June 1936, (EVER 20405) EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 342 EC to Arno Cammerer, 19 June 1936, (EVER20409b), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 178

more accurately reflect his own vision for the park, which had until this point, dominated the discussion of park boundaries.

The Lands and Boundaries Public Hearing

In June 1936 the lands and boundaries committee held a public hearing on the parks boundaries to allow concerned organizations and citizens to air their concerns and to gather information for the writing of their report. At this meeting commercial fishermen from Monroe County, sportsmen from the Dade County IWLA, agricultural interests in the park area, the Monroe County Commissioners, landowners, conservationists, and other concerned citizens all voiced their opinions on these boundaries. Commission members, including Coe, Thomas Pancoast, T.V. Moore, William Porter, and J. W. Hoffman were also present, as was Ben Thompson, the Assistant Director of the NPS, and one of the co-authors of Fauna in the National Parks.343 Frank Denny representing Monroe County commercial fishermen, was the first to speak. He stated that him and his colleagues “are in favor and endorse the National Park for Florida large enough to preserve the natural flora and fauna, but do not want the boundaries to reach to an extent that would jeopardize an industry in the land or on the water.” Denny wanted the boundaries of the park “confined to the high water mark on the mainland,” so that commercial fishing could continue in the Florida Bay. Denny also asked that Key Largo be left out the park because these fishermen needed open ports in Key Largo, although it is more likely that these commercial fishermen were merely supporting the position of the Monroe County Commission, hoping for some reciprocation from the County. William Albury, a commercial sponger, also spoke and opposed the inclusion of the Florida Bay for similar reasons.344 E. B. Moylan of the Dade chapter of the Izaak Walton League of America spoke next about the park boundaries around Tamiami Trail. Although Moylan was sympathetic to the parks' goal, the IWL did not want their hunting grounds included in the park. Moylan stated that his organization was “not opposed to the Everglades National Park project, and want to go on record as being definitely in favor of the park.” They were, however, “dissatisfied with the large

343 Minutes of the meeting of the Lands and Boundaries Committee, ENPC, 27 June 1936, (EVER19422), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 344 Ibid. 179

proposed area,” and “dissatisfied with the evasive manner in which Mr. Coe has answered the questions,” that the IWLA had asked him concerning the park's boundaries. Moylan attacked Coe, stating that “we [the Dade County IWL] object to him as Chairman of the Commission,” and noted that “there have been aspersions cast on my intelligence and on Mr. Denny by Mr. Coe.” At this point J.W. Hoffman, who chaired the hearing, intervened and ask Moylan to deal with the facts of the matter and not the personality of any Commission members. Moylan next put forth his proposal that the park be confined to 930 square miles and presented a petition signed by over 1500 hunters who endorsed this proposal. This proposal eliminated all land north of the Tamiami Trail, the entire Florida Bay, and Key Largo from the park, reducing the size of the park by about 1070 square miles.345 Next to speak was William Albury, a member of the Monroe County Commission. Albury noted that “at least 60%” of the proposed park was in Monroe County” and that all of the mainland areas in Monroe County were slated to be included in the park. The county currently had “a bonded indebtedness of three and a half million dollars,” and because of the park would be losing most of its taxable lands. Albury stated that the park “will exclude from taxation a great portion of our County,” and will affect the “gas tax distribution,” of Monroe County. Despite Albury's statements, these issues were not the real concern of Monroe County. They knew that almost all the mainland sections of the county would never be developed or yield significant tax income to the county. Rather Albury was using these issues to highlight the county's real concern: the inclusion of Key Largo in the ENP. Albury argued that Key Largo was “one of the most valuable portions” of Monroe County, and that “its inclusion in the Park would be a loss of possible tax revenue in the future.” The people of Monroe County “would not be opposed to the inclusion of mainland areas,” in the park, but would not allow the inclusion Key Largo.346 Many individuals who owned land in the proposed park also spoke at this hearing. All of them were in favor of the park, but also wanted specific lands excluded from the park for economic reasons, and wanted to be well paid for their lands. J. F. Jaudon, who owned a relatively large amount of land in the park, stated that he was “heartily in favor of the Everglades National Park, realizing that it will bring to us thousands of visitors annually.” However, Jaudon

345 Ibid. 346 Minutes of the meeting of the Lands and Boundaries Committee, ENPC, 27 June 1936, (EVER19422), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 180

also wanted a third of his holding excluded from the park, and wanted “some assurance as to how he would get paid for the land.” Other landowners, like George F. Cook, the Treasurer of the Chevelier Corporation, W.W. Colson Jr, a representative of the Paradise Prairie Land Company, and other independent landowners all expressed similar sentiments. They were inf favor of the park and recognized the benefit of selling their land at a fair price to the government, but many had portions of land they wanted excluded from the park for economic reasons.347

Public Relations and Continued Opposition

After this public hearing, Coe and the NPS attempted to convince various parties that the park boundaries would not be detrimental to their economic interests. Coe tried to assuage the concerns of sportsmen and the commercial fishing industry, and tried to make the final boundary report reflect his own vision for the park. Coe also recognized that some of these controversies were due to his own actions. He apologized to the E. B. Moylan of the Dade County IWLA by writing to Moylan and explaining his actions. Coe explained that he was “zealous for the Everglades National Park project, and have given the idea much thought and study.” When Coe said that some of the opposition was behaving selfishly and not acting to create “the greatest good for the greatest number,” “it was in no sense of the term aimed at any one individual, or interests they represent.”348 Coe and the NPS especially, worked hard to eliminate opposition from Monroe County commercial fishermen. In fact, this effort had been on going before the boundary hearing and continued for some time even after the committee released their boundary report. The NPS assured these commercial fishermen that the establishment of the park would not affect commercial fishing in the Florida Bay or any other park area. Although the National Park Service originally planned on eliminating commercial fishing from the park area, in 1935, because of the opposition from Monroe County, the Service decided for political reasons to allow commercial fishing in the Florida Bay, as long as these fishermen complied with state laws and did not overfish the Bay.349 On June 10, 1935, Arno Cammerer wrote to D. Graham Copeland, referencing earlier

347 Ibid. 348 EC to E.B. Moylan, 3 July 1936, (EVER19854a), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 349 Horace Albright to Henry Ward, 24 January 1931, RG79, Box 230, National Archives, College Park, MD. 181

conversations the two had had about fishing and stating that “I cannot see that the establishment of the park can and will affect pleasure or commercial off-coast fishing . . . in any way.” In April of 1936, Charles Jackson, the Acting Director of the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries wrote to Frank Denny informing him that the NPS had assured the Bureau of Fisheries “that there will be no interference with commercial fishing as long as there is no convincing evidence of depletion of food or game fished in coastal waters.” Cammerer again wrote to Copeland stating he saw “no reason why off-coast commercial fishing may not be continued in the future as it has in the past without injury to park values.” Although Cammerer and Coe had made efforts to publicize this position throughout 1935 and 1936, commercial fishermen in Monroe County continued to oppose the inclusion of the Florida Bay, both at the lands and boundaries hearing in June 1936 and for years thereafter.350 These commercial fishermen simply did not believe these government officials. Although Copeland praised Cammerer's attempts to placate these fishermen, stating to Coe that “but for the letters written to me by Mr. Cammerer on the subject of fishing, we should never have been able to reconcile the conflicting interests of various commercial fishing groups,” he also acknowledged that many of these fishing interests “did not appear to believe Mr. Cammerer. Chester Thompson, of the Monroe County Fisherman's Association, wrote to Coe stating that Coe was “somewhat rusty on the scope of national parks,” because “it is prohibitive [sic] for any one to take anything from [a] National Park area for commercial purpose.” According to Thompson, the NPS had “forbidden commercial fishermen entering Fort Jefferson Area, [a national monument] and taking anything for commercial use.” To these fishermen, this ban on commercial fishing at Fort Jefferson National Monument was a omen of things to come in the Florida Bay should the park encompass that area.351 Even though Cammerer wrote back to Thompson, stating unequivocally that “the National Park Service has no intention of imposing regulations relating to commercial and sport fishing within the ENP area,” Thompson and other fishermen continued to oppose Florida Bay's inclusion in the park. Although NPS, ENPA, and ENPC officials had all told these commercial fishermen repeatedly that commercial fishing would still be allowed in the park, they refused to

350 Arno Cammerer to D. Graham Copeland, 10 June 1935, David Sholtz Papers, FSA; Charles Jackson to Frank Denny, 22 April 1936, EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; Arno Cammerer to D. Graham Copeland, 23 April 1936, EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 351 D. Graham Copeland to EC, 12 December 1936, (EVER14699), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP, underline in original; Chester Thompson to EC, 19 April 1937, (EVER20287), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 182

believe these statements and used the ban on fishing at Fort Jefferson as evidence that the NPS was not telling the truth.352 At the urging of Ernest Coe, Cammerer addressed the issue of commercial fishing at Fort Jefferson to finally pacify these fishing interests. In March 1937 Cammerer lifted the ban on commercial fishing at Fort Jefferson National Monument. In a memo announcing the action, Cammerer wrote that in the past, because of “considerable difficulty with fishermen from Key West,” who after being told not to land on Fort Jefferson, “landed on the Keys, captures turtles, took turtles' eggs and birds' eggs, [and] destroyed coral,” commercial fishermen had been banned from entering the National Monument. However, since the NPS had decided that commercial fishing would be allowed in the ENP, Cammerer decided to also allow commercial fishermen access to Fort Jefferson National Monument, “as long as they did not attempt to land on the keys or commit depredations on the shoals,” and stayed within a restricted area within the monument. Cammerer wrote that because “the closing of the restricted area to commercial fishing continues to arouse opposition, and is embarrassing to the Everglades National Park Commission,” this ban would be lifted. This decision was made by the NPS in consultation with these commercial fisherman. According to Cammerer, the decision had been to their satisfaction, and had “clarified certain misunderstandings that have arisen among the citizens of Key West and vicinity.” Because of the actions of Arno Cammerer, Monroe County Commercial fishermen no longer opposed Everglades National Park in any meaningful way.353 Coe attempted to influence the ENPC's boundary report in a variety of ways. The first thing Coe did was to delay holding another Commission meeting to prevent discussion or adoption of the boundary report. At the conclusion of the boundary hearing, held on June 27, 1936, D. Graham Copeland asked Coe if it would be possible to hold an ENPC meeting in late August or early September to discuss and vote on the boundary report. Coe dodged the question, but Copeland persisted, advising Coe “that the committee would like to make its report Saturday, August 29.” Coe was noncommittal to Copeland, but privately refused to hold another meeting. He did not call the next ENPC meeting until December 2, 1936.354 Soon after the boundary hearing in June 1936, John Baker, of the National Audubon

352 Arno Cammerer to Chester Thompson, 28 April 1937, (EVER20290a), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 353 Arno Cammerer Memorandum, 10 March 1937, (EVER20460a), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; Arno Cammerer to EC, 5 May 1937, (EVER20498), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 354 Minutes of the meeting of the Lands and Boundaries Committee, ENPC, 27 June 1936, (EVER19422), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 183

Society wrote to Ernest Coe asking for more information about the details of the meeting, and about the motivations of certain people in attendance. Baker noted that the boundary report would be presented on August 29, and wrote that he would like to receive this information before then. Coe responded that “the Land and Boundaries Committee of the Park Commission will delay their report beyond August 29.” Coe had made the decision, along with fellow Commission member and long-time Association member Thomas Pancoast, not to hold any Commission meeting on park boundaries without the presence of Arno Cammerer. Pancoast wrote to Cammerer informing him of this decision and of the boundary controversies that had been raging within the ENPC. Pancoast wrote that D. Graham Copeland's statements about the park were “very disturbing,” and that Copeland was “most antagonist to the proposed boundaries.” William Porter, according to Pancoast, was also “just about as bitter,” and was also very critical of Coe.355 While Coe and Pancoast vigilantly protected Coe's vision of the park and fought every boundary adjustment proposed by Porter and Copeland, the NPS's views on these issues was much more moderate. Cammerer wrote back to Pancoast stating that he could not attend any meeting till at least December, and reiterated the NPS's long standing position on park boundaries. According to Cammerer, “naturally some adjustment of the boundaries would have to be made here and there.” He suggested that Coe “should get all the suggested eliminations together so they can be considered by the Commission.” The Commission could then make recommendations to Cammerer and the parties could then discuss these boundaries.356 Although it was Coe's desire to delay any meeting until a park service representative could attend, the boundary committee wanted a meeting held as soon as possible and did not want any representatives of the NPS present. Copeland communicated to Pancoast “that a great deal could be accomplished if a meeting of the Commission were called promptly and that no representative of the National Park Service were present.” Copeland wanted the disagreements between Commission members hammered out in private so that the Commission could “have a united front and then proceed with the National Park Service and the Department of the

