A President, a Church, and Trails West: Competing Histories in Independence, Missouri

A President, a Church, and Trails West A President, a Church, and Trails West Competing Histor ies in Independence, M...

Author: Jon E. Taylor

19 downloads 702 Views 3MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

A President, a Church, and Trails West

A President, a Church, and Trails West Competing Histor ies in Independence, Missour i

Jon E. Taylor

University of Missour i Press

Columbia and London

Copyright © 2008 by The Curators of the University of Missouri University of Missouri Press, Columbia, Missouri 65201 Printed and bound in the United States of America All rights reserved 5 4 3 2 1 12 11 10 09 08

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Taylor, Jon E., 1968– A president, a church, and trails west : competing histories in Independence, Missouri / Jon E. Taylor. p. cm. Summary: “Examines the efforts of Independence, Missouri, to preserve and balance competing elements of the city’s history: as the hometown of President Harry S. Truman; as the site where Joseph Smith established the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints; and as the historic gathering place for western emigration”—Provided by publisher. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8262-1801-8 (alk. paper) 1. Historic preservation—Missouri—Independence. 2. Historic sites— Conservation and restoration—Missouri—Independence. 3. Independence (Mo.)— History. 4. Independence (Mo.)—Biography. 5. Truman, Harry S., 1884–1972— Homes and haunts—Missouri—Independence. 6. Smith, Joseph, 1805–1844. 7. Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints—History. 8. Pioneers —Missouri—Independence—History. 9. Frontier and pioneer life—Missouri— Independence. I. Title. F474.I3T395 2008 977.841—dc22 2007051951

ø™ This paper meets the requirements of the American National Standard for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, Z39.48, 1984. Designer: Jennifer Cropp Typesetter: The Composing Room of Michigan, Inc. Printer and binder: Maple-Vail Book Manufacturing Co. Typefaces: Cali, Bembo, and Palatino

To Rhonda and Braden

Contents Acknowledgments

ix

Abbreviations

xiii

Chronology

xv

Maps

xviii

Introduction

1

1. Independence as Zion

14

2. Trails West

52

3. A President Returns Home

83

4. Winds of Discontent

120

5. The Birth of a National Historic Site

141

6. Redevelopment in the Truman Neighborhood

186

Conclusion

239

Bibliography

247

Index

259

vii

Acknowledgments In 1993 I accepted the position of historian at the Harry S Truman National Historic Site in Independence, Missouri. Little did I know that my experience there would lead to this book, and I am indebted to Karen Tinnin and Carol Dage as well as my other National Park Service colleagues for taking a chance on me and for working with me during my tenure as park historian. When I first arrived in Independence, I noticed all the parking lots surrounding the Independence Square. The national park service headquarters was located on the square, and I thought that when I arrived for work the first day, all those empty lots would be filled to capacity. I soon learned that the lots dated from the city’s experiment with urban renewal in the 1970s and, in fact, rarely filled to capacity, usually only during the long Labor Day weekend. My colleagues told me to wait until the Santa-Cali-Gon Festival. When I asked them to repeat the phrase, they explained that the word served as an abbreviation for the Santa Fe, California, and Oregon trails. My colleagues reminded me that all those trails had either originated in the city or passed through the community at one time or another. They also told me that the Santa-Cali-Gon Festival really had little to do with honoring the city’s connection with the trails. Rather, the celebration served as a grand carnival and arts and crafts show that drew in several hundred thousand attendees over the long holiday weekend. Sure enough, Labor Day came and went, the parking lots filled, then afterward they were just as barren as before the festival and remained that way until the following year. After arriving in Independence I also learned about the challenges the community had experienced trying to preserve structures that were a part

ix

x

Acknowledgments

of the Harry S Truman Historic District National Historic Landmark (NHL). The secretary of the interior had established the landmark, now one of only twenty-five hundred in the United States, to honor Truman’s sixty-four-year association with the city. Park staff and residents of Truman’s neighborhood told stories about how the First Baptist Church, during the 1984 celebration of the centennial of Truman’s birth year, had demolished structures within the Harry S Truman Historic District NHL in order to accommodate their growing congregation. I also learned that the Reorganized Latter Day Saints Church had demolished structures just outside the boundaries of the Truman NHL, and residents told me how the church had acquired a significant number of residential homes, rented them out for a time, and then demolished them. In 1992, the year before I came to Independence, the church had constructed a temple, in the shape of a nautilus shell, to fulfill Joseph Smith’s vision of building a temple in Zion. These neighbors wanted to know what the church intended to do with the significant number of properties they controlled; some believed that church plans did not coincide with plans to preserve Truman’s neighborhood. In 1998 I resigned my position as historian in order to begin graduate work on a doctorate in history at the University of Missouri–Columbia. By the end of my tenure as historian at Harry S Truman NHS, I had concluded that the city—despite the presence of the National Park Service, the Harry S Truman Historic District NHL, and the Truman Museum and Library—was just not that wild about Harry. The old Independence Square had fallen into disrepair; it looked as if the life had been sucked out of what was once a vibrant community. I thought this odd because in the 1990s most historians rated Truman among the top ten presidents ever to serve, yet it seemed that the city was not able to use Truman’s stature to their advantage. Sure, the city promoted visits to the Truman home and the Truman Museum and Library; but the landmark, Truman’s neighborhood, was not seen as a significant point of interest, and still to this day it is not seen as an important destination for those seeking to understand who Harry Truman was and where he came from. Pulitzer Prize–winning writer David McCullough recently observed: “I . . . know that it is valuable for anyone trying to understand the life of a particular president to come to the place that produced that human being, where his memory is part of the story of that place.”1 The city’s decision to limit the inter1. Quoted in “Historian McCullough Visits Truman Library,” Kansas City Star, 15 June 2007, B5.

Acknowledgments

xi

pretation of Truman’s sixty-four-year association with his hometown to just his home and library and not his neighborhood was a situation that baffled me, and I wondered what had prevented the community from becoming wild about their favorite son? Answering that question and demonstrating how Truman’s “memory is part of the story of that place” —Independence—is the subject of this book. Scholarly work, by its very nature, seems an exercise in solitary confinement. However, the production of any manuscript bears many handprints besides those of the author. This book would not have been possible without the assistance of my dissertation advisor, Susan Flader, who offered support and encouragement. My dissertation committee—Winfield Burggraaff, Robert Collins, Howard Marshall, and the late Mary Neth—also offered valuable advice. Financial support for my studies came from the University of Missouri Department of History and the Harry S. Truman Library Institute dissertation fellowship grant program. Numerous people in Independence contributed to the success of the project. Community of Christ archivist Ron Romig and archives assistant Barbara Bernauer provided guidance to the church’s archival collections. David Jackson and Janet Russell from the Jackson County Historical Society provided valuable assistance. Rick Hemmingsen, president of the Independence Chamber of Commerce, allowed access to the chamber’s minute books. As always, the staff of the Harry S. Truman Library and the staff of the Harry S Truman NHS responded to my numerous questions. Mid-Town Truman Road Corridor board president Byron Constance facilitated access to the M/TRC Papers; and city of Independence historic preservation manager Patrick Steele granted access to his files. The support of the University of Missouri Press has been outstanding, and the comments from my reviewers resulted in a much improved manuscript. Special thanks go to Lisa Schmidt and Carol Knight for assistance with the photographs, and to Dr. Keshav Bhattarai for help with the Independence map. Finally, I would like to thank Dr. Robert H. Ferrell for his timely advice, and Drs. William E. Foley and William Patrick O’Brien for their support. In addition to the professional support from many, I would be remiss if I did not thank my family. My parents, Gerald and Linda Taylor, and my sisters, Gina and Sara, have always been supportive of my pursuits in history. Likewise, the support of Dr. Arthur and Merle Norton and Reva Norton has been unceasing and timely. Finally, my deepest thanks go to Rhonda, who agreed for us to spend two years apart while I was in Columbia pursuing graduate work. I hope it has been worth the sacrifice. To Braden,

