In Memory of my grandmother, Loretta J. Bowlin and my dear friend, Chester Lawson who will be greatly missed ii Acknowledgements There are a number of people that lent me their support, resources, and time to assist me in making this thesis successful. I am grateful to Dr. Diane F. Britton, my advisor, for her insight, guidance, support, and interest in this project. She has helped me to realize my potential to look further for the answers I seek. I would also like to thank Dr. Ruth Wallis Herndon for her continued support of my work when I faced tough times. Thank you to the history department for their advice and comments. I would especially like to thank my parents Dean and Marilyn and my fiancé, Ben for their faith in me throughout graduate school and for putting up with my constant procrastination. I appreciate everything you have done for me. iii Table of Contents Dedication ii Acknowledgements iii Table of Contents iv I. Introduction 1 II. The Historic Preservation Movement Before 1930 8 III. The Historic Preservation Movement After 1930 46 IV. The Decline of Historic Preservation in Lucas County, Ohio 96 V. The Historic Preservation Movement Takes Hold of Lucas 142 County, Ohio VI. The Lathrop House: Contemporary Controversy in 204 Preservation, A Case Study VII. Conclusion 227 VIII. Bibliography 235 IX. Appendix A 242 X. Appendix B 245 iv Introduction Historic preservation is the conservation of buildings, sites, and artifacts that are significant to American culture and history. In the past century, local history and the desire to find personal connections to the past have become prevalent across the country. This desire has brought an interest in preserving historic landmarks in certain communities. Ohio’s Lucas County has been active in the American historic preservation movement, which seems to make it an ideal area to study the trends in preservation research. The county’s preservation organizations have made tremendous efforts to designate sites to the National Register, preserve areas of historic interest, and have dealt with several issues of controversy regarding preservation that parallel the nation’s preservation struggles. The process of historic preservation in Lucas County, Ohio from the early nineteenth century to the present is examined, using research that indicates that the historic preservation movement and National Register designations are influenced by public perceptions1 in both the public and private sectors. These perceptions also connect the preservation movement to local history and local memory. Historically significant landmarks that are no longer present or have been altered due to lack of preservation intervention, as well as historic sites that have been preserved in Lucas County are identified and analyzed as examples of the preservation movement. Their recognition signifies the interests of both local and federal governments, the impact 1 2 of law in historical preservation, and the change in communities in relation to historic significance throughout the years. Historic landmarks and sites that are identified in this study were built between the years 1820-1910 and are either on the National Register of Historic Places or those few that have not been nominated, but still provide historical importance to the community. The sites serve as a record to determine how interest in the past has changed over time. These changes in interpretation regarding the historic significance of landmarks present fundamental problems in the area of preservation as emotions run high, depending on the organizations or administrators that hold power over what is to be saved. A few significant questions are answered in this study that present certain themes and problems that either have been sparingly discussed or have been ignored in scholarly literature referring to preservation efforts in Lucas County. These questions include the following. How and why are sites and properties designated as historically significant? What happens to these sites and properties over time, both in physical upkeep and in continued public perceptions concerning their historical significance? In order to better understand both the historic preservation movement and how it is perceived, it is necessary to define preservation and the interventions that were used to save historic sites. Preservation is defined as maintaining an artifact in the same physical condition in which the curators received it. There are no additions or subtractions from the building’s aesthetics. In order to preserve a structure it is sometimes necessary to intervene in regard to its physical integrity, such as fire protection, security systems, and protection from heat, cold, and lighting. A good example of natural preservation is the 3 Franklin D. Roosevelt House in Hyde Park, New York.2 It was given to the nation by the president’s family and managed by the National Park Service. The house and furnishings were kept as close as possible to the condition it was in at the time of Roosevelt’s death in 1945.3 Restoration is returning an artifact to a certain physical condition at some point in its development. A historical association or property owner often determined the era in which the site was to be returned. The site may also be restored to a certain state in a particular year when historic events took place or when the site was at its most important architecturally. Mt. Vernon, Monticello, and Colonial Williamsburg are examples of the process of restoration. Most often, especially in the early days of preservation, buildings were often restored to represent the colonial era or to indicate the day a significant event occurred, such as the death of Abraham Lincoln. Another form of intervention was conservation. Conservation is the physical intervention of the actual fabric of the building to “ensure continuity in its structural integrity.” Examples of intervention may include fumigation, minor stone cleaning, or inserting new foundations. Reconstitution is saving a building piece by piece and reassembling it on its original site or on a new one. This kind of intervention usually takes place when wars or other factors destroyed sites and scattered remains. A very popular form of intervention is reconstruction. Reconstruction is recreating vanished buildings on their original sites. The form that the buildings take is established by archaeological, archival, and literary evidence. Occasionally this attempt to reconstruct the past can be quite subjective and is usually revised over the years as new evidence surfaces. Examples of reconstruction are the Governor’s Palace and the House of Burgesses at Colonial Williamsburg. Replication is the construction of the exact image 4 of an existing building on a different site. This is more accurate than reconstruction because the prototype is still present. An example of replication is Plimouth Plantation in Massachusetts. Only replicas exist on this site and the originals are housed at a different location. The replica can stand in the open air and the original can be preserved by being placed in a controlled environment in a museum or elsewhere.4 When buildings are culturally significant or physically valuable, sometimes the only way to preserve these buildings is to move them from their original sites. Moving was a popular preservation practice in the early years of the preservation movement. Many people were forced to move buildings to save them if they were in the path of construction activities that were seen as more important than the site that remained. Most could be moved intact, depending on the nature of its construction. The weight, materials, and logistics of the move were all important factors in deciding whether a building could be moved intact.5 Some parts of the buildings were sent to museums, but many were moved through dismantling or the moving of the entire structure.6 In this generation, many buildings are believed to be valuable if they continue to be used in community life, rather than be isolated for veneration and inspiration.7 Present ideals include serving a constant purpose in society. Historical relics that are no longer recognizable, useful, or significant can be put to better use and the public still feels that they are preserving the past in light of bettering the present.8 Buildings that were at risk of being destroyed because the original tenants disappeared or if they were not historically or architecturally significant could be remade for adaptive reuse. Physical intervention was usually involved to prepare the building for its new use in society. The visual identity of the building was celebrated and preserved and not concealed. The new 5 use was inserted into the old building with minimal visual alterations through minor remodeling.9 These preservation techniques enhance knowledge of the reader in understanding the context of this research. This research is applicable beyond academe as both scholars and novices can explore the historic structures and sites of Lucas County, learning how society changes its views on the meanings of historic significance and knowing that their ancestors felt that preserving or reinventing the past was a means of getting in touch with their heritage and their futures. In addition to public perceptions, issues surrounding the preservation movement are thoroughly clarified as connections are made relating Lucas County to the nation. The first chapter discusses the country’s involvement in historic preservation prior to 1930. It reviews the disinterest of Americans in the past and shows how patriotic celebrations and sentiment encouraged the public to save certain aspects of their pasts. The chapter also explains the private efforts and grassroots organizations that crusaded for preservation awareness and the lack of government involvement in the national movement. Chapter Two contains an overview of the historic preservation movement after 1930, the period when the federal government finally became involved in preservation through the development of federal organizations, legislation, federal planning, and funds for local and state preservation organizations.