355 John Baker to EC, 19 August 1936, (EVER20330), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; EC to John Baker, 24 August 1936, (EVER20331), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; Thomas Pancoast to Arno Cammerer, 13 October 1936, (EVER20741), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 356 Arno Cammerer to Thomas Pancoast, 15 October 1936, (EVER20743), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 184

Interior.”357 Coe attempted to influence the contents of boundary report in various ways. In late August, Coe suggested to Copeland that an advisory committee be created to aid the committee with their work. Coe suggested that another committee, composed of “a lawyer familiar with South Florida interests, a lawyer familiar with State interests, an expert land development planner, a realtor, a woman well versed in state interests, and a NPS member” advise the LB committee on their work. Copeland responded that this was unnecessary. He informed Coe that “the active members or our committee are a banker, an executive with thorough knowledge of land in the Everglades Park region, and myself who I believe to have a fair knowledge of the needs of a national park and the feelings of people in this part of Florida who are directly effected by the establishment of the proposed park.” He added that the committee, through its work, had talked extensively with the types of people described by Coe and already had heard their input concerning the park's boundaries.358 Another way that Coe attempted to influence the boundary report was by acquiring it before it was to be voted on or discussed by the Commission. Coe and Pancoast futilely tried to acquire a copy of the report before the December ENPC meeting when the report would be voted on. In October 1936, Pancoast wrote to Hoffman defending his decision to not hold any ENPC meeting until NPS officials could attend and asked “that a copy of your report be sent to me at your earliest convenience.” He explained that he wanted to send the report to all ENPC members and to the various NPS officials who would attend the meeting “so that each can be studying the matter.” However, the committee refused to send their report to Coe or Pancoast. Copeland explained that he would send copies of the report to all ENPC members “several days before the meeting is called,” but that he would not send the report to Coe or Pancoast in advance of that because he thought “it would be used by Mr. Coe in a manner which would be unsatisfactory to the committee.”359 Coe wanted to control the context in which this report was received, and wanted it to be seen as only one of many reports on the park's boundaries. His plan was to distribute the boundary report along with other material relevant to the issue that supported his position on

357 D. Graham Copeland to Thomas Pancoast, 21 October 1936, (EVER20750b), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 358 EC to D. Graham Copeland, 24 August 1936, (EVER19341), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; D. Graham Copeland to EC, 26 August 1936, (EVER14671), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 359 Thomas Pancoast to JW Hoffman, 19 October 1936, (EVER20747), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; D. Graham Copleand to Thomas Pancoast, 21 October 1936, (EVER20750b), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 185

park boundaries. After Copeland refused to send Coe a copy of the report, Coe asked him that the report be sent early to Commission members and NPS officials, and requested that Copeland include some additional materials along with his report. These materials included the Bryant Toll boundary report, a letter from Harold Ickes to the Governor of Florida concerning this issue, several articles about the Turner River and Key Largo, and “other information of a similar nature calculated to give the members of the Commission an opportunity to study broadly the subject on which the Lands and Boundaries Committee is making its report.” Coe added that if he could not do this, that the ENPA would.360 Members of the boundary committee strongly objected to this request and saw it as an attempt to undercut their findings. Copeland stated that “several months were spent in collecting the data on which the Report is based,” and that “public meetings were held and countless pertinent communications were received from interested persons.” The report incorporated all that data and was “as complete and as carefully prepared as we know how to make it.” Copeland objected to the inclusion of other data because he felt the Committee had done its job adequately and that any further information was unnecessary. He also complained that “sources other than the Committee have furnished the members of the Commission a mass of data,” about the park boundaries as well.361 These “sources” were Ernest Coe and this “mass of data” referred to literature concerning the park's boundaries that Coe had sent to ENPC members through the ENPA. Coe used the Association to argue for the inclusion of Key Largo and the Turner River. Through the Association, he tried to influence the inner workings of the Commission. This action angered many Commission members, especially those studying the park's boundaries. After receiving four letters and a pamphlet from Coe, all signed by Coe as the Chairman of the ENPA, Copeland wrote to Coe questioning the ethics of using the Association to influence the internal affairs of the Commission. Copeland complained again about Coe's activities to Thomas Pancoast. He wrote that Coe was “permitting himself, as member of the Commission to attempt to influence others under the nom de plume of Chairman of the [Everglades] National Park Association,” and “that the cause of the Park is being seriously hurt” by Coe's actions as Chairman of the ENPA.362

360 EC to D. Graham Copeland, 10 November 1936, (EVER14685), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 361 D. Graham Copeland to Thomas Pancoast, 19 November 1936, (EVER20773), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 362 D. Graham Copeland to EC, 9 October 1936, (EVER20751), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; D. Graham Copleand to Thomas Pancoast, 21 October 1936, (EVER20750b), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 186

The Lands and Boundaries Report

On December 2, 1936, the ENPC finally met to discuss and vote on the boundary report. Despite the efforts of Coe and Pancoast, no NPS officials were present at this meeting. After a few hours of rancorous debate, they voted to endorse the report and forward a copy to the Governor. Coe's stubbornness and unwillingness to compromise over the park's boundaries not only caused controversy within the Commission, paralyzed it, and prevented it from getting any other meaningful work accomplished, it also hurt the prospects for the ENP's creation. In 1936 Coe had an opportunity to work with some of the Everglades' largest landowners to make the park a reality. During the Great Depression, these landowners were in a vulnerable economic position, and willing to make compromises on issues like park boundaries and land sales. Never again would these landowners look so favorably on the park, and never again would Coe or the NPS have the opportunity to create so large a park so easily. Coe squandered that opportunity, mostly due to his own abrasive personality and unwillingness to compromise on the park's boundaries. After breifly discussing land abstracts, a budget, and the efforts by Congressman Mark Wilcox of Miami to amend the 1934 Federal enabling Act, the ENPC moved to discuss and vote on the boundary report. William Porter began this discussion by stating his opposition to the inclusion of any part of Key Largo in the ENP. According to Porter, Monroe county consisted of about 600,000 acres, 561,000 of which the NPS desired to take into the park. The County was “perfectly willing to give or relinquish the mainland portion of our county,” but Porter questioned “why this boundary should have arbitrarily left the mainland and gone off to including an island (Key Largo) which possesses a greater proportion of tax value to our County than any other island except the island of Key West.”363 Porter also pressed the issue of commercial fishing in the park. Although Arno Cammerer of the NPS had clearly stated that commercial fishing would be allowed in the park, Porter continued to insist that the park would mean the end of Monroe County's commercial fishing industry. In December 1936, when this meeting was held, commercial fishing was still restricted at Fort Jefferson National Monument, and Porter used this as evidence that the NPS

363 ENPC meeting, 2 December 1936, (EVER19387a), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 187

would also restrict fishing in the ENP. According to Porter, “whenever you cede jurisdiction of any territory to the national government and put it under the control of Bureaus, the people are losing their rights.” In the Dry Tortugas, after the establishment of the Fort Jefferson National Monument, “our commercial and sport fishermen, who have been going down there for years and years, were told to get out of there,” and were told “they could catch so many fish a day.”364 Porter also objected to the activities of Ernest Coe and the Everglades National park Association. He proclaimed Coe a “master in the art of dissemination and of spreading propaganda and publicity,” who “has flooded this County with this propaganda.” Copeland also complained that “as a member of the Commission, Mr. Coe, has not seen fit to write one single word to anybody as regards the duties of the Lands and Boundaries Committee, but as a member of the ENPA he has literally flooded this country with literature, doing everything in his power to counteract the duties that this Commission has given this Committee.” Coe had used his position to “repeatedly deluge the people with his idea of what the park boundaries should be.”365 D. Graham Copeland went so far as to call for Coe's resignation in either the ENPA or the ENPC. Copeland thought it “extremely unethical,” that Coe was using his position as head of the Commission to gather material for Association bulletins. Copeland also took issue with the way Coe ran the Commission, stating that “this man is running the Commission as he pleases.” He stated that “I would never send anything here that I would not expect him to broadcast.” Coe meekly defended his publicity activities by stating that “I can only endeavor to give those who are in a position to understand a chance to see the various sides of the question.” After a lengthly discussion the ENPC voted on the report. The entire Commission, other than Coe, Pancoast, Judge John Shares, and Hamilton Holt, all members of the ENPA, voted to accept the report and forward it to the Governor. Although this report was intended to be used in negotiations between the state and the NPS concerning park boundaries, it was never used for this purpose. However, the report and the surrounding controversy reveal Coe's attitudes towards the park's boundaries, and the attitudes of land owners in the Everglades. The boundary report, or as it was officially entitled, “A Report to Everglades National Park Commission by committee on Lands and Boundaries Relative to Boundaries for Proposed Everglades National Park,” was a remarkably practical document that largely embraced the

364 Ibid. 365 Ibid. 188

expansive boundaries desired by Ernest Coe. The report reflected the economic interests of the members of the boundary committee and recommended exclusion of Key Largo, the Turner River and agricultural lands west of Homestead, Fl. However, it also detailed the reasons for these exclusions, and rejected other proposed exclusions from the park. The boundary adjustments desired by the Dade County IWLA were rejected by the committee, as were those of Monroe County fishermen. The report began by describing the various interests that desired changes to the parks boundaries. It then evaluated the arguments for the exclusion of these areas and judged whether or not these exclusions were warranted. These interests included hunters, the fishing industry, agricultural interests, land owners, and “political subdivisions,” by which the committee meant the Monroe County Commission.366 Hunters in south Florida, especially the Dade County chapter of the Izaak Walton League, were according to the committee, “motivated by selfishness almost exclusively.” Their contentions about the park had “little of real merit,” and were “untenable.” The committee was likewise critical of the fishing industry, stating that the industry should be “quieted by the frank, direct, official statements of the National Park Service,” pertaining to commercial fishing in the park area. The committee also had little sympathy for agricultural interests, who they claimed could find “other areas beyond the proposed limits of the Park where soil and climatic conditions, equally favorable to the production of vegetables and produce, may be located and secured on equally favorable terms as those now cultivated.”367 This report also discussed the attitude of landowners towards the park. Although some landowners were hostile or lukewarm towards the park, the committee worked hard in placating many of these landowners and “succeeded in obtaining an attitude of helpful cooperation” from them. Much of this sentiment against the park had been caused by “two erroneous impressions.” The first was that the whole project was nothing but an attempt by large landowners “to unload on the State, at exorbitant prices, their so called 'boom time' purchases.” The second was that “the present day value of the area to be acquired is very small,” and that the land to be acquired was worthless and of no economic value.368 The committee directly blamed Ernest Coe for spreading the idea that park lands were