xii

Acknowledgments

who was born near the end of this process, thanks for helping me keep things in perspective and for making me enjoy Ringling clowns and Union Pacific trains. While there are numerous handprints on this manuscript, only one set will be ascribed blame for any errors contained herein, and those are mine. I take very seriously my responsibility as a historian to convey to the public the most complete picture of how the histories in Independence came to compete. Not everyone will agree with my conclusions; however, agreement is not the goal. It is my desire that the book will spark serious discussion as to how the public views the preservation of cultural resources, and how communities manage their historic resources when a community’s memory and cultural landscape are dominated by more than one history.

Abbreviations CDA CLG CORE CPC DAR DNR GMP HSTL HSTR IHC ISTEA JCHS LCRA LDS MARC MOA M/TRC MWR NARA NHL NHPA NHS NOTA NPS OCTA OF

Central Development Association Certified Local Government Congress of Racial Equality Citizens Progressive Committee Daughters of the American Revolution Department of Natural Resources General Management Plan Harry S. Truman Library Harry S Truman National Historic Site Independence Heritage Commission Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act Jackson County Historical Society Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority Latter Day Saints Mid-America Regional Council Memorandum of Agreement Mid-Town Truman Road Corridor Midwest Region of the National Park Service National Archives and Records Administration National Historic Landmark National Historic Preservation Act National Historic Site National Old Trails Association National Park Service Oregon–California Trails Association Official File

xiii

xiv OHPM PPF PPP PSF RLDS SHPO WHCF

Abbreviations

Office of Historic Preservation Manager President’s Personal File Post-Presidential Papers President’s Secretary’s Files Reorganized Latter Day Saints State Historic Preservation Office White House Central Files

Chronology 1831 1833 1838 1844 1860 1867

1872 1892 1897 1904 1909 1914 1915 1916 1920 1922 1926 1926 1927

Mormons arrive in Missouri. Mormons are forced out of Independence. Mormons are expelled from Missouri. Joseph Smith is killed in Illinois. Reorganizationists organize under Joseph Smith III. Followers of Granville Hedrick repurchase a portion of the Temple lot and later build the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) church. Reorganizationists adopt the name Reorganized Latter Day Saints (RLDS). RLDS Stone Church is completed. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) establish a congregation in the city. LDS acquires a portion of the Temple lot. RLDS sanitarium is dedicated. Joseph Smith III dies. Frederick M. Smith becomes president of the RLDS Church. National Park Service (NPS) is created. RLDS Church officially relocates its church offices from Lamoni, Iowa, to Independence, Missouri. Truman is elected eastern district judge of Jackson County; he is defeated in 1924. Truman is elected presiding judge of Jackson County; he is reelected in 1930. RLDS Church breaks ground on the auditorium. Independence celebrates centennial.

xv

xvi 1934 1940 1944 1945 1949 1953 1954 1955 1957 1959 1962 1966 1971 1972

1973 1974 1979 1982

1983 1984

1987 1990

Chronology

Truman is elected U.S. senator; he is reelected in 1940. First Santa-Cali-Gon Festival; it is held again in 1947; Jackson County Historical Society organizes. Truman elected vice president. Truman becomes president and visits his hometown for the first time as president. National Trust for Historic Preservation is created. Truman returns to Independence. Truman chooses Independence as the location for his library. Presidential Libraries Act is passed by Congress. Truman Library and Museum opens; Philip Brooks becomes its director. Old Jail Museum opens. Northwest Parkway urban renewal project begins. National Historic Preservation Act is passed; National Register of Historic Places is created. Mormon Visitors’ Center opens to the public; NPS creates the Harry S Truman Historic District NHL. NPS officials inform Independence of the Truman NHL designation; Truman dies; urban renewal on the Independence Square begins. Independence Heritage Commission is created; Santa-Cali-Gon Festival is revived as an annual event. Harry S. Truman Heritage District preservation ordinance is passed by the city; it includes exemptions for church property. Independence City Council votes to expand the boundaries of the Truman Heritage District. Bess Truman dies. The RLDS Church demolishes structures on the south side of Maple Street from Union to River, just west of the Truman home. Harry S Truman National Historic Site (NHS) is designated. Centennial of Truman’s birth is held; Harry S Truman NHS opens to the public. The city council reduces the size of the Truman Heritage District. First Baptist Church demolishes several structures within the Truman NHL and Heritage districts. NPS approves first General Management Plan for Harry S Truman NHS. National Frontier Trails Center opens.

Chronology 1992 1994 1995 1996

1997 1998

1999

2000 2001 2003 2004 2006 2007

xvii

Harry S Truman NHS expands; RLDS Temple is constructed; it is dedicated in 1994. The RLDS Church sells its not-for-profit Independence Regional hospital to a for-profit company, Columbia Health Care. Midtown Truman Road Corridor Redevelopment (M/TRC) plan is approved by city. National Trust for Historic Preservation names Truman Heritage District one of the nation’s eleven most endangered places. Independence City Council revises the Truman Heritage District ordinance. Independence voters approve a sales tax to support preservation of the Memorial Building; city tourism plan is unveiled to the public. The Harry S Truman NHS revises the 1987 General Management Plan; the city produces design guidelines for the Truman Heritage District. Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) becomes law. City of Independence approves a comprehensive preservation plan; RLDS change their name to Community of Christ. M/TRC demolitions take place on the south side of Truman Road between River and Union. Columbia Health Care sells Independence Regional to Health Care Associates. The RLUIPA is referenced in a revised Truman Heritage District ordinance. Expansion of the Harry S Truman Historic District NHL is put on hold. The hospital that Joseph Smith III instructed the Saints to build closes; it is relocated several miles to the southeast, leaving the heart of Independence without a hospital.

Map 1. Independence, Missouri. Courtesy of author.

Map 2. Harry S Truman Historic District National Historic Landmark and Harry S. Truman Heritage District boundaries.

Map 3. This map, completed in 1985, shows the demolitions that occurred in and around the Truman NHL and Heritage districts prior to and after 1972. The northeastern corner of the map shows the footprint of the homes that were removed from the Neck area as part of the urban renewal Northwest Parkway project in the 1960s. Courtesy National Park Service.


Introduction The struggle for possession and interpretation of memory is rooted in the conflict and interplay among social, political, and cultural interests and values in the present. —David Thelen

The different ways that individuals, communities, states, and nations remember their past has been much debated in American history. The debates have often occurred in academe, among historians whose job it is to debate the past. Debates have also occurred in local communities across the country, as individual citizens discuss the significance of their local history. In Independence, Missouri, its twentieth-century history has been dominated by continual debate concerning its past. Independence is best-known nationally as the hometown of the nation’s thirty-third president, Harry S. Truman. Truman oversaw the opening of his presidential library in 1957, after the city lobbied to have it situated within their community because of its tourism potential. In 1971 the National Park Service (NPS) designated the neighborhood a national historic landmark (NHL). Truman had known this neighborhood for sixtyfour years of his life, before, during, and after his presidency, and he frequently connected with the neighborhood and his neighbors during his daily walks. In 1983 the Truman home at 219 N. Delaware became a national historic site (NHS), and the NPS came to the city to manage it. Independence now had three nationally significant designations associated with its most prominent citizen. But the city’s presidential history came into competition with two other well-established histories, already firm-

1

2


ly planted in the community’s historical consciousness. These two histories included the city’s association with its Mormon history (Joseph Smith’s declaration of Independence as Zion, the place his followers were to prepare for Christ’s return to earth), and its role in the nation’s western expansion as a gathering and provisioning point for the Santa Fe, Oregon, and California trails. In 1831 Joseph Smith, Jr., and his followers came to Independence to settle. They were expelled from Jackson County in 1833, but not before Smith proclaimed the city of Independence to be the new Zion. Most of Smith’s followers eventually traveled onward, to Utah, but several small groups remained scattered across the Midwest. These groups joined ranks to form the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS), which officially relocated to Independence in 1920 in order to continue building Zion. This pursuit brought dramatic changes to the neighborhood near the Truman home as the church expanded from a national to an international religious organization at the end of the twentieth century. Independence also staked its claim to be the starting point of the Santa Fe, California, and Oregon trails. The city has always considered its trails history an important part of its collective memory. Over the course of the twentieth century, the chamber of commerce created the Santa-Cali-Gon Festival in order to commemorate the city’s association with the three trails and to promote its pioneer history, even though only a handful of the historic structures associated with the trails period remain visible in the city’s landscape. In 1990 the city-operated National Frontier Trails Center opened, publicly reaffirming the significance of the trails history within the community’s historical consciousness. Historians have assessed how historical memory has worked throughout the latter half of the nineteenth century and through the twentieth century. John Bodnar and Michael Kammen, historians of American memory, argued that the debate over history and memory during this time occurred primarily at the local level, with citizens finding the federal government to be little involved in promoting America’s past. During this period middle- and upper-class whites became concerned about the tremendous influx of immigrants to the country. In order to promote patriotism and national unity among these newcomers, they focused on the preservation of sites related to America’s colonial and pioneer past. Private organizations formed in New England and the South to preserve key sites, among them Colonial Williamsburg. John D. Rockefeller authorized the purchase of property in Williamsburg in December 1926, but the first

Introduction

3

building of the restoration did not open to the public until 1932. Williamsburg promoted the Americanization of immigrants by touting the virtues of democracy and representative government.1 Public commemorations in the Midwest during the early twentieth century primarily promoted patriotism by featuring pioneer celebrations such as Independence’s Santa-Cali-Gon Festival. Bodnar concluded: “Pioneers became a cultural equivalent of the founding fathers for ordinary people.” These celebrations continued in the post–World War II era but were more inclusive of ethnic and racial differences than in the past, because of the experiences shared by whites and other ethnic groups during World War II.2 Although, during the early twentieth century, the federal government did not take an active role in promoting local history, it did take a role in preserving and promoting the country’s natural heritage. Beginning in the late nineteenth century, the federal government set aside lands in several western natural areas such as Yosemite and Yellowstone. Historian Alfred Runte has argued that these natural areas were developed and promoted as tourist attractions by the railroad companies that built rail lines directly to them. In 1916 the National Park Service (NPS) was created, answering a call from some who wanted places of natural beauty preserved because they were unique to America. The preservation of natural landscapes fostered the type of American nationalism described by Bodnar and Kammen and symbolized the special place that America held in the world. Runte also argued that these national parks generated economic growth for the surrounding communities. In the twentieth century these “natural” national parks are still promoted as tourist attractions both by park management and by local forces outside the park who hope to gain economically from tourism. Their promotion as both symbols of American nationalism and important tourist attractions for nearby communities continues to this day.3 1. John Bodnar, Remaking America: Public Memory, Commemoration, and Patriotism in the Twentieth Century, 249; Michael Kammen, Mystic Chords of Memory: The Transformation of Tradition in American Culture. For other examples of the role of historical memory, see Gary Nash, First City: Philadelphia and the Forging of Historical Memory; Roy Rosenzweig and Elizabeth Blackmar, The Park and the People: A History of Central Park. For the private organizations in New England and the South, see James M. Lindgren, Preserving Historic New England: Preservation, Progressivism, and the Remaking of Memory; James M. Lindgren, Preserving the Old Dominion: Historic Preservation and Virginia Traditionalism. For Williamsburg, see Anders Greenspan, Creating Colonial Williamsburg, 20, 35. 2. Bodnar, Remaking America, 249 (quote), 113–66. 3. Alfred Runte, National Parks: The American Experience, 170; Kammen, Mystic

4


When the NPS was created, most parks were situated in the West, and few historic sites were part of its system. This all changed in 1933 when Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into law the National Historic Sites Act, which paved the way for the NPS to acquire places that were of national significance in American history. More important, the act also allowed the service to gain a national constituency, since many historic site acquisitions were in the East where few national parks were located. As Bodnar argued, the acquired historic sites and the white middle-class managers in charge of them interpreted these sites in such a way as to promote patriotism and national unity.4 These cultural sites, like their natural national park counterparts, while promoting patriotism and national unity also provided an economic boost for the communities where they were located. In 1936 the federal government, with support from the local business community, approved funds to construct the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial in St. Louis. The project called for federal acquisition of property along the St. Louis waterfront, which ultimately resulted in the destruction of historic structures that were significant to Missouri and St. Louis history. Nevertheless, the Gateway Arch was constructed and has served a dual purpose of commemorating the national theme of western expansion and boosting the St. Louis economy through tourism.5 In the late twentieth century, the NPS was not the only federal agency responsible for the nation’s history. In 1955 Congress passed the Presidential Libraries Act, which allowed presidential libraries to be constructed with private funds and then turned over to the National Archives for management. The Harry S. Truman Library, which opened in 1957, was the first of nine presidential libraries to come online under this law during the century. As Jonathan Pearson has recently argued, the presidential libraries have been responsible for disseminating a “national identity through constructing or re-invoking the [public’s] identification with the President.”6 Chords of Memory, 465–66; Alfred Runte, Yosemite: The Embattled Wilderness; Paul Schullery, Searching for Yellowstone: Ecology and Wonder in the Last Wilderness; Richard Sellars, Preserving Nature in the National Parks. 4. Bodnar, Remaking America, 169 –205. 5. Ibid., 186 – 90. 6. For more on the Presidential Libraries Act, see Kammen, Mystic Chords of Memory, 613. The Truman Library was the first presidential library to come online under the act. The FDR library, which opened in 1939, was the first presidential library—it too came to be governed by the Presidential Libraries Act, bringing the number of presidential libraries operated by the National Archives to ten. Jonathan P. Pearson, “Pres-