366 ENPC lands and boundaries report, Spessard Holland (SH) Papers, FSA. 367 Ibid. 368 Ibid. 189

almost worthless and would be acquired cheaply. They also blamed Coe and the ENPA for creating an atmosphere of hostility towards the park. The committee quoted Coe's statements at a Senate hearing from 1930 at length to show that he was responsible for these antagonizing statements. At this hearing, Coe stated repeatedly that “the economic value of the entire area proposed for park inclusion is very small,” and that the land “has little or no commercial value.” Of particular outrage to many landowners was Coe's assertion that “the land needed on an average would cost no more than $1 per acre.” Coe indeed had made statements such as these repeatedly throughout the fight for the park, in an effort to convince Floridians that the park was a feasible project. Most of the park lands had little economic value, but landowners concerned about getting a fair price for their land did not want to hear that their land was worthless. The committee, at least according to their own report, was successful in defusing most of this antagonism and provided almost three pages of quotations from landowners in support of the park.369 In National Parks: the American Experience, Alfred Runte argues that national parks have always been composed of economically worthless lands. Although Runte finds that the Everglades National Park is a wholly new type of park, one that was established to preserve the biology of the area, rather than mountain scenery, the ENP still was composed of worthless lands. Coe made this point repeatedly, arguing that the land in question was worthless for agriculture or any other purpose. This argument had merits, but landowners concerned about the value of their land were hostile to the notion that their land was worthless.370 Next the report discussed “political subdivisions,” specifically, Dade, Collier and Monroe counties, all of which had taxable land within the park's boundaries. Sixteen percent of Collier County, 48 percent of Dade, and a whopping 95 percent of Monroe County would be included in the park boundaries as drawn by the Bryant and Toll. Monroe County supported “the inclusion of all mainland Monroe County in the park,” a position the committee praised as “generous in the extreme,” but wanted Key Largo excluded from the park, a position that the committee unanimously saw as “sound, just and reasonable.”371 The committee also supported some exclusions from the park boundaries. They outlined these in detail and provided justifications for them. In Collier County, the committee excluded

369 Ibid. 370 Alfred Runte, National Parks: The American Experience, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1979. 371 ENPC lands and boundaries report, Spessard Holland (SH) Papers, FSA. 190

45,799 acres from the area surround the Turner River for various economic reasons. Among them were plans to convert the river into a navigable port, the existence of a saw mill, as well as long leaf pine and cypress stands that were providing the mill with lumber, and agricultural activities around the town of Ochopee. They added that these areas were identical in character to several other areas south of the Turner river that were to be included in the park and therefore their exclusion would not affect the park's goals.372 In addition to the exclusion of Key Largo in Monroe County, the committee also excluded less than 15,000 acres in the western section of Dade County. These areas were “some of the most valuable land for the growing of winter vegetables and subtropical fruits in the State of Florida,” including the growing of Key limes, which was “a budding industry and should be encouraged and fostered, rather than discouraged through the creation of a National Park.”373 These three areas excluded from the park coincided with the economic interests of these committee members. These interests supported the park for economic reasons, but also wanted exceptions made for lands they saw as having more value outside the park than in it. The committee was largely dismissive, however, of others' concerns about the park's boundaries. Despite all the sound and fury from within the ENPC, the boundary committee only made small boundary adjustments and kept the park's boundaries very close to those outlined by Roger Toll and Harold Bryant. Although this boundary report was never actually used for any purpose, the lands excluded in this report remained a concern of Coe and other conservationists. No part of Key Largo ever became part of the ENP, despite the fact that for the rest of his life, He urged that it be included in the park. Coe continued writing letters about Key Largo, and even attempted in 1948 after the park's establishment, to privately raise money for the area's purchase so that he could personally donate the land to the NPS. Although he was unsuccessful, part of Key Largo were later preserved as John Pennekamp state park. The area around the Turner River and the agricultural lands west of Miami in Dade County were eventually included in the ENP, alhought they were two of the last areas acquired for the park.

Park Boundaries

372 Ibid. 373 Ibid. 191

To Ernest Coe, the purpose of the park was dependent on its boundaries. Large boundaries were needed to adequately preserve and protect the biota of the Everglades. Additionally, these boundaries needed to be planned by experts to specifically meet the needs of the parks' wildlife, not the economic concerns of landowners. Coe also believed that large park boundaries would enable the park service to develop small areas of the park for the benefit of tourists, leaving the vast majority of the park untouched. Although modern environmentalist may find much to criticize about Ernest Coe, including his early support of an additional road through the Everglades, and his use of tourism as a strategy to build support for the park, his consistent, unwavering, and stubborn support for large park boundaries, even when it was detrimental to the prospects of the park's creation, shows Coe's true concern for the Everglades' biota. Although the boundary adjustments sought by Copeland, Porter and Hoffman were relatively minor, Coe believed that any compromise of these boundaries would harm the goal of the park. He wrote that “any considerable curtailment of this authorized area will seriously jeopardize the purpose for which this Park can stand.” Coe believed that “too limited an acreage and insufficient assortment of physical conditions within” the ENP would hurt the “welfare of the native animal life.”374 Coe's ideas about park boundaries was heavily influenced by George Wright's Fauna of the National Parks, the first study of wildlife in the parks. The main theme of Wright's book is that humans have had enormous negative impacts on park wildlife. The main reason that wildlife in parks was threatened revolved around the boundaries of parks. Parks in 1932 were not, according to George Wright, “independent biological unit(s) with natural boundaries,” but instead were “artificial,” units, with drawn boundaries that “frequently fail to include terrain which is vital to the park animals.” Most of the “problems caused by the failure of parks as biological entities have to do with their geographical aspects, such as size and boundary location.” Most parks failed as biological units because they did not “include all habitats required by park animals.”375 According to Wright, “at present, not one park is large enough to provide year-round sanctuary for adequate populations of all resident species.” The boundaries of most parks were nothing but “a little square . . . chalked across the drift of the game, and the game doesn't stay

374 EC to Harold Ickes, 8 June 1937, (EVER19870), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; EC to SH, 7 September 1940, SH Papers, PK Younge Library, UF. 375 Wright, 19. 192

within the square.” These boundaries were “imaginary and arbitrary,” and animal life was merely “drifting through” the parks. Wright argued that instead of artificial boundaries drawn by political processes that were influenced by economic concerns, parks needed “natural boundaries,” which he defined as “formed principally of natural barriers . . . limiting the range of the wildlife of any particular area.” The boundaries of national parks “must be drafted to meet the needs of their wildlife.” For example, the boundaries of the Grand Canyon were “drawn about the object of interest, the canyon, without regard for the faunal requirements.” Coe was heavily influenced by Wright and believed that the boundaries outlined by Harold Bryant and Roger Toll were natural boundaries based on natural barriers, and that Porter, Hoffman, and Copeland, by eliminating sections from the park were invalidating the park's ability to protect the Everglades' wildlife.376 Coe was especially concerned about the inclusion of the Turner River and Key Largo in the park for a variety of reasons. Coe saw the Turner River as part of the park's natural boundaries, but making the same argument for Key Largo, which was far outside the boundaries of most of the park was impossible. To Coe Key Largo was a unique landscape that possessed flora and fauna not found in other sections of the park. Just off Key Largo lay vulnerable coral reefs that needed protection. Likewise, the Turner River was a vulnerable estuary that contained magnificent hammocks that Coe argued should be preserved within the park and not cut down to provide lumber for a sawmill. Coe also wanted Key Largo and the Turner River included in the park because they both could be developed for the use of tourists. He realized most of the park would be inaccessible to tourists, and that finding recreation areas in the Everglades would be difficult. The fishing villlage of Flamingo was one area that already was subjected to human use and would likely be made a hub for tourists. Key Largo and the Turner River were other areas that fulfilled the same criteria. Most of the ENP was to remain a roadless wilderness that existed solely for the benefit of the Everglades' biology, but, if Coe had his way, the Turner River and Key Largo would be areas of the park that where tourists would find recreation, education and hopefully, enlightenment. In 1931 Coe wrote a detailed report concerning the park's western boundary that emphasized the importance of the Turner River's inclusion in the park. The Turner River

376 Wright, 37, 38, 91. 193

consisted of “distinct and unique national park features” that would be “preserved by the inclusion of the Turner River within the Everglades National Park.” It was “the only river entering the Gulf of Mexico within the maximum area,” and was “a stream of great beauty and pronounced individual character, of a type certain to be of interest to Park tourists, and whose preservation within the Park is of outstanding importance.” The area was also “characteristic in full measure of the merging of the tropical and semi-tropical scenery and associated native plant and animal life.”377 Coe argued that the flora along the Turner River was of high biological value and needed to be preserved in the park. He wrote that the “jungle forest hammock bordering both sides of the Turner River” was “one of the most representative of its type,” and “perhaps the most representative in Florida.” This “great jungle forest” was “the southern limit for many trees common farther north,” and included many tress “typical of the farther south.” Included in this forest were “ash, maple, magnolia, oak and cypress,” as well as “rubber, bay, and numerous other trees” that Coe could not identify. He asserted that “no finer growth can be found of the Sabal palm in a mixed growth than within this hammock.” These palms towered “to great height . . . amid the other forest trees; while others of this palm” were “mere little seedlings . . . growing under the jungle roof.”378 Coe also described the relationships between these plants and trees, noting that many of them were dependent on other species. The palm trees along the river were not only beautiful themselves, but were also “the adopted hosts for several types of ferns.” Coe wrote of the “old oaks in this forests,” that were “liberally covered with the creeping polypodium, that dainty fern with the habit of curling up its leaves into balls during dry times and unfolding quickly in response to even a light shower.” Also present were “several varieties of orchids,” many of which Coe described in detail, as well as other types of air plants and strangler figs.379 Coe saw the Turner River as one of the more important estuarine habitats of the Ten Thousand Islands. The Turner River was part of a “chain of waterways” that included the Chatham-Bend River, and “several lesser sized rivers,” that all connected to “a series of interlocking waterways.” This area encompassed “tortuous channels brimming with scenic

377 EC, “Everglades National Park Project, on proposed western boundary lines,” 1 August 1931, RG79, B233, National Archives, College Park, MD. 378 Ibid. 379 Ibid. 194

interests not exampled in the entire Park area to greater degree.” Coe wrote that “along these waterways, which are their natural feeding grounds, vast numbers of ducks and other water fowl from the further north assemble in the winter, and the great wading birds, permanent residents of South Florida, are abundant throughout the year.”380 If included in the park's boundaries, this unique estuarine landscape and the animals and plants that existed in this area would be preserved. However, Coe also saw the Turner River as having value as a tourist attraction. He argued that the Turner River needed to be included in the park to “provide for well rounded out Park waterway boating experiences for tourists.” He saw the Turner River as a potential western entrance to the park and argued that here could be an “altogether happy highway entrance to the Everglades National Park from the west by the [Tamiami] Trail. Coe repeatedly argued that while most of the park would remain a wilderness, a few areas would be developed to accommodate tourists. The Turner River would be an excellent place for this development, as would Key Largo, both of which were on the edges of the park and slated for commercial development.381 Coe was obsessed with Key Largo's inclusion in the park. After 1937, and even after the park's establishment in 1947, he continued to urge for its inclusion. He even attempted in 1948 to launch a fundraising campaign to buy the lands in Key Largo through the ENPA and deed them to the NPS. While the members of the boundary committee saw the park as a way to divest themselves of worthless real estate and create a tourist attraction out of worthless lands, Coe saw the ENP primarily as a way to preserve the biological diversity of South Florida. According to Coe, the physical characteristics of Key Largo were “quite different than that of the mainland within the park,” and that it was important that a national park, “include as much variety as possible.” Key Largo contained a series of “shallow marine gardens,” whose marine life was “representative of the best of this type found anywhere along the Atlantic Ocean.” These areas of Key Largo were “primitive,” and in their “natural state,” and needed to preserved in that primitive state, before they were harmed by planned commercial development.382 Although Key Largo was not part of the natural boundaries of the Everglades, Coe did connect the inclusion of Key Largo in the park to the fate of the Everglades' wildlife and its flora. Key Largo possessed “a very complete representation of all the trees and other forest growths