Introduction

5

In the late twentieth century, historic sites of all kinds have served as economic generators of local revenue. America’s interest in the proliferating historic sites and the federal government’s involvement in preservation received a boost in 1966 after passage of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), which created a federal National Register of Historic Places to which anyone could nominate historic properties based on their local, state, or national significance. The act also created a State Historic Preservation Office in every state to oversee the program and to coordinate and submit national register nominations to federal officials in Washington, D.C. By 1996, the year marking the NHPA’s thirtieth anniversary, over sixty-six thousand properties had been placed on the national register. One reviewer called these listings “truly an astonishing grassroots effort.”7 The creation of the National Register of Historic Places was important in generating local interest in preservation, but Kammen argued the federal government after 1979 had begun a “process of fiscal and administrative retrenchment” from “preserving and protecting the nation’s past.” While history and memory at the federal level might have waned after 1979, history and memory at the local level seemed to explode, however. By the 1980s, heritage tourism was touted across the country as a way for many cities to regain a strong economic footing by promoting community history.8 Both Kammen and Bodnar concluded that, in spite of the federal government’s entrance into the area of public history and memory through the nation’s national park and presidential library systems, in the latter half of the twentieth century local communities still shaped and molded their own history with little outside pressure. In fact Kammen argued that, over the course of the twentieth century, history and memory had become democratized and that “vernacular culture now enjoys an appeal that cuts across social strata.” Kammen cited evidence that African American and Native American heritage—histories that would not have been remembered at the turn of the century—had come to be recognized in the latter half.9 idential Libraries in Transition: The Significance of the Harry S. Truman Library in the Formative Development of Cultural Identification in the United States,” 77 (quote). 7. Norman Tyler, Historic Preservation: An Introduction to Its History, Principles, and Practice, 44–45; Katherine H. Stevenson, “A Model Partnership,” CRM 19, no. 6 (1996): 7 (quote). 8. Kammen, Mystic Chords of Memory, 610 (quotes), also 639–41; David Lowenthal, The Past Is a Foreign Country; David Lowenthal, Possessed by the Past: The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History. 9. Kammen, Mystic Chords of Memory, 655 (quote), also 682–85.

6


In spite of the attention given to history and memory in the scholarly literature, what remained surprisingly absent was any serious discussion of tourism, one of the main generators of interest in history and memory. Within the last decade, however, historians have begun to address this gap in the literature. Most studies of tourism examine middle-class consumption and the rise of leisure time in the nineteenth century. Few historians have examined the impact of tourism in the latter half of the twentieth century.10 Of those who have assessed the impact of history and memory on tourism in this period, most have focused their research on how the commodification of a history has influenced the community. Usually the commodification is developed by middle-class city leaders, both elected and appointed, and is aimed at middle-class tourists. As a result, Martha Norkunas has argued, the community’s other histories, most often those of working-class and ethnic minorities, are often marginalized. In other cases, scholars document how the commodification impacted the power structure in the community. For example, Ron Powers recounted how citizens in Hannibal, Missouri, came together and regained control of their local Mark Twain history after outsiders barged into their city to profit from the Mark Twain sesquicentennial celebration.11 Hal Rothman, who examined tourism in the twentieth century, has asserted that three overlapping types of tourism have emerged in the American West, shifting from tourism based on industrial capitalism to tourism based on postindustrial capitalism, which created “consumers not only of tangible goods but also of the spirit and meaning of things.” The first type of tourism to develop was heritage or cultural tourism, dominated by the “marketing of the historic, scenic, and mythic past,” which included the national parks of the West. This type of tourism was class based and had its genesis in the industrialization of the late nineteenth century, as middle and upper classes sought tranquility in the nation’s western country10. See Cindy S. Aron, Working at Play: A History of Vacations in the United States; Dona Brown, Inventing New England: Regional Tourism in the Nineteenth Century; Catherine Cocks, Doing the Town: The Rise of Urban Tourism in the United States, 1850– 1915. Marquerite S. Shaffer, in See America First: Tourism and National Identity, 1880– 1940, argued that, up to 1940, the tourism industry primarily targeted the white middle classes and promoted tourism as a “ritual of American citizenship.” This argument parallels that of Bodnar and Kammen but differs in that Shaffer argued by 1940 tourism ceased to be used by the federal government as a way to promote a shared history of the nation because more classes of Americans were able to purchase automobiles. Shaffer argued the end result was a democratization of the nation’s tourism industry, which shifted the emphasis from “national tourism” to “mass tourism.” 11. Martha K. Norkunas, The Politics of Public Memory: Tourism, History, and Ethnicity in Monterey, California; Ronald Powers, White Town Drowsing.

Introduction

7

side as an antidote to their urban and industrial life. Recreational tourism came next and featured the West’s rise as a regional host of hunting and skiing expeditions. Then came entertainment tourism, signaling the shift from industrial to postindustrial capitalism. Rothman argued that the entertainment centers of Las Vegas and California’s Disneyland provided tangible proof that the West had become a “playground, the American dreamscape, historic, mythic, and actual.”12 Norkunas, Powers, and Rothman clearly demonstrated how heritage tourism and the commodification of a history influenced the actions of community leaders, and how their decisions influenced others within the community in the latter half of the twentieth century. However, few works have examined how communities with competing histories, such as Independence, decide why and how they preserve the parts of the built environment associated with each history. In Independence, the three competing histories have different constituencies that lobby for each history, and sometimes, often without realizing it, community leaders make decisions about one history that have serious implications for the preservation of the other two. Most often, historical work that documents how communities preserve their cultural resources has been classified as public history, and this study seeks to ground itself in the scholarly literature written on historic preservation. Charles B. Hosmer, Jr., produced the first history of historic preservation in America in 1965. His book examined historic preservation from the colonial period to the founding of Williamsburg in 1926. In a subsequent two-volume work, Hosmer carried the story onward, from 1926 to 1949, the year the National Trust for Historic Preservation was chartered by Congress. Hosmer and subsequent scholars since the founding of the National Trust have tended to focus the history of preservation on how the activities of the trust have influenced preservation in the latter half of the twentieth century. While the trust has had a significant impact on preservation in America, it has not had an equal impact everywhere. In Independence, for example, the trust has had only minimal impact on community preservation. No scholarly work has yet assessed fully the history of historic preservation from 1949 to the present.13 12. Hal Rothman, Devil’s Bargains: Tourism in the Twentieth-Century American West, 19, 23 –25. 13. Charles B. Hosmer, Presence of the Past: A History of the Preservation Movement in the United States before Williamsburg; also Charles B. Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age: From Williamsburg to the National Trust, 1926–1949. For the history of the National Trust, see David Finley, History of the National Trust for Historic Preservation; Elizabeth Mulloy, History of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1963–1973.

8


Hosmer’s 1965 study on historic preservation concluded that the preservation movement was “fractured,” because so many private entities had engaged in preservation for different reasons. He hoped that the National Trust and the NPS would provide some unifying direction to preservation. But he was not optimistic that private preservation groups could get past simply turning historic structures into museums in order to save them for future generations.14 In 2004 Max Page and Randall Mason edited a series of essays written by historians and historic preservation specialists. The series examined historic preservation in the United States before 1950. In contrast to Hosmer, whose primary examples of historic preservation came from activities on the East Coast, Page and Mason wanted to include historic preservation efforts occurring in places away from the coasts, such as Chicago, Denver, and Santa Fe.15 Although Page and Mason’s edited work is seminal to the field of historic preservation and the essays describe historic preservation activities outside the East Coast, there still has been relatively little attention devoted to historic preservation in the Midwest and, in particular, historic preservation activities that occurred there after 1950. In fact, most of the scholarly work on historic preservation has continued to focus on the cultural resources of the eastern and southeastern regions of the United States. For example, James L. Lindgren, in two separate books, examined how the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities actively engaged in the preservation of Virginia historic structures and the role the Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities played in preserving New England’s historic resources. Recently, Robert Weyeneth recounted the role played by the Historic Charleston Foundation in preserving the built environment of Charleston, South Carolina, and Stephanie Yuhl explored how Charleston’s white elites used historic preservation as a way to ignore the “city’s ethnic and racial diversity” and reconstruct the historical memory of the city in the first four decades of the twentieth century.16 14. Hosmer, Presence of the Past, 302– 3. 15. Max Page and Randall Mason, eds., Giving Preservation a History: Histories of Historic Preservation in the United States. 16. For preservation in the Midwest, see Richard Francaviglia, Main Street Revisited: Time, Space, and Image Building in Small-Town America. Also see Daniel Bluestone, “Chicago’s Mecca Flat Blues,” in Page and Mason, Giving Preservation a History, 207– 56. Lindgren, Old Dominion, and Historic New England; Robert Weyeneth, Historic Preservation for a Living City, Historic Charleston Foundation; Stephanie Yuhl, A Golden Haze of Memory: The Making of Historic Charleston, 6 (quote). For recent historic preser-

Introduction

9

The Historic Preservation Act of 1966 passed one year after Hosmer published his first history of American historic preservation. It laid the groundwork for communities to recognize entire districts of historic buildings rather than focus on the preservation of individual structures associated with a significant person.17 Historic preservation was carried out primarily by individuals and historical societies interested in preservation, until the 1980s. Then it became big business as federal tax credits drew a multitude of developers into the preservation field, where they redeveloped a number of structures within historic districts. The federal tax credit for historic preservation continued into the 1990s, and some states such as Missouri coupled the federal preservation tax credit with a state tax credit, further sweetening the deal for urban developers. Local businesses and individuals benefited from these tax credits, and preservation practitioners were glad to see historic preservation being used as a tool for commercial and residential revitalization.18 Toward the end of the 1990s, some preservation practitioners encouraged their colleagues to think beyond the preservation of buildings within historic districts, to the preservation of the cultural landscapes that surrounded historic commercial and residential districts.19 By the end of the twentieth century, the historic preservation movement had moved beyond the preservation of the homes of significant Americans to preserving important districts of buildings and even the landscapes that surrounded them. This study demonstrates how one community has transitioned through these three stages of preservation thought. However, the transition through these stages has been fraught with debate over the issue of property rights. Many homeowners and commercial property owners have become concerned they will lose control over what they can and cannot do to their properties if these become part of a vation in the Southwest, see Chris Wilson, The Myth of Santa Fe: Creating a Modern Regional Tradition. For historic preservation in the West, see Judy Mattivi Morley, Historic Preservation and the Imagined West: Albuquerque, Denver, and Seattle; Nadine Ishitani Hata, The Historic Preservation Movement in California, 1940–1976. 17. This is not to say that the first historic districts were created in the late 1960s. As early as 1931, Charleston, South Carolina, became the first state to create a locally designated historic district. See Tyler, Historic Preservation, 39. 18. David Hamer, History in Urban Places: The Historic Districts of the United States; Lina Confresi and Rosetta Radtke, “Local Government Programs,” in Robert M. Stipe, ed., A Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation in the Twenty-first Century, 121–31. 19. See Arnold R. Alanen and Robert Z. Melnick, eds., Preserving Cultural Landscapes in America; Confresi and Radtke, “Local Government Programs,” in Stipe, Richer Heritage, 140–41; Genevieve P. Keller and J. Timothy Keller, “Preserving Important Landscapes,” in Stipe, Richer Heritage, 187–222.

10


historic district. In 1978 the U.S. Supreme Court in Penn Central Transportation Co. et al. v. New York City Co. et al. ruled that the New York City Landmarks Commission had the right to deny the owner of the Grand Central Station his request to build a fifty-five-story tower above the station. The owner of the station argued the landmarks commission had engaged in an unconstitutional “taking” of private property as expressly forbidden under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that, since the landmarks commission’s ruling did not deprive the owner of a reasonable economic use of the building, the commission had the right to deny the request.20 Historic preservation has been challenged under the Fifth Amendment, and also under the First Amendment by churches not wishing to comply with local historic preservation zoning ordinances. In 1990 a New York federal appeals court ruled that St. Bartholomew’s Church in New York City could not demolish a portion of the church. The court ruled that, since New York City’s preservation ordinance applied to all property owners, the ordinance did not “substantially burden” the church and inhibit the church’s religious freedom. Several religious organizations supported the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which specifically exempted religious organizations from compliance with existing zoning and historic preservation ordinances. The constitutionality of the 1993 act was challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court case Flores v. City of Boerne. The local Catholic Church in Boerne, Texas, refused to comply with the city’s preservation ordinance when it wanted to alter its building, and the church challenged the power of the city to regulate its property under the 1993 act. The Supreme Court ruled the act unconstitutional, but despite the Boerne decision, in 2000 Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which once again exempted churches from local city ordinances, including historic preservation ordinances. The constitutionality of the act has yet to be challenged.21 While the St. Bartholomew case and Flores v. City of Boerne were two of the more significant cases in determining how local preservation ordinances would apply to religious organizations, the city of Independence faced the same challenge in 1974, when the city passed its first preservation ordinance to protect the area surrounding the Truman home. This preservation story, until now ignored by all works on the history of his20. Thompson Mayes, “Preservation Law and Public Policy,” in Stipe, Richer Heritage, 171–73. 21. Ibid., 175 –77.

Introduction

11

toric preservation, provides insight into the attitudes of various groups in the community toward the concept of preservation ordinances. The community’s religious traditions have profoundly influenced how the city has preserved the built environment. This study places the role of preservation in Independence not only within the larger context of preservation in the United States but also within the context of American environmental history. The majority of historic preservation occurs within the context of an urban environment, and most environmental historians who have studied urban environmental history have chosen to study how people have reacted to pollution, nature in urban spaces, and suburban development.22 Few urban environmental histories have attempted to explain how a community’s historical memory of its cultural resources and the land on which they rest influence how humans interact with the environment.23 Several environmental historians have recently focused their research on how the federal government dispossessed native peoples from lands converted to national parks.24 The physical removal of people from their environment can leave the impression that these individuals were never any part of the park’s history. The resulting historical interpretation presented at these parks, which in the past has often left out these histories, can profoundly shape how the public constructs historical memories about the parks. Similarly, communities can also dispossess elements of their local history from current memory. If communities are unaware of the significance of their resources or if they are aware of the significance and yet choose to demolish parts of the built environment, these decisions speak volumes about how the community’s sense of history and historical memory operates. Examining how communities make these decisions over time

22. Andrew Hurley, Environmental Inequalities: Class, Race, and Industrial Pollution in Gary, Indiana, 1945–1980; Charles E. Little, Greenways for America; Adam Rome, Bulldozer in the Countryside: Suburban Sprawl and the Rise of American Environmentalism. 23. For an exception see Rosenzweig and Blackmar, Park and . . . People. 24. Mark Spence, Dispossessing the Wilderness: Indian Removal and the Making of the National Parks; Karl Jacoby, Crimes against Nature: Squatters, Poachers, Thieves, and the Hidden History of American Conservation. The dispossession of peoples from their lands and properties is not just confined to the NPS. See Megan Kate Nelson, “A Refuge for Birds: Preservation and Restriction in the Okefenokee Swamp, 1902–1940.” Nelson argued that the government created the reserve and employed the white swampers (as the local residents were called) to serve as tour guides to tourists who wanted to visit the swamp, but in exchange for these positions, the swampers had to agree not to use the swamp for their subsistence.