380 Ibid. 381 Ibid. 382 EC to Arno Cammerer, 19 June 1936, (EVER20409b), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 195

typical of the Monroe County Keys and many types of growth not found elsewhere in Florida or in (the) continental United States.” Many of these trees were “not only very beautiful,” but were fruit bearing. Coe argued that “upon these forest fruits many of our resident birds and other native animals, and a greater number of migrating birds, depend for food.” By including this section of Key Largo in the park, “there will be preserved for all time not only a generous exhibit of the tropical forest growths,” but also the assurance of “sustenance and protection for the many types of native animals which are also in line for extinction.”383 Coe wanted to use the park to preserve a section of the coral reefs along the eastern coast of the Keys. In these “marine tropical gardens,” as Coe called these reefs, were “the sea-fan and equally lovely fantastic grasses in an infinite variety of forms and colors . . . beds of living corals, anemones and innumerable other forms of marine life, fascinating in their brilliancy of color [. . .] creating a landscape in a world all its own.” Through this underwater landscape, “innumerable fish of an even more than conceivable variety of sizes [. . .] weave their way.”384 In addition to these aesthetic and biological reasons for Key Largo's inclusion in the park, Coe also argued that “the whole Keys region is bound to develop to be one of the recreational centers of the world, and attract vast numbers of tourists to it.” Key Largo, as part of the park, would act as “a gateway for the islands beyond” for countless tourists. Coe wrote that “nothing could be of greater advantage to the economic benefit” of Monroe County than having “the Park lap over on to [Key] Largo and produce a [. . .] recreation empire.” Coe specifically tailored these arguments to appeal to the Monroe County Commission and Key West, the county seat. He argued that Key West “will greatly benefit by the international Park publicity the inclusion of a portion of the Keys within the Everglades National Park will give to all Monroe County.” According to Coe, “the tremendous number of tourists, which the Everglades National Park will bring to the Florida Keys, is in itself an assurance of great prosperity for Monroe County.”385

The Controversy Continues

The ENPC's adoption of the boundary report did not end this controversy. Rather the

383 EC, Special to the Miami Herald, 27 September 1937, RG79, B914, National Archives, College Park, MD. 384 Ibid. 385 EC to Arno Cammerer, 19 June 1936, (EVER20409b), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 196

anger and rancor within the Commission over the report increased after December 1936. On January 11, 1937, the ENPC held another meeting to discuss the boundary report with Arno Cammerer, the Director of the NPS. No new information was reveled at this meeting, but the boundary changes regarding the Turner River and Key Largo and the relationship between the ENPA and the ENPC were discussed again in the presence of Cammerer. As he did previously in his correspondence with Ernest Coe, Cammerer tried to diffuse the controversies over the park's boundaries, stating that only the Secretary of Interior could actually fix the park's boundaries and that some minor adjustments would be necessary. Cammerer was sympathetic to Coe's position and had stated repeatedly that the park service desired those disputed ares, but understood that compromises would need to be made. At this meeting Cammerer was sympathetic to these exclusions and stated that the park could be established with these areas excluded without “impairing” the value of the park. In an attempt to restore harmony to the Commission, Cammerer praised all the members of the ENPC and lauded their accomplishments. He praised Coe's work and the job that the boundary committee had done, and encouraged the Commission to continue to work together honestly and openly.386 However, Cammerer's attempts to quell the fighting within the ENPC failed. Many of the Commission members, especially Copeland and Porter, remained angry at Coe's use of the Association to affect the internal affairs of the Commission. Coe and Pancoast also continued to attempt to influence the reception of the boundary report. Most of this bitterness between these two factions manifested itself in the correspondence between John Shares and D. Graham Copeland. Shares was a Florida booster who owned the Sebring Hotel in Sebring, Florida and was previously connected with the Cross Florida Barge Canal. He was also a founding member of the ENPA and a staunch ally of Ernest Coe. Shares wrote to Copeland to bully him into supporting the larger park boundaries, but succeeded only in contributing the polarization and paralyzation of the ENPC. Shares, like Pancoast and Coe, clung to Coe's original boundaries and fought vociferously against any minute change. Pancoast and Shares accepted Coe's boundaries uncritically and accepted Coe's authority on the matter. Both owned hotels and were swayed by Coe's arguments concerning tourism in Florida. Pancoast and Shares were local boosters and promoted Florida and projects to enhance Florida's reputation and standing. Pancoast had served

386 ENPC meeting minutes, 11 January 1937, (EVER19391b), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 197

as the President of the Miami Beach Chamber of Commerce, and Shares had promoted the Florida Cross-Barge Canal. Although conservationists like Robert Sterling Yard had been critical of Coe, and had derisively called him a local booster, when Coe's position within the ENPC was threatened, local boosters supported Coe. Although Yard may have thought that Coe's rhetoric about tourism meant that he was a puppet for local boosters, in reality, these local boosters served as Coe's defenders and attack dogs on the ENPC and they followed Coe's lead with regards to these boundary adjustments. Coe was not a puppet for these boosters, rather, through his skillful promotion of the park, these boosters served Coe's interests. John Shares's first letter to Copeland, written on February 18, 1937, started a war of words between these two Commission members that continued for months. Shares told Copeland he would expose his selfish actions to the people of Florida and create a groundswell of popular opinion against Copeland. He wrote that “the West Coast of Florida would arouse themselves to such a high pitch were they to learn that it appears to be your chief aim to see to it that the Collier interests, that you admit you personally represent, will go so far as to wreck the project unless the Collier holdings are preserved practically intact.” Shares also threatened to introduce, at the next legislative session, a bill that would prohibit anyone from serving on the Commission who owned land or represented any landowners. He called Copeland and his allies on the Commission selfish and claimed they were acting “against the public welfare.” He labeled the boundary report a “damning brief,” and stated that its only intention was to “protect private holdings from being included in the park area.”387 Shares sent another letter to Copeland further attacking him and his motives. Here he attacked Copeland's background and his education, asserting that Copeland was born into his money and was able to attend the best schools while Shares was a self-made man who had worked hard for his success. He also attacked Copeland's motives, asking him if he was “an unfettered public servant or an official who merely 'hears his master's voice?'” Shares wrote to Coe that “Copeland is shrewd, subtle and dangerous with his sauvity [sic], polish and cunning,” but that Copeland was also “out on a limb,” and that “his position on the Commission is, under any interpretation – untenable.”388 Shares also questioned the motives of the other members of the boundary committee, as

387 Ibid. 388 John Shares to D. Graham Copeland, 15 March 1937, (EVER21118), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; John Shares to D. Graham Copeland, 21 March 1937, (EVER21122), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 198

well as those of May Mann Jennings and Norberg Thompson. According to Shares, the writing of the boundary report was dictated by the economic interests the writers. He wrote that “Commissioner Copeland wants the Collier properties left out,” and therefore the report left those out. Likewise “another commissioner [Porter] . . . wants all of Upper Key Largo excluded because friends of his own it and want to hold it.” J. W. Hoffman, according to Shares, also “wants his lands excluded, although, when asked why, he couldn't remember.” Norberg Thompson, “wants all islands South of the area excluded . . . because he does not want his (and others [sic]) commercial fishing interfered with.” May Mann Jennings also had selfish reasons for voting for the boundary report. Shares wrote that Jennings, “had a few thousand acres” in the park area “and expected a good price for it.”389 Copeland responded to Shares' letters explaining the reasons why these areas were eliminated from the park. He argued that the boundaries desired by Coe would create too much local opposition to the park. Copeland also noted that the boundary committee had done a great deal of work in placating land owners who previously, because of the statements of Ernest Coe, opposed the park for fear that their land would be unfairly taken from them. Copeland wrote that the committee was operating under the belief that “unless local opinion in the Park areas itself were placated to some extent, that the opposition to the establishment of the Park would be so great as to probably result in the abandonment of the park idea.” He noted that large land owners, had “objected most strenuously to the original boundaries and that it was only after much persuasion,” that these owners eventually approved of the park plans.390 Copeland also criticized Coe for his roles in the ENPA and ENPC, and attempted to find out the exact financial relationship between the Commission and the Association, and implied that Coe was improperly using Commission funds for the work of the Association. Copeland wrote to Coe concerning some of the Association's publicity materials that were written by Hester Scott, the Educational Director of the ENPA. According to Copeland, those letters were “written on stationary similar to that used by the Commission,” and asked if it was possible if Scott had used the Commission's files to write these bulletins, and if Scott was using “the secretarial assistance provided by the Commission.”391

389 John Shares to D. Graham Copeland, 15 March 1937, (EVER21118), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP, parenthetical in original. 390 D. Graham Copeland to John Shares, 25 March 1937, (EVER14714), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 391 D. Graham Copeland to EC, 12 December 1936, (EVER14702), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 199

Scott replied to Copeland defending Coe's accounting methods and explaining the exact nature of the financial relationship between the Association and the Commission. Scott wrote to Copeland that “Mr. Coe bends over backward in his effort to keep the expenditures of the Commission entirely free of any possible connection with the activities of the Everglades National Park Association.” According to Scott, the Commission was actually using the funds of the Association and not the other way around.392 In response to these controversies, Coe attempted to regain control over the Commission by lobbying the newly elected Governor, Fred Cone, to make changes to the organizational structure and makeup of the ENPC. In February 1937, Coe asked Governor Cone, who had only been in office about a month, to decrease the number of Commission members from 12 to 7 by eliminating J. W. Hoffman, D. Graham Copeland, May Mann Jennings, Norberg Thompson and William Porter from the Commission. Coe described the real estate holdings of these individuals and their employer and concluded that “they cannot represent those interests and aid the Commission in acquiring the land for the Everglades National Park.” Instead, Coe wanted “members who are unselfish in their motives,” to serve on the Commission and suggested that Cone support an amendment to the act establishing the Commission making land owners ineligible to serve on the Commission. Cone never responded to Coe's request, but soon radically altered the makeup of the ENPC in ways not foreseen by Ernest Coe.393

Governor Cone and the Temporary End of the ENPC

Coe was normally active during Florida's elections, blanketing the state with information on the park, and ensuring that all candidates for state and local offices supported the park. However, during the 1936 election, Coe was neck-deep in the controversies surrounding the boundaries report and did not involve himself in the election at all. Because of this, Coe knew nothing about Fred Cone, the new Governor of Florida elected in 1936, and erroneously assumed that Cone, like Florida's two previous governors, David Carlton and David Sholtz, would support Coe and work for the park's establishment. Coe was sorely mistaken. Governor Cone refused to spend a single cent on the park, and essentially dismantled the ENPC, effectively ending the park

392 Hester Scott to D. Graham Copeland, 15 December 1936, (EVER14703), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 393 EC to Governor Cone, 17 February 1937, (EVER13877b), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 200

project until the end of World War II. Coe, writing to John Shares about a recent trip to Tallahassee during February 1937, talked about his first meeting with the new Governor. He wrote that he found Governor Cone, “extremely affable,” and that “he expressed his keen interest in the Everglades National Park, and his opinion that it was one of the important things before the State of Florida.” The Governor “expressed a desire to know more about it when relieved of some of the stress,” that setting up his new administration presented.394 However, Coe was mistaken about Cone's attitude towards the park. In reality, Cone was opposed to spending any state money on the park at all. Cone was a conservative anti-New Deal Democrat, and as Governor of Florida tried to cut state spending as much as possible. As a consequence of this ideology, he opposed the appropriation of funds for the ENPC, which he saw as a wasteful state commission. John Shares tried to warn Coe about Cone's attitude without success. He wrote that “some of his [Cone's] closest friends in the past are now finding out that much of his 'platform' was, as he himself is reported to have said, only 'useful as campaign material.'”395 Augustus Houghton, a Miami resident and prominent conservationists who served on the conservation committee of the Camp Fire Club of America, and kept careful tabs on the status of the ENP, spoke personally with Cone about the park. According to Houghton, Cone thought that “a million acres” was “too large for a national park.” The Governor would “not ask the people of the State to put up the money,” nor would he “consent to the State transferring its lands to the federal government.” Cone thought the park lands were “not worth anything anyway” and that if the federal government wanted a national park Congress should “make the necessary appropriations, so that the park, being a national park, will be created by money from the entire nation.” Houghton bluntly told Arno Cammerer that “you can expect no help from Governor Cone.” In a later letter to Newton Drury, the Secretary of the Interior, Houghton recalled that Cone had told him “if there was to be a national park in the Everglades it would have to be financed by the northern people who wanted it because he would never tax the people of the State of Florida one cent for its acquisition.”396

394 EC to John Shares, 1 March 1937, (EVER21115), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 395 John Shares to EC, 8 February 1937, (EVER21112), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 396 A.S. Houghton to Arno Cammerer, 25 October 1937, RG79, B911, National Archives, College Park, MD; A.S. Houghton to Newton Drury, 18 March 1947, RG79, B901, National Archives, College Park, MD. 201

Unfortunately, Coe and the ENPC were neither aware nor prepared to confront Cone's attitude towards the park. In late 1936 and early 1937 the Commission focused on the boundary report, but also worked to secure an appropriation for Commission funding through 1940. Although the Commission was badly divided, they all realized that if the park was going to become a reality, they needed to maintain ENPC funding. This appropriation would prove very difficult to obtain amidst a national depression and weak state revenues. There was a great deal of opposition to funding the Commission, which was seen as having accomplished nothing. Legislators and Cone were hostile to appropriating ENPC funds, and Cone himself had stated repeatedly that he would veto any appropriation over 10,000 dollars per year.397 Most of the lobbying work for these funds was handled by May Mann Jennings, who as the former president of the Florida Federation of Women's Clubs, had a tremendous amount of experience dealing with the Florida legislature. Jennings traveled to Tallahassee during May 1937 to lobby the state legislature, and was successful in getting a bill appropriating $87,760 for the ENPC introduced in the Senate and House. In the course of her work in Tallahassee, she spoke to 38 out of 39 Senators individually about the bill, and 50 of the 95 House members. Jennings's work in Tallahassee with the legislature was a huge success. In a letter to Coe, Copeland wrote that “I have never known anyone to work as hard and as faithfully on legislation as Mrs. Jennings has done in this case.” Jennings repeated this sentiment to Thomas Pancoast writing that she had “never worked so hard for anything in my life as I did for that appropriation.”398 Jennings induced others to speak on the bills behalf, including the President of the State of Florida Chamber of Commerce, the Mayor of Miami, and members of the ENPC, ENPA, and Dade County Commission. She also used here connections with the Florida Federation of Women's Clubs and the Federated Garden Clubs of America to influence this legislation. She sent letters via Coe to all the officers of these individual clubs asking them to write in support of the ENPC bill. She especially urged the Commission members to come to Tallahassee and told them that “I will need you at the hearing. However, Jennings wanted Coe to stay out of Tallahassee and wrote to Thomas Pancoast that “it would only make matters worse if Mr. Coe

397 D. Graham Copeland to EC, 24 May 1937, (EVER14722), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; May Mann Jennings to EC, 30 May 1937, (EVER19927), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 398 May Mann Jennings to EC, 17 May 1937, (EVER19413), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; D. Graham Copeland to EC, 31 May 1937, (EVER14728), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; May Mann Jennings to Thomas Pancoast, 6 June 1937, (EVER19938), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 202

got to Tallahassee.” Jennings felt that Coe was a distraction saw him as a lightning rod for criticism and controversy. She instead wanted Thomas Pancoast to talk to the Governor to justify the Commission's expenses. Governor Cone was devoted to cutting the state budget and was upset at various Commission expenditures, including Coe's $4,000 salary and the hiring of stenographers.399 Once this bill was passed by the Florida legislature, Jennings focused on lobbying the Governor. She informed Coe that “I am working all day Sunday on the manner and got some very prominent people here to write the Governor.” D. Graham Copeland also worked on securing this appropriation. He convinced Barron Collier to talk with the Governor, and asked Coe to “contact by telegraph every member of the Commission asking them either personally of through influential connections to bring pressure to bear on the Governor to assure the passage of the act and no veto thereto.” Copeland, who had previously been very critical of Coe's “propaganda,” now hoped that Coe was “bombarding the Governor” with letters and telegrams from influential Floridians. Copeland also had “sent deluges of telegrams to both House and Senate members.”400 Because of Jenning's efforts, Cone agreed to sign the ENPC appropriations bill, which appropriated $87,760 to the Commission over the next two years, but only if every member of the ENPC resigned. Jennings wrote to the Governor on June 6, 1937, informing him that she sent her resignation the day before and that every member of the Commission had been informed of this compromise. Jennings informed the Governor that she did all she could “to comply with your wishes, and I am going to beg that you will reciprocate by signing Senate Bill 707 for the appropriation of $87,760, for the Everglades National Park Commission.”401 Cone wanted to cut state spending during the Depression, but had other reasons for demanding the Commission's resignation. As Dave Nelson argues in “A New Deal for Welfare,” Cone wanted to increase his own power within Florida's executive branch. One of his first

399 May Mann Jennings to the ENPC, 8 May 1937, (EVER19912), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; May Mann Jennings to Ernest Coe, 25, May 1937, (EVER19922), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; Jennings and J. G. Kellum to Club Presidents, State Officers and Chairmen, FFWC., 26 May 1937, (EVER19924), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; May Mann Jennings to Thomas Pancoast, 6 June 1937, (EVER 19938), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 400 May Mann Jennings to EC, 23 May 1937, (EVER19920), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; D. Graham Copeland to May Mann Jennings, 21 May 1937, (EVER14721), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; D. Graham Copeland to EC, 24 May 1937, (EVER14722), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP; D. Graham Copeland to May Mann Jennings, 21 May 1937, (EVER14721), EC Papers, SFCMC, ENP. 401 May Mann Jennings to Governor Cone, 6 June 1937, Governor Cone Papers, FSA. 203

actions after his election was an attempt to gain control of the Florida State Welfare Board, a powerful state agency in charge of many of Florida's relief efforts during the Depression. This board oversaw state and New Deal relief efforts and had an annual budget of over $100,000. Cone was ultimately successful in gaining control over the Board's membership. Just as had Cone had done with the ENPC, the Florida State Welfare Board was forced to resign, and new members, who were personally loyal to Cone and sympathetic to his fiscally-conservative philosophy were appointed in their stead.402 After the entire ENPC had succumbed to Cone's demands and resigned, the Governor asked his close personal friend, G. O. Palmer to take over the project. Cone informed Palmer that he did not want to spend any money on the park, but instead desired to “keep a skeleton organization so that when the federal government gets ready to take over the park, if they ever do, we can just turn it over to them, as the state is going to be hard run for money for the next year, and it is my plan not to spend but little of money appropriated by the last legislature.” Cone's priorities with regards to state spending were clear. Cone was a conservative anti-New Deal Democrat would thought spending during a recession was irresponsible, and did everything within his power as Governor to restrain spending. The ENPC fell under this purview. While the Commission continued to exist after 1937, it had no access to funds, no members others than Palmer and accomplished nothing.403

The Park after 1937

Cone's actions ended the fight for Everglades National Park, but Coe also bears responsibility for the ENPC's failure between 1935 and 1937. His inability to compromise and work with Everglades' landowners destroyed the Commission and left it impotent and divided. Although Coe continued his promotional activities through the ENPA after 1937, and remained involved in park issues, he never again played a central role in the fight for the park. After 1937 Coe was a nuisance to the next generation of those who fought for the park. He stubbornly fought against the compromises made to the park's boundaries, compromises that ultimately made the park's creation possible. After 1937 he alienated and angered many park supporters.

402 Dave Nelson, “A New Deal of Welfare: Governor Fred Cone and the Florida State Welfare Board,” Florida Historical Quarterly, bFall 2005, 185-204. 403 Governor Cone to G.O. Palmer, 28 July 1937, Governor Cone Papers, FSA. 204

Cone's actions prevented any progress with regards to the park, but the next Governor, Spessard Holland, supported the park primarily for economic reasons. However, mobilizing Florida for World War II occupied most of Holland's time. By 1944, as the war, and Holland's term, were both winding down, Holland turned his attention to the ENP. He contacted John Knight, the new owner of the Miami Herald and asked Knight to begin publishing articles and editorials in support of the park. Knight in turn directed the papers' editor, John Pennekamp, to do as Holland suggested. Because of these conversations, Pennekamp became of the park's most important advocates. He published numerous editorials in favor of the park and ensured that the Everglades stayed in the news in Miami. Although Holland did not seriously address the park until 1944, between 1942 and 1944, Holland and the National Park Service met and discussed the park. Coe was present at some of these meetings, but as the years went by Coe stopped receiving invitations, although on occasion he showed up uninvited. Holland and the NPS made a variety of compromises on the park concerning boundaries, mineral rights, and details about the park's creation. Coe was furious with these compromises and continued to advocate for the park's original boundaries. He attacked these compromises and in the process he angered those who were making these compromises and working towards the park's creation. In 1945 Holland became a U.S. Senator and remained active in park issues, often guiding the next Governor, Millard Caldwell, while also pushing for needed legislation at the federal level. He also continued to communicate with the park service about park issues and continued to rely on John Pennekamp for assistance. In 1946, at Pennekamp's urging, Caldwell reactivated the ENPC naming Pennekamp and Miami booster August Burghard the leaders of this new commission. Ernest Coe and other ENPA members were noticeably absent from the new ENPC. In fact the only members on this new ENPC who had served on the Commission under Coe were D. Graham Copeland, Norberg Thompson, T.V. Moore, and May Mann Jennings. Throughout 1946 and 1947 the ENPC conducted publicity campaigns, but the most important action taken by the Commission related to the financial needs of Everglades National Park. In 1947 John Pennekamp went on a hunting trip with important legislators from north Florida to try to convince them to appropriate two million dollars for land acquisition in the park. It was thought that this amount would be enough to purchase all the private land within the park's new boundaries. This trip was a success and these powerful and conservative legislators, part of

205

Florida's 'pork chop gang,' agreed to support the creation of the park and appropriate this money for the purposes of land acquisition. This appropriation, however, did not secure the park's establishment. Land acquisition was destined to be a complicated and time-consuming project, involving negotiations and condemnation proceedings. Therefore in 1947, Holland intervened again to facilitate the park's creation. Along with John Baker of the National Audubon Society, Holland met with J.W. Hoffman of the Model Land Company, the largest private landowner in the park area. Using funds provided by the state of Florida, Holland negotiated the purchase of 134,880 acres of land for $115,000 under the auspices of the ENPC. This land, along with all state-owned lands in the park area were then deeded to the Department of the Interior which then formally created Everglades National Park. Although the park was dedicated by President Harry Truman on December 6, 1947, the park as it existed at that time was only a fraction of its size today. The rest of the two million dollar appropriation was given to the Department of Interior which used that money to begin acquiring the rest of the land within the 1944 boundaries. Negotiations concerning park boundaries between the state and the federal government continued until 1958 when the current park boundaries were largely agreed upon. Land acquisition within these boundaries continued until at least 1970, when Spessard Holland agreed to support yet another federal appropriation for land acquisition within the park. These 1958 boundaries, although substantially larger than the 1944 boundaries, were still much smaller than Coe's original boundaries. However after 1958, others pushed to protect areas Coe wanted included in the park in the early 1930s. In 1963 the section of Key Largo's east coast that Coe obsessed over was preserved as John Pennekamp State Park. Likewise, parts of the area north of the Tamiami Trail and areas south of the Trail in the western section of Florida that were included in Coe's original park boundaries were protected as Big Cypress National Preserve in 1974. Although Coe reluctantly attended the dedication of Everglades National Park, he remained angry at the compromises made concerning park boundaries. He continued to ineffectually fight for the expansion of parks boundaries for the rest of this life, spending every cent he had on this cause. On January 1, 1951 Ernest Coe died angry, alone, and penniless. However, his vision for the park has largely been validated. Not only is most of the area within

206

Coe's boundaries protected, but millions of tourists visit the park a year. They travel down one road in the park and take boat tours out of Flamingo around the Florida Bay and Cape Sable. A hardy few traverse sawgrass prairies on ranger-led 'slew sloughs,' but most of the park is a wilderness that serves to protect a fragile ecosystem and the biota of that system.