12


helps us to understand how humans interact with their environment in an urban setting. This study suggests that how a community views the environment is rooted in how it chooses to remember the history that dominates the environment. In Independence, the memory of the city’s early Mormon/ RLDS history and trails history runs deep within the community’s historical consciousness. However, the city has struggled to preserve the environment that Truman would have recognized on a stroll through his neighborhood and the nearby commercial district on the Independence Square. This study attempts to explain how the community has dispossessed aspects of its presidential history from its historical memory, and how that dispossession has affected the preservation of the cultural landscape Truman would have recognized on one of his morning walks. For the most part, the dispossession of the Truman neighborhood as historically significant has been carried out by the white middle class. When the Truman NHL was created in 1971, Truman’s neighbors, from the white middle and upper income classes, urged the city council to create a locally designated district to provide local zoning protection for the federal designation. Both those who supported the district and those who later fought the historic district designation were primarily from the white middle class. What divided the groups was how they viewed the significance of the city’s histories and how they viewed the land and the role of local and federal officials in preserving those resources. This study discusses three nationally significant aspects of the history of Independence in the order in which they have been commemorated by Independence citizens. Chapter 1, “Independence as Zion,” considers the role played by Mormon history in the city’s history. It chronicles how the RLDS Church returned to Independence to fulfill Joseph Smith’s dream of creating Zion, a vision that has significantly impacted neighborhoods near the Truman home. Chapter 2, “Trails West,” documents the city’s fascination with its trails history, detailing how that history was lost and then remembered and is now preserved on the Independence Square and in the National Frontier Trails Museum. The next three chapters consider how the community preserved its presidential history and how that history came into conflict with the other two histories. Chapter 3, “A President Returns Home,” describes the city’s involvement with the siting of the Truman presidential library. The chapter ends by discussing the city’s effort to honor the former president’s neighborhood through the federally designated Harry S Truman Historic District National Historic Landmark (Truman NHL). Chapter 4, “The

Introduction

13

Winds of Discontent,” considers how the Independence Heritage Commission preserved the city’s Truman history through the locally designated Truman Heritage District, and how the preservation of that history clashed with two churches who did not wish to see their First Amendment right of the free exercise of religion thwarted by a preservation ordinance. In 1984 the NPS opened the Truman home to the public, and the city made the home’s opening the centerpiece of the centennial celebration of Truman’s birth and a push to make Independence a major western Missouri tourist destination. This push, as well as the destruction of historic structures within the Truman NHL, is the subject of Chapter 5, “The Birth of a National Historic Site.” Chapter 6, “Redevelopment in the Truman Neighborhood,” describes how the city partially began to preserve and redevelop its presidential sites through a cooperative effort. The conclusion assesses the roles played by history and memory in Independence. The aim is to evaluate what we may learn from how the city’s three histories have interacted within the cultural landscape of the community.

1

Independence as Zion We really feel this whole area is sacred ground. —George J. Romney, Director of the Mormon Visitors’ Center

In the summer of 1831, a band of Joseph Smith’s followers made their way to Jackson County, Missouri. When the new settlers arrived, they gathered around Independence, a frontier community just beginning to serve as the last provisioning point for wagon trains setting off on the Santa Fe Trail. These new settlers to the Missouri frontier came with a unique religious purpose. They were searching for a gathering place to establish Zion—a place where Joseph Smith and his followers could build and prepare an ideal Christian community for the second coming of Christ.1 1. See Warren Jennings, “The City in the Garden: Social Conflict in Jackson County, Missouri,” in F. Mark McKiernan, Alma R. Blair, and Paul M. Edwards, eds., The Restoration Movement: Essays in Mormon History. Many scholars have documented the history of the Latter-Day Saints, the followers of Joseph Smith, Jr., and Brigham Young, who established Salt Lake City as the headquarters of the Mormon Church. See Leonard J. Arrington and Davis Bitton, The Mormon Experience: A History of the LatterDay Saints; Richard E. Bennett, Mormons at the Missouri, 1846–1852: “And Should We Die.” Stephen C. LeSueur, The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri, documented the treatment of Mormons in Missouri and their eventual expulsion from the state. Kenneth H. Winn, Exiles in a Land of Liberty: Mormons in America, 1830–1846, briefly discussed the Mormon occupation of Missouri and Mormon dissension prior to and immediately after Smith’s assassination. Geographer Craig Campbell, in Images of the New Jerusalem: Latter Day Saint Faction Interpretations of Independence, Missouri, is the only scholar who has assessed how the dissenting Mormon factions returned to Indepen-

14

Independence as Zion

15

Expulsion and Return of the Saints to Independence The roots of the ideal Christian community were found in a revelation received by Joseph Smith in July 1831. Smith reported that the saints were to purchase lands in and around Jackson County and were to construct a temple of worship in Independence.2 By 26 July 1831, the church had acquired 1,985.07 acres of land in the county. On 3 August 1831, Joseph Smith and other church leaders dedicated the site for the Independence temple, even though they had not yet acquired title to the property. The Temple Lot, which comprised a little over sixty-three acres, was purchased by Jones and Clara Flournoy on 12 December 1831. Edward Partridge, acting on behalf of the church, purchased the acreage from the Flournoys on 19 December 1831.3 Coupled with Smith’s vision of Independence as Zion was his call for the saints to “gather” in and around Independence and Jackson County. The written revelation stated: “This land which is the land of Missouri, . . . is the land which I have appointed and consecrated for the gathering of the saints.” In 1832 a special census recorded 5,071 persons living in the county, with approximately 800 Mormon settlers. By 1833 the number of saints who had gathered to Independence stood at 1,200, and they established a storehouse and a press, both of which catered only to Mormon settlers. The presence of the Saints created more fear and tension among the non-Mormon settlers. Richard Howard described the Mormon newspaper: “The message and style of [the] paper emphasized, however, the differences between the church members and the original settlers. This encouraged the latter to see the former as enemies of the common good of the growing city.” It was clear that the “gentile” neighbors were concerned about the number of Mormons gathering, and they reacted.4 dence in the twentieth century. Various factions arose in the Mississippi Valley, and one faction—the Reorganized Latter Day Saints (RLDS), the subject of this chapter— rose to become a global church by the end of the twentieth century, rivaling the Utahbased LDS Church. This chapter attempts to provide a framework for examining the largest dissenting group, which gradually returned to Independence over the course of the twentieth century. 2. See “Temple Lot,” Journal of History 3, no. 1 (1910): 52. This revelation and all others are recorded in what came to be known as the Doctrine and Covenants. The Saints considered the D and C (as it is commonly called) a canonical text just like the Book of Mormon and the Bible. 3. “Notes and Queries,” Journal of History 16, no. 2 (1923): 256; Ron Romig and John Siebert, “Historic Views of the Temple Lot,” John Whitmer Historical Association Journal 7 (1987): 21. 4. Richard P. Howard, The Church through the Years, 1:151, 159, 160–61 (quotes).