207

CONCLUSION

The fight for Everglades National Park occupies a central place in the development of American environmentalism. This fight occurred mostly in the 1930s, a period where the concerns and underlying ideology of environmentalism first emerged. The science of ecology and a concern for wilderness were major parts of this ideology. Conservationists, previously concerned with resources and scenery, were now focused on the preservation of biota. They believed that flora and fauna not only had a practical or aesthetic value to humans, but that these life forms had an inherent value. Many conservationists also reconsidered the quality of tourism in natural areas and embraced the idea of wilderness. To these activists wilderness was needed as an antidote to society, which due to automobiles and roads, was encroaching further into natural areas. The park's creation reflected these new concerns. Everglades National Park was the strongest manifestation of the idea that non-human nature had value outside of the human perceptions or potential uses of that nature. The biota of the park had inherent value, and needed to be protected not for any human reason, but needed to exist simply for its own sake. Park advocates also proposed a new concept of wilderness, an idea that John C. Miles called an ecological concept of wilderness. The wilderness of the park would exist not for humans, but to better protect the sensitive biota of the Everglades. Underlying both these issues is the wetland nature of the Everglades. In the 1930s negative ideas about wetlands were slowly coming under reconsideration, but many still saw these landscapes as useless and dangerous wastelands. This fact served as an obstacle to park advocates, and the extent to which they overcame that obstacle illustrates the strength of the ecological arguments park advocates used in their fight for the park.404 The narrative of the parks' creation is situated within broader narratives about nature in the 1930s. The emergence of ecology in this decade changed the way American's perceived nature. These altered perceptions in turn changed the ways humans interacted with nature. The 1930s was a sort of environmental moment, where the concerns and ideology of modern environmentalism first emerged. These ideas were later submerged in the liberal consensus of

404 John C. Miles, Wilderness in the National Parks: Playground or Preserve, University of Washington Press, 2009. 208

later decades, only to reemerge stronger in the late 1960s. The 1930s marked the transitions from Progressive Era conservation to modern environmentalism. The emergence of ecology played a large role this transition. The 1930s was also a transitional period for the National Park Service. During this decade the park service slowly began to consider ecological methods of park management and reconsidered their emphasis on tourism. The NPS also began discussing wilderness during this period and discussed zoning parks to better protect wilderness areas. Science played a central role in these developments, and Everglades National Park was at the forefront of these new trends within the service. The fight for Everglades National Park in the 1930s was at the forefront of these new ideas. Coe's arguments about the need to protect the Everglades' biota were strong endorsements of the idea that non-human life had value outside of the human perceptions of that life. This ecological rationale for the park's creation focused on the inherent value of the Everglades' biota. The Everglades' wilderness also had an ecological rationale. This wilderness would exist to protect the flora and fauna of the Everglades, not to provide humans with recreational opportunities. The park was also at the forefront of these movements within the National Park Service. Everglades National Park was an entirely new type of national park. It would exist for ecological reasons and would mostly be wilderness. It would also be managed by scientists and was at the forefront of debates over zoning wilderness in parks. This park was the first that was not created to preserve a geological formation. This park played no explicit role in creating American identity and, despite Coe's statements about tourism, would not exist as a tourist attraction. This study also seeks to place Ernest Coe within his proper historical context, and to bring more historical attention to this heretofore mostly forgotten figure. Coe is important for multiple reasons. Before 1928 when he started the fight for the park, Coe was anonymous and unimportant. He was not a famous landscape architect or a notable conservationists, and was not a scientist or intellectual. Before his relocation to Miami, Coe was very much a man of the Progressive Era and as a landscape architect saw nature as something that humans could efficiently control. However as he involved himself in the fight for the park, and became exposed to new ideas, new scientific studies, and the Everglades itself, his attitudes towards nature changed. Coe never had more than a vague understanding of the underlying tenets of ecology, and some of his ideas about nature were confused, yet Coe embraced the idea that the

209

Everglades' biota needed to be preserved for its own sake. Coe's confused environmentalism and his ambiguity are what make him important. Coe's thinking reflects the transitional quality of environmentalism in the 1930s, and illustrates how one person's attitudes about nature were affected by developments in this decade. Coe's use of tourism to push for the park is also important for what it says about the character of environmental activism. Although Coe's first concern was that the Everglades' biota be preserved, he was willing to discuss tourism and development in the park to build popular support the park. There is an element of dishonesty in Coe's use of tourism. Although he was enthusiastic about the prospects of limited tourism in the park, Coe certainly knew that the amount of tourism he talked about would never exist in the park. Although some conservationists, Robert Sterling Yard especially, thought Coe was being used by Florida boosters, as Coe's actions on the ENPC suggest, Coe was actually using these boosters. In some ways Coe pulled the wool over these booster's eyes. He used economic arguments to induce Florida's business community to support the first ecological national park in the United States Coe is also important for what he illustrates about the tactics of environmental activists. Coe had a bristly personality, and his obsession with the park frequently irked many of his allies and infuriated his enemies. Coe's abrasiveness and stubbornness effectively alienated almost everyone involved in the park by 1937. However, between 1928 and 1937 Coe had enormous success pushing for the park. He convinced the NPS to support the park's creation, he successfully pursued needed federal and state legislation, and he convinced many about the nature of the Everglades. He effectively displaced older conceptions about the area as a swamp using ecological arguments about the Glades' biota. Coe effectively laid the practical, legal, and intellectual groundwork for the park's creation. Although he was never an effective advocate for the park after 1937, Coe was still one of the people most responsible for the park's creation in 1947. Coe's obsession with the park, his stubbornness, and his tendency to infuriate everyone around him certainly contributed to the park's failure in 1937, but these same qualities were part of why it succeeded until that point. The very qualities that made Coe a failure, were also what made him successful. Sometimes movements need an infuriating, obnoxious, and obsessed person relentlessly pushing towards a goal. Coe's relentlessness and his enthusiasm may have irked many by 1937, but in 1928 those qualities enabled Coe to make enormous progress towards the park's creation.

210

Coe's perceptions of the Everglades are also important. Coe described the Everglades in the same way as did naturalists like John Kunkell Small and David Fairchild and ecologists like George Wright and Daniel Beard. Coe emphasized the multiplicity of landscapes in the Everglades and the diversity of the area's flora and fauna. To build support for the park, Coe first had to overturn older ideas about the Everglades as a murky, dank, and dangerous swamp. Coe was successful in pushing this ecologically informed perception of the Everglades into the public sphere, however, Coe's perception of the Everglades were displaced by 1947 when the Everglades became universally known as a river of grass. Marjory Stoneman Douglas crafted this metaphor to illustrate how important the flow of water was to the health of the Everglades' ecosystem. Although she never intended for this phrase to be applied to the entire Everglades, many Americans do in fact see the Everglades a river of grass, or as as system that is comprised solely of sawgrass prairies. David McCally argues that “the dominance of this metaphor is unfortunate and hinders restoration of the complex wetlands system it so imperfectly describes.” This metaphor unintentionally creates an incorrect and oversimplified idea of what the historic Everglades and the Everglades today are. Restoration efforts focused on restoring the river of grass ignore the multiplicity of ecosystems in the Everglades and misstate the nature of the Everglades. McCally argues that “those who are interested in truly restoring the wetlands of south Florida would be better served if they discarded the river-of-grass metaphor,” and embraced a portrayal of the Everglades that focuses on the multiplicity and diversity of the Everglades' landscapes and biota. Although McCally does not discuss the creation of Everglades National Park, or Ernest Coe, Coe's perceptions of the Everglades are the very perceptions McCally is asking Everglades activists to embrace. Although we certainly needed the river of grass to communicate the centrality of flowing water in the Everglades, we also need to understand the complexity and diversity of these ecosystems. Coe's version the Everglades was needed in the 1930s to overturn older perceptions of the Everglades and these perceptions need to be reembraced to facilitate the restoration of the Everglades today.405

National parks are important for many reasons. They play a role in the creation of American identity, they represent nature to many Americans, and they inspire the millions of

405 David McCally, The Everglades: An Environmental History, University Press of Florida, 1999, 180. 211

tourists who visit them every year. The national parks also preserve the nature in parks, but can also be used to protect areas outside of the parks. Although parks only explicitly protect the areas within their borders, the parks as legal entities are a tool that environmentalists can use to protect the areas adjacent to parks. National parks and their artificial boundaries are a legal fiction, but a useful legal fiction that can be used to fight for the broader protection of ecosystems. This is especially true for Everglades National Park, which is arguably the most vulnerable of all the parks, and the one most dependent on areas outside the park. The health of the park's ecosystems is entirely dependent on the flow of water south from Lake Okeechobee. Unfortunately, the park only protects the southern-most section of the Kissimmee-Lake Okeechobee-Everglades watershed, a complex wetland ecosystem that is dependent on a slow sheet-like flow of water. That water has been completely manipulated by human activity, and subject to a century of drainage, flood control, and agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial development. Today the historic flow of water south into Everglades National Park is wholly controlled by human artifice. A complex system of locks, dikes, dams, levees, and canals managed by the Army Corp of Engineers controls this water. This water flows in accordance to the desires of agricultural corporation and the suburban residents of South Florida, and most of it drains to the Atlantic Ocean, where previously it would slowly flow south through the Everglades and into the Florida Bay. Within this system the water needs of the park are a tertiary concern, however, the park's legal status and the federal government's responsibility to protect the park, has often been used to force the Army Corp of Engineers and the state of Florida to deliver more water to Everglades National Park. The existence of the park has also been used to fight development in other parts of the Everglades. In the 1970s activists successfully fought against the construction of a jetport adjacent to Everglades National Park. They argued that the jetport would hurt water and air quality in the park and further impede the flow of water to the park. The environmental impact study of the jetport advised against the development, concluding that the jetport would “inexorably destroy the south Florida ecosystem and thus the Everglades National Park.” Activists fighting against the jetport discussed the harm development would do the to park, not necessarily the damage that would be done to larger Everglades ecosystem.406

406 Environmental Impact of the Big Cypress Swamp Jetport, The Department of Interior, 1969, 1. 212

The park's existence and its legal status has made fighting for water in the Everglades an easier process. When activists argue for the water rights of the Everglades, they do so with regards to water in the park. Negotiations over the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) emphasized the water needs of the park, not necessarily the water needs of the larger Everglades watershed. Park officials were part of the negotiations over CERP and played a role in shaping this legislation. CERP aside, legal mechanics have been in place since the 1980s mandating water levels in the park. The establishment of the park did not save the Everglades, but did give later environmentalists a legal basis for their activism. The boundaries of the park, although easily criticized as arbitrary and too small to protect the entire Everglades watershed, are a tool that can be used to protect the entire Everglades.

The fact that this park is a wetland is also central to its identity and importance. Wetlands have largely been ignored or denigrated by the general public, but have influenced the thinking of many environmentalists and effectively highlight ecological relationships. Wetlands are biologically rich and this richness makes these relationships easier to perceive and understand. Wetlands like the Everglades also challenged prevailing notions about nature, wilderness, the purposes of parks, as well as ideas about the relationships between organisms. The fight for the ENP illustrates how wetlands affected the thinking of environmentalists. Individuals such as Robert Sterling Yard, George Wright, David Fairchild and of course Ernest Coe and Daniel Beard, were all influenced by the Everglades. Some, like Yard and Fairchild, reconsidered their older ideas about the natural world when confronted with the Everglades' nature. Once Yard reconsidered the value and identity of the Everglades, his ideas about wilderness and the purpose of national parks also came under reconsideration. Fairchild, who had previously been responsible for the introduction of thousands of invasive species into the United States, saw the negative effects that these actions had in the Everglades and reconsidered the appropriateness of these actions. The thinking of others, like Coe and Daniel Beard, were formed through their experiences with the Glades. Wetlands have played a important role in the thinking of several American environmentalists. Rachel Carson, who popularized ecological thinking, was very influenced by her observations of wetlands. Her first book, The Edge of the Sea, focused on coastal estuaries and the biota and landscape of these wetlands. Her understanding of the ecology of wetlands

213

also informed Silent Spring. Aldo Leopold was also influenced by his observations of wetlands. Wetlands were an important part of Leopold's Wisconsin property where he wrote A Sand County Almanac. Despite this wetlands are still largely ignored or looked down upon as inferior landscapes. American perceptions of nature have almost always been created in the context of forests and mountains. When Americans think of national parks, wilderness, or nature, wetlands are likely the last landscape that comes to mind. Ideas about nature in America have always been constructed within the context of forests and mountains to the exclusion of wetlands and other traditionally negatively perceived landscapes. However wetlands have enormous ecological and economic importance, although they perhaps lack the scenic value and accessibility of forest and mountain landscapes. Part of the reason humans see so little worth in wetlands is that wetlands are difficult to domesticate. Even managed wetlands like the Everglades, or the constructed or heavily altered urban and suburban wetlands in the U.S., remain wild places, still inaccessible and full of mystery and intrigue. These wetlands, even when they are man-made and heavily altered still team with life and remain difficult to travel in or through. Even when bisected or surrounded with roads still retain a wild quality about them. Quite simply, wetlands are wet. Even when economic activity, like fishing, is closely connected to wetlands, these areas remain wild places that are difficult to access. These landscapes are not easily domesticated, and for this reason, humans have trouble recognizing their importance and appreciating them as nature.

The creation of Everglades National Park played an important role in the preservation of wilderness in America. The federal authorization of the park in 1934 was the first time the federal government explicitly protected an area as a wilderness. This wilderness had a different purpose than other proposed wildernesses. The Everglades would remain a wilderness to better protect the park's biota, not to provide humans with a purer experience in nature. This wilderness was an ecological wilderness that would exist for a non-human reason. This wilderness was also a de facto wilderness. It was a wilderness in 1934 and although the park was explicitly authorized as a wilderness, Everglades advocates argued this wilderness would remain a wilderness regardless of this proviso. The wilderness of the park is not a reclaimed or restored wilderness. In many national parks and forests, the removal of roads,

214

structure and trails from natural areas to create wilderness areas has often meant that these restored wildernesses are artificial constructs. Although many historians discuss the ways wilderness in a social construct, the wilderness areas we know are sometimes actually constructed as well. The Everglades' wilderness however was not a restored or reclaimed wilderness. This wilderness is conceptually larger than any formal classification or system of zoning applied to it. Daniel Beard made this observation in 1938 when writing Wildlife Reconnaissance. Beard addressed how wilderness was defined and how these definitions were wholly irrelevant in the Everglades. He wrote that wilderness composed “of definite definitions and such and such a distance from a railroad or highway,” were not applicable in the Everglades. According to Beard “the so-many-acres-makes-a wilderness angle means little in southern Florida.”407 Wilderness is a place that is free of human civilization, but laden with human ideas. Wilderness was always socially constructed throughout U.S. history either as a wasteland where Satan lay in wait, or, as it became scarce, as a sublime environment where one could commune with the divine and escape society. In the twentieth century wilderness were perceived as places devoid of humans, but also as places that fulfilled the highest ideas and values about nature. Wilderness was seen as the purest form of the natural world, but also as a place free from humans, something historian William Cronon argues is problematic. Cronon's problem with wilderness is that wilderness as something that is devoid of all human presence acts to place humans outside of wilderness, and hence outside of nature. The wilderness of the Everglades is in some ways the most non-anthropocentric of all wildernesses in America, and at the same time the one most dependent on humans. Most wilderness were created or preserved as places humans could go to escape civilization and commune with nature. However, the wilderness of the Everglades was a place kept free from roads and other human constructs to facilitate the preservation and protection of the Everglades' fauna. This non-human purpose for wilderness makes Cronon's observations about wilderness even more of a problem. Although Cronon is talking about the social construction of wilderness, wildernesses are actually constructed as well. Wilderness in the United States is protected, zoned, and preserved by humans. Although we socially construct these places as devoid of humans, we are responsible for their actual construction. The problem of seeing wilderness, and by extension,

407 Daniel Beard, Wildlife Reconnaissance, 101. 215

nature, as a concept apart from the human experience is contradicted when the actual construction of wilderness is considered. The purpose of the Everglades' wilderness is non- anthropocentric, but the ecosystems in this wilderness are entirely dependent on human activity. The Everglades and its vast wildernesses are dependent on an artificial system of water control. All of the park, whether wilderness or not, and the Everglades north of the park, is maintained by a complicated system of human engineering. The water that is so vital to the existence, identity, and health of the Everglades is controlled by canals, locks, dikes, and levees, all constructed and maintained by humans. This is the contradictions of the Everglades' wilderness. This wilderness is maintained by humans for non-human reasons. The most non-anthropocentric wilderness in the United States is also the wilderness most dependent on human interference with nature.

This story about the park, and the broader story of the protection and restoration of the Everglades is an important story for environmental historians and the broader public. In an age when most narratives about the environment are ones of destruction, it is a comfort to know that Americans can protect and restore as well as exploit and destroy. The Everglades still faces multiple threats, and the park obviously only protects a small portion of the historic Everglades, yet the creation of this park, and the more recent restoration efforts in the Everglades are an important story. In an age of climate change, declining fish stocks, oil spills and offshore drilling, the destruction of rainforests throughout the world, the acidification of the oceans, and countless other environment disasters and problems, it is a comfort to know that at least in one small section of the world, humans are working to restore and protect the environment.

216

APPENDIX: IMAGES

Figure 1: Ernest Coe's map of development in Everglades National Park used in 1930 and 1931, Ernest Coe, 1 March, 1930, RG 79 B 229, National Archives, College Park, MD.

217

Figure 2: Map Key for Figure 1, Ernest Coe, 1 March, 1930, RG 79 B 229, National Archives, College Park, MD.

218

Figure 3: Daniel Beard, Miami Herald, 6 April 1947.

219

Figure 4: National Park Service officials on their 1930 trip into the Everglades. From left to right the individuals are: T. Gilbert Pearson, J.B. Semple, Arno Cammerer, C.H. Reeder, Ruth Bryan Owen, David Fairchild, Horace Albright, Ernest Coe, Roger Toll, Herman Bumpus, Harlan P, Kelsey. Reclaiming the Everglades website, online photograph collection.

220

Figure 5: Dade County Izaak Walton League's Map, RG 79 B918, National Archives, College Park, MD.

221

Figure 6: Ernest Coe on Cape Sable, 1929, photograph by Claude Matlack. Reclaiming the Everglades online photograph collection.

222

Figure 7: Ernest Coe, Historical Museum of Southern Florida

223

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources:

Documents

Fairchild Tropical Garden Archives, Fairchild Tropical Garden Archives, Miami, Florida

David Fairchild Papers

Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida

Papers of Florida Governors (1929-1949)

Doyle Carlton, 1929-1933

Dave Sholtz, 1933-1937

Fred Cone, 1937-1941

Spessard Holland, 1941-1945

Millard Caldwell, 1945-1949

Historical Museum of Southern Florida, Miami, Florida

Oliver Griswold Papers

James Jaudon Papers

Charlton Tebeau Papers

Kampong Research Archives, The Kampong, Coral Gables, Florida

Kampong Historical Research Files

National Archives, College Park, Maryland

RG79 Records of the National Park Service

Boxes 229-234, 900-924

P.K. Younge Library, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida

Spessard Holland Papers

224

May Mann Jennings Papers

John D. Pennekamp Papers

J. Hardin Peterson Papers

George Smathers Papers

Reclaiming the Everglades Website

Richter Library, Special Collections, University of Miami, Miami, Florida

Mary McDougal Axelson Papers

Marjory Stoneman Douglas Papers

August Seymour Houghton Papers

Model Land Company Records

Minnie Moore-Willson Papers

University of Miami Presidential Archives

South Florida Collections Management Center, Everglades National Park, Florida

Ernest Coe Papers

Superintendent Monthly Reports, 1947-1967

Government Documents

Beard, Daniel. Wildlife Reconnaissance: Everglades National Park Project. NPS, Dept of Interior, 1938.

Paige, John C. Historic Resource Study for Everglades National Park. NPS, Dept of Interior, 1986.

Books

Bailey, Harold. The Birds of Florida. Maryland: William and Wilkins, 1925.

Barbour, Thomas. That Vanishing Eden, a Naturalist's Florida. Boston: Little, Brown, 1944.

Brown, Lauren G. “Totch.” Totch: A Life in the Everglades. Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1993.

225

Davis, Jack, ed. The Wide Brim: Early Poems and Pondering of Marjory Stoneman Douglas. Gainesville: University of Florida, 2002.

Dimock, A.W. Dick in the Everglades. New York: Fredrick A. Stokes Company, 1909.

Douglas, Marjory Stoneman, Edited by Kevin M. McCarthy. Nine Florida Stories. Jacksonville: University of North Florida Press, 1990.

Douglas, Marjory Stoneman. The Everglades: River of Grass. New York: Rineheart: 1947.

Douglas, Marjory Stoneman and Rothchild, John. Voice of the River: An Autobiography. Englewood, Fl.: Pineapple Press, 1987.

Gifford, John. The Everglades and Other Essays Relating to Southern Florida. Kansas City, MO.: Everglade Land Sales Company, 1911.

Munroe, Kirk. Canoemates: A Story of the Florida Reef and the Everglades. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1893.

Ober, F.A. The Knockabout Club in the Everglades: The Adventures of the Club in Exploring the Everglades. Boston: Estess and Lauriat, 1887.

Rathbone, St. George. The Boy Cruisers, or, Paddling in Florida. New York, A.L. Burt, 1893.

Small, John Kunkell. From Eden to Sahara: Florida's Tragedy. Lancaster, Pa.: Science Press Printing Agency, 1929.

Simmons, Glen and Ogden, Laura. Gladesmen: Gator Hunters, Moonshiners and Skiffmen. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1998.

Simpson, Charles Torrey. In Lower Florida Wilds: A Naturalist's Observations on the Life, Physical Geography and Geology of the More Tropical Part of the State. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1920.

Spalding, Henry S. Held in the Everglades. New York: Benzinger Brothers, 1919.

Stuart, Hix C. The Notorious Ashley Gang: A Saga of the King and Queen of the Everglades. Stuart, Fl.: St. Lucie Printing, 1928.

Whittaker, Fred. Alligator Ike, or, The Secret of the Everglades: A Tale of the Outlaws of the Okeechobee. New York: Beadle and Adams, 1883.

Willoughby, Hugh L. Across the Everglades: A Canoe Journey of Exploration. Philadelphia: J.P. Lippincott, 1900.

226

Magazines and Newspapers

American Heritage

Audubon Magazine

Bird-Lore

Forest And Stream

Journal of the New York Botanical Garden

The Miami Herald

The Miami Daily News

Landscape Architecture

National Parks Magazine

Nature Magazine

The New York Times

The Saturday Evening Post

Science

Scientific Monthly

Tequesta

Government Documents

The Congressional Record

Secondary Sources:

Books

Adams, Jonathan S. The Future of the Wild: Radical Conservation for a Crowded World. Boston: Beacon Press, 2006.

Allin, Craig W. The Politics of Wilderness Preservation. Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1982.

227

Barnes, Jay. Florida's Hurricane History. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998.

Beeman, Randal S. and Pritchard, James A. A Green and Permanent Land: Ecology and Agriculture in the Twentieth Century. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 2001.

Blake, Nelson. Land Into Water/Water Into Land: A History of Water Management in Florida. Tallahassee: University Presses of Florida: 1980.

Bramwell, Anna. Ecology in the Twentieth Century: A History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.

Brookfield, Charles M., and Griswold, Oliver. They Called It Tropical: True Tales of the Romantic Everglades, Cape Sable and the Florida Keys, Miami: Data Press, 1949.

Bocking, Stephen. Ecologists and Environmental Politics: A History of Contemporary Ecology. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997.

Brown, Margaret. The Wild East: A Biography of the Great Smoky Mountains. University Press of Florida, 2001.

Burnham, Philip. Indian Country, God’s Country: Native American and the National Parks. Washington D.C.: Island Press, 2000.

Burton, Lloyd. Worship and Wilderness: Culture, Religion and Law in the Management of Public Lands and Resources. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2002.

Caitan, Theodore Inhabited Wilderness: Indian Eskimos and National Parks in Alaska. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1997.

Carr, Archie. The Everglades. New York: Time-Life Books, 1973.

Cerlean, Susan, ed. The Book of the Everglades. Minneapolis: Milkweed Editions, 2002.

Cohen, Micheal. The Pathless Way: John Muir and American Wilderness. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1984.

Cronon, William. Nature's Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West. New York: WW Norton & Company, 1991.

Cronon, William. Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature. New York: WW Norton & Company, 1995.

Cutler, Phoebe. The Public Landscape of the New Deal. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1985.

228

Davis, Jack. An Everglades Providence: Marjory Stoneman Douglas and the Environmental Century. Athens, GA.: University of Georgia Press, 2009.

Davis, Jack and Arensault, Raymond, eds. Paradise Lost?: The Environmental History of Florida. Gainesville: University Press of Florida: 2005.

Davis, Steven M. and Ogden John C. Everglades: the Ecosystem and its Restoration. Delray Beach, Fl.: St. Lucie Press, 1994.

Derr, Mark. Some Kind of Paradise: A Chronicle of Man and the Land in Florida. Florida: University Press of Florida, 1998.

DeWitt, John. Civic Environmentalism: Alternative to Regulation in State and Communities. Washington D.C.: CQ Press, 1994.

Dowie, Mark. Losing Ground: American Environmentalism at the Close of the Twentieth Century. Cambridge, The MIT Press, 1995.

Drye, Willie, Storm of the Century: The Labor Day Hurricane of 1935. Washington D.C.: National Geographic Society, 2002.

Ekirch, Arthur. Man and Nature in America. New York, Columbia University Press, 1963.

Everheart, William. The National Park Service. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1983.

Fladler, Susan L. Thinking Like a Mountain: Aldo Leopold and the Evolution of an Ecological Attitude Toward Deer, Wolves, and Forests. University of Missouri Press, 1974.

Foresta, Ronald. America's National Parks and Their Keepers. Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future, 1984.

Gannon, Micheal, editor. The New History of Florida. University Press of Florida, 1996.

Graham, Frank, Jr. Man’s Dominion: The Story of Conservation in America. New York: M. Evans and Company, Inc., 1971.

Gottleib, Robert. Forcing the Spring: The Transformation of the American Environmental Movement. Washington D.C.: Island Press, 1993.

Grunwald, Michael. The Swamp: The Everglades, Florida and the Politics of Paradise. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbooks, 2006.

Grusin, Richard. Culture, Technology and the Creation of America’s National Parks. Cambridge University Press, 2004.

229

Hampton, H. Duane. How the US Cavalry Saved Our National Parks. Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1971.

Hanna, Alfred Jackson and Hanna, Kathryn Abbey. Lake Okeechobee: Wellspring of the Everglades. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1948.

Harvey, Mark W. T. A Symbol of Wilderness: Echo Park and the American Conservation Movement: Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1994.

Hays, Samuel P. Beauty, Health, and Permanence: Environmental Politics in the United States, 1955-1985. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

Hays, Samuel P. A History of Environmental Politics Since 1945. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press, 2000.

Hays, Samuel P. Wars in the Woods: The Rise of Ecological Forestry in America. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press, 2007.

Hays, Samuel P. Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959.

Hollis, Tim. Dixie Before Disney: 100 Years of Roadside Fun. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1999.

Ise, John. Our National Park Policy: A Critical History. Baltimore: John Hopkins University, 1961.

Jacoby, Karl. Crimes Against Nature: Squatters, Poaches, Thieves and the Hidden History of American Conservation. Berkley: University of California Press, 2001.

Jackson, Faith. Pioneer of Tropical Landscape Architecture: William Lyman Phillips in Florida. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1997.

John, DeWitt. Civic Environmentalism: Alternatives to Regulation in States in Communities. Aspen Institute and National Academy of Public Administration, 1994.

Johnson, Lamar. Beyond the Fourth Generation. Gainesville, University Presses of Florida, 1974.

Kaufman, Polly Welts. National Parks and the Woman’s Voice: A History. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2006.

Keller, Robert H., and Turek, Michael F. American Indians and National Parks. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1998.

Kersey, Henry Jr. The Florida Seminoles and the New Deal, 1933-1942. Boca Raton: Florida

230

Atlantic University Press, 1989.

Kirby, Jack Temple. Mockingbird Song: Ecological Landscapes of the South. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2006.

Knowles, Thomas. Category 5: The 1935 Labor Day Hurricane. Florida: University Presses of Florida, 2009.

Maher, Neil. Nature's New Deal: The Civilian Conservation Corps and the Roots of the American Environmental Movement. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

McCally, David. The Everglades: An Environmental History. Florida: University Press of Florida, 1999.

McIver, Stuart B. Death in the Everglades: The Murder of Guy Bradley, America’s First Martyr to Environmentalism. Florida: University Press of Florida, 2003.

Miles, John C. Guardians of the Parks: A History of the National Parks and Conservation Association. Washington D.C.: Taylor & Francis, 1995.

Miles, John C. Wilderness in the National Parks: Preserve or Playground. University of Washington Press, 2009.

Miller, Char. Gifford Pinchot and the Making of Modern Environmentalism. Washington: Island Press, 2001.

Mormino, Gary. Land of Sunshine, State of Dreams: A Social History of Modern Florida. University Press of Florida, 2008.

Mykle, Robert. Killer 'Cane: The Deadly Hurricane of 1928. New York: Cooper Square Press, 2002.

Nash, Roderick. Wilderness and the American Mind. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967.

Nolan, David. Fifty Feet in Paradise: The Booming of Florida. San Diego: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1984.

Owen, A.L. Riesch. Conservation Under F.D.R. Praeger Publishers, 1983.

Penick, James Jr. Progressive Politics and Conservation: The Ballinger-Pinchot Affair. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968.

Phillips, Sarah. This Land, This Nation: Conservation, Rural American and the New Deal. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Reiger, John. American Sportsmen and the Origins of Conservation. New York: Winchester

231

Press, 1975.

Riesch, Owen, Conservation Under FDR. New York: Praeger, 1983.

Righter, Robert. The Battle over Hetch Hetchy: America's Most Controversial Dam and the Birth of Modern Environmentalism. New York, Oxford University Press, 2005.

Righter, Robert, Crucible of Conservation: The Creation of Grand Teton National Park. Boulder, Colorado Associated University Press, 1982.

Robertson, William B. Jr. Everglades: The Park Story. Coral Gables, Florida: University of Miami Press, 1959.

Rothman, Hal. The Greening of a Nation?: Environmentalism in the United States Since 1945. Orlando, Fl and London: Harcourt Brace, 1998.

Rothman, Hal. Preserving Different Pasts: The American National Monuments. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1989.

Runte, Alfred. Yosemite: The Embattled Wilderness. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1990.

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

Schrepfer, Susan R. The Fight to Save the Redwoods: A History of Environmental Reform, 1917- 1978. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1983.

Sellars, Richard. Preserving Nature in the National Parks: A History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997.

Shabecoff, Philip. A Fierce Green Fire: The American Environmental Movement. New York: Hill and Wang, 1993.

Shankland, Robert. Steve Mather of the National Parks. New York: Knopf, 1951.

Siry, Joseph V. Marshes of the Ocean Shore: Development of an Ecological Ethic, College State: Texas A&M University Press, 1984.

Spence, Mark David. Dispossessing the Wilderness: Indian Removal and the Making of the National Parks. Oxford University Press, 1999.

Steinburg, Ted. Down to Earth: Nature's Role in American History. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Sutter, Paul. Driven Wild: How the Fight Against Automobiles Launched the Modern Wilderness

232

Movement. University of Washington Press, 2002.

Swain, Donald C. Federal Conservation Policy: 1921-1933. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1963.

Swain, Donald C. Wilderness Defender: Horace M. Albright and Conservation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.

Tebeau, Charlton W. Man in the Everglades: 2000 Years of Human History in the Everglades National Park. Coral Gables, Florida: University of Miami Press, Second Revised Edition 1968.

Tebeau, Charlton W. A History of Florida. Coral Gables: University of Miami Press, 1971.

Tilden, Freeman. The National Parks. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1986.

Tober, James A. Who Owns the Wildlife?: The Political Economy of Conservation in Nineteenth- Century America. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1981.

Vance, Linda D. May Mann Jennings: Florida’s Genteel Activist. Gainesville: University Presses of Florida, 1985.

Vileisis, Ann. Discovering the Unknown Landscape: A History of American Wetlands. Washington D.C.: Island Press, 1997.

Worster, Donald, ed. The Ends of the Earth: Perspectives on Modern Environmental History. Cambridge: Cambridge University of Press, 1988.

Worster, Donald. The Dust Bowl: The Southern Plains in the 1930s. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979.

Worster, Donald. Nature's Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Worster, Donald, A Passion for Nature: The Life of John Muir. Oxford University Press, 2008.

Wyant, William K. Westward in Eden: The Public Lands and the Conservation Movement. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982.

Articles

Becerra, Cesar, “Birth of Everglades National Park” South Florida History Magazine 1997-1998 25(3) and 26(1): 10-17.

Branch, Michael P. “Writing the Swamp: Marjory Stoneman Douglas and The Everglades: River of Grass,” in Edwards S. Thomas and De Wolfe Elizabeth A., editors. Such News of the Land: U.S. Women Nature Writers. Hanover N.H.: University Press of New England, 2001.

233

Davis, Jack, “Conservation is now a Dead Word: Marjory Stoneman Douglas and the Transformation of the American Environmental Movement” Environmental History, 8 (Jan 2003).

Davis, Jack, “Green Awakening: Social Activism and the Evolution of Marjory Stoneman Douglas's Environmental Consciousness” Florida Historical Quarterly 2001 80(1): 43-77.

Heller, Harry, “The Spooky World of Cape Sable” South Florida History Magazine, 2000 28(2) 24-28.

Poole, Leslie Kemp, “The Women of the Early Florida Audubon Society” Florida Historical Quarterly 2007 85(3): 297-323

Kersey, Harry Jr. “The Florida Seminole Land Claim Case, 1950-1990” Florida Historical Quarterly 72 (1).

Meindl, Christopher, “On the Eve of Destruction: People and Florida's Everglades from the Late 1800s to 1908” Tequesta 2003 63: 5-36.

Meindl, Christopher, “Past Perceptions of the Great American Wetland: Florida's Everglades During the Early Twentieth Century” Environmental History 2000 5(3): 378-395

Mitchell, John, “The Bitter Struggle for a National Park” American Heritage 1970 21(3): 97-109.

Rogers, Benjamin F. “Florida Seen through the Eyes of 19th Century Travelers,” Florida Historical Quarterly 34 (2).

Soderbergh, Peter, “Florida's Image in Juvenile Fiction, 1909-1914” Florida Historical Quarterly 1972 51(2): 153-165.

Tolbert, Jane, “'Plowing Gold from the Wasteland': Media Portrayal of South Florida's Boom, 1920-1925.” Journalism History 2007 33(2): 111-120.

Vance, Linda, “May Mann Jennings and Royal Palm State Park” Florida Historical Quarterly 1976 55(1): 1-17.

Vicker, Sally, “Ruth Bryan Owen: Florida's First Congresswomen and Lifetime Activist,” Florida Historical Quarterly 77 (4)

West, Patricia, “Glade Cross Mission: An Influence on Florida Seminole Arts and Crafts” American Indian Art Magazine 1984 9(4): 58-67.

Thesis, Dissertations

Editor John D. Pennekamp: herald of change, Cornelia Mae Twigg, 1977, MA Thesis, UF

234

Davis, Amie Gimon, “Recollections of Environmental Change in the Ten Thousand Islands, Florida Bay and the Everglades: The Oral History and Social Issues of User Groups in Southwest Florida and the Everglades,” MA Thesis, 1998, University of Miami

235

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Christopher James Wilhelm was born in 1978 in Miami, Florida. He received his B.A. in history from Florida International University in 2000, and his M.A. in history from Florida State University in 2004. Until 2002 he lived his entire life in Miami, Florida only miles from the Everglades. He studied the history of the U.S. South for most of his graduate career, and in his last semester of course work, decided to focus on the Everglades and environmental history for his Ph.D. Dissertation. The Everglades was always something intriguing to him, a landscape outside of our normal perceptions of nature, and yet at the same in Miami, a landscape upheld, usually unseen, as a national and state treasure.

236