16


The gentiles who settled the area were primarily from the southern states, and many owned slaves.5 In contrast, the Mormons, primarily from the North, did not own slaves. While this is an important point of difference, what concerned the southerners who held political power in Independence was the sheer number of Mormons who had gathered and who continued to gather. Southern leaders feared they would lose political power. In a gathering of four hundred people on 20 July 1833, the political leaders outlined their concerns and drafted a position statement on the Mormon gathering: “Elevated as they [Mormons] mostly are, but little above the condition of our blacks, either in regard to property or education, they have become a subject of much anxiety on that point, serious and well grounded complaints having been already made of their corrupting influence on our slaves.” The statement also addressed the perceived belief that the Mormons would usurp their political power. The group of four hundred remarked: “It requires no gift of prophecy to tell that the day is not far distant when the civil government of the county will be in their hands; when the sheriff, the justices and the county judges will be Mormons.” The group concluded their statement by recommending that no more Mormons be allowed to settle in the county.6 Shortly after the group of four hundred released their statement of concerns, confrontation erupted in the streets of Independence between the Mormons and non-Mormons. Two saints were tarred and feathered on the public square. The owner of the Mormon storehouse agreed to close his business. The Mormons retained legal counsel, but their efforts were in vain, and on 31 October 1833, a group of forty or fifty armed men raided a Mormon settlement on the Big Blue, destroyed ten houses, and whipped the male heads of households. A few days later, in Independence, Mormon homes were stoned and their doors split open by mob action. Independence residents ransacked the closed storehouse on the Independence Square and threw the goods into the street. On 4 November gunfire erupted and both sides sustained injuries. Within the next month the Mormon families moved north into Clay County but were soon forced out of that county. In 1836–1837 the Missouri legislature created Caldwell County, farther to the north, for Mormon settlement, but the Mormon leadership wanted to expand into the surrounding counties because so many new 5. Ibid., 151. The 1830 census listed 193 slaves. 6. Article reprinted from the Western Monitor, in A History of Jackson County, Missouri, 254. For additional information about the conflict between the Mormons and other settlers in Jackson County, see Jennings, “City in the Garden,” in McKiernan, Blair, and Edwards, Restoration Movement, 99 –119.


17

converts were coming to settle, and this once again put the Mormons at odds with non-Mormon landowners.7 In 1838 Governor Lilburn Boggs, an Independence resident, signed an executive order that expelled the Mormons from Missouri. Smith and his followers traveled on to Illinois, where they founded Nauvoo. In Nauvoo, Joseph Smith held the title of chief magistrate, and the Mormons attempted once again to establish the type of community that Independence had rejected. The saints constructed a temple that served as a meeting place, and for a while its members enjoyed relative peace in their isolation from others, but trouble soon found them once again. In June 1844 Joseph Smith and his brother advocated the destruction of a press run by dissenting church members who published articles opposing new church doctrines such as polygamy. The two brothers were imprisoned. On 27 June 1844, shots rang out in the jail where they were held in Carthage, Illinois. Joseph Smith and his brother lost their lives. Their deaths left a power vacuum among church leaders and followers. Brigham Young emerged as a leader of one faction, while Joseph Smith III, son of Joseph Smith, Jr., eventually came to lead a majority of the other followers. While in Nauvoo, Young and his followers initiated the religious ceremony of baptizing the dead in the temple, along with other rituals that members of what came to be Joseph Smith III’s faction did not agree with. These rituals and the doctrine of polygamy were the main differences causing division between the members.8 Brigham Young and his group left Nauvoo in 1846 and eventually settled in Salt Lake City. Several other dissenting factions did not follow Young to Utah. In June 1852 these factions met together at a conference to discuss their common beliefs. They continued to meet in succeeding years and came to agree on some basic principles. First, they decried the polygamy espoused by Utah Mormonism. Second, they wanted their church to be led by someone who shared the Smith lineage. Finally, they wanted their church to be based on the “scriptural works of early Mormonism.”9 At a conference of these factions in Amboy, Illinois, on 6 April 1860, Joseph Smith III began serving as prophet-president of the combined factions. The church, with approximately 150 members, established its head7. History of Jackson County, 254–56; Winn, Exiles, 129–30. 8. See Howard, Church through the Years, 1:292–311. There were other groups that split off when Joseph Smith died; see ibid., 312–26, for a brief description. 9. Ibid., 341– 55.

18


quarters in Plano, Illinois, in 1866.10 The church wanted to reorganize and restore the original teachings of Joseph Smith. Ultimately its members wanted to return to Independence to fulfill Smith’s vision of creating Zion on earth. They referred to their movement as the Reorganization. However, Joseph Smith III realized it would take time for church members to be ready to return to the community that had successfully expelled them in 1833. In 1867 he wrote that there were material and spiritual components to Zion. The saints had to have the economic resources to support a community in Independence, and he cautioned members that unless they were economically ready to return, they should stay put and continue to conserve and build up their resources. Also, there was still factional infighting that would have to be eliminated before they could effect a successful and cohesive return to the “center place.” Smith noted: “We can not be successfully gathered till we are prepared for it. We are not prepared for it while envy, malice, strife, jealously, bickering . . . are found in our midst.”11 In 1867, the same year Joseph Smith III delivered his thoughts on returning to Zion, a small group of dissenters, not affiliated with the reorganization, settled and obtained title to a portion of the sixty-three-acre Temple Lot that Joseph Smith had instructed his followers to acquire in 1831, including the supposed exact lot where the temple dedication had taken place. This small group was led by Granville Hedrick. His followers became known as the Hedrickites, and their church was known as the Church of Christ (Temple Lot). They were the first faction to obtain title to a portion of the Temple Lot and by the early 1870s, just a few years later, they had constructed a small house, which served as the headquarters for their church.12 Other members affiliated with Joseph Smith III also returned to Independence and slowly reestablished the church’s presence. By July 1874, a little band of reorganizationists had gathered to Independence where they held meetings in the courthouse. The fact that they met in the courthouse seems to suggest the saints had achieved a certain amount of respectability within the community, but as more members returned to the area, 10. For church membership numbers, see Pearl Wilcox, Saints of the Reorganization in Missouri, 12. For the headquarters date, see undated brochure “Auditorium: World Headquarters,” in folder 3 (1984, 1986, 1989–1990, and undated), series 14, Subject file 1967–1997, Barbara Potts Papers, Jackson County Historical Society, Independence (hereafter Potts Papers). 11. Howard, Church through the Years, 2:34. 12. Campbell, New Jerusalem, 102– 5.


19

some noted conflict with and discrimination by their neighbors. Mary Campbell was forced to quit school for a period of time: “I was not allowed to play with the other children and when we went back to our room we were likely to be stood in the corner or on top of some high bench and often our books were drenching wet.” In 1877 Joseph Smith III visited Independence and remarked: “The city is handsomely situated, and sits not like Rome on seven hills, but on hundreds of hills. . . . Wood, water, and stone are everywhere to be had, and beauty of prospects lie in every direction.” The church increased in size, and by 1879 members purchased a lot and constructed a church.13 While members were slowly returning to Independence, Joseph Smith III and other church leaders took measures that distanced their church from Utah and developed stronger ties to Missouri, and to Independence in particular. In 1872 the church had officially adopted a name: The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS). Clearly, the church, in selecting this name, wanted to distinguish itself from the Utah church. The church would hold this name until 6 April 2001, when it became the Community of Christ.14 In 1881 the church headquarters moved closer to Missouri, and church leaders made Lamoni, Iowa, their base of operations. Joseph Smith III established Graceland College there, which would give the church an educational foundation to train not only ministers but also the children of members.15 In April 1882 the spotlight again shone on Independence, when church members decided to host their annual general conference at the newly completed church. This was the first time the conference was held in Independence. The conference brought four hundred people to Independence and focused on the efforts the church had made to distance itself from Utah. With such a growing influx of church members, it is difficult to gauge just exactly how non-members of the church viewed the RLDS return to the city. Daniel Negley, editor of the Independence Progress but not a member of the church, observed: “The members of the church or organization are recognized as law abiding and honorable citizens, and have the same rights guaranteed them under our constitution that is [sic] accorded to other religious denominations. . . . Those who would couple them with the church of Salt Lake, are doing them a great injustice. . . . We 13. Ibid., 36. quotes from Wilcox, Saints, 236, 238. 14. Kansas City Star, 24 March 2001. 15. This was on 17 September 1895; the first building was constructed in 1897. See Barbara J. Higdon, ed., An Illustrated History of Graceland College.

20


should therefore join hands, not only every Christian church or organization but all good men and lovers of high standards of morals.”16 The 1880s economic boom opened up new business opportunities for members settling in Independence. Three members opened a store on the northwest corner of the square, a member opened a dental office, another established the Novelty Iron Works. By 1884 the congregation of 350 had outgrown its small brick church and in 1887 began construction on what came to be known as the Stone Church. Constructed directly north of the Temple Lot and the Church of Christ property, the Stone Church faced the Temple Lot. Building this new church represented the return of the RLDS saints to Zion.17 The construction of the Stone Church was very important to the saints gathered in Independence. Joseph Luff, president of the church building committee, sent out a call to members all across the nation and the world for donations to defray the building’s construction costs. In his appeal he noted: “We are not building for Independence branch merely, nor for this nor next year alone, but for the church, and for the future. Do not allow the Gentiles to show a deeper interest in this place than we do. Do not leave the Master to be worshiped in Zion by his Saints in a house inferior to every other church structure in the town.”18 It was clear that Luff saw the construction of the Stone Church as integral to the building of Zion and the Center Place. Joseph Smith III also began to appreciate the significance of Independence. On 6 April 1888, he laid the cornerstone for the new building, and it was completed in March 1892.19 The church held its general conference there in April 1892 and continued to host its annual conferences there every other year, alternating with its headquarters in Lamoni. The RLDS Church was intensely interested in acquiring the sixty-three acres comprising the Temple Lot; however, the 1867 land purchases by the Church of Christ prevented complete acquisition of the land. Craig Campbell noted that representatives of the RLDS Church between 1885 and 1890 met with Church of Christ leaders to discuss the possibility of merging the congregations. In 1890, when the talks did not produce the merger, the RLDS Church sued the Church of Christ in hopes of acquiring their Temple Lot property. Initially, the courts ruled in favor of the RLDS Church, 16. Wilcox, Saints, 260. 17. Campbell, New Jerusalem, 116 –18. 18. Saints’ Herald 24, no. 52 (1887): 835. 19. Richard A. Brown, An Illustrated History of the Stone Church.


21

Stone Church. Courtesy of author.

but the decision was overturned on appeal, and the Church of Christ retained possession of the lots purchased in 1867.20 The Church of Christ (Temple Lot) and the RLDS Church were the most important Mormon factions that returned to Independence to fulfill Joseph Smith’s vision of creating the ideal community, and both groups 20. Campbell, New Jerusalem, 118.

22


immediately took steps to acquire property that was either part of the original acres of the Temple Lot or on its immediate periphery. The Utahbased Mormon Church was also interested in Independence and, like the local factions, believed it to be Zion. In 1897 the Mormon Church established its first congregation in the city, and in 1904 the church purchased a twenty-five-acre portion of land. Thirteen of those twenty-five acres were part of the original sixty-three acres that Joseph Smith had instructed his followers to purchase in 1831. The Mormon Church constructed a chapel on a portion of the land, but not on land originally part of the Temple Lot. Clearly the competition had begun, to fulfill Joseph Smith’s vision of an ideal community. Three different groups had now staked their claim to the Temple Lot. However, of the three, the RLDS Church exerted the most effort to build up the Center Place.21 Independence received a substantial boost as home to the headquarters of the RLDS Church when Smith III and his son, Frederick M. Smith, relocated to Independence from Lamoni on 12 July 1906. The president of the church noted: “I did so to get into direct and closer touch with the Bishop’s office and also to fulfill, as I believed, a religious duty to become a resident of the place designated of old as Zion.”22 Smith’s comments reveal that Joseph’s vision of Zion still resonated deeply within those RLDS members who continued to gather to Independence. Their numbers continued to increase. The Stone Church had to take action to incorporate the new members into local congregations. In 1910 the Stone Church membership stood at 2,306. In that same month a second branch of the church, aptly named “Second Church,” was formed. In subsequent years the Stone Church sponsored eight other branches, in order to provide houses of worship for those who gathered, but throughout the twentieth century the Stone Church continued to maintain the highest number of members out of the ten Independence branches.23 While Smith III’s decision to permanently relocate to Independence and the construction of the Stone Church were important steps in permanently reestablishing the presence of the RLDS Church in Independence, the church took a major step forward in integrating itself into the community when it constructed the Independence Sanitarium in 1909. The concept and rationale for the hospital was again found in the Zionic teachings of 21. Ibid., 154–55. The Saints sometimes described Independence as the Center Place, as the place where they were fulfilling Joseph Smith’s vision of creating Zion. 22. Mary Audentia Smith Anderson, ed., The Memoirs of President Joseph Smith III, 1832–1814, 451. 23. Richard Brown, Illustrated History, 18 –19.


23

Joseph Smith. In April 1906 Joseph Smith III had a revelation that was then publicly revealed to his followers: “It is the will of the Lord that a sanitarium, a place of refuge and help for the sick and afflicted, be established by the church, at Independence, Missouri, as my servant Joseph Smith has already stated to you.”24 At the dedication of the hospital on 15 December 1909, Mayor Llewellen Jones noted the importance of the sanitarium and the services it would provide: “We may have emergency calls any day that may call for an institution like this, and now we have it, and we hope that our people, not only your denomination but the city, may use this building.” However, as soon as the hospital opened, its board of directors and Joseph Smith III debated whether non-members should be treated in the facility. Joseph Smith III noted: “The objective of the Institution was for the Church and not for the world; it is not a hospital for the general public.” Smith went on to observe that no patient should be admitted without the consent of the board of physicians and the Independence Sanitarium board of directors.25 The sanitarium board voted to let the chief medical director make the decision regarding who would receive treatment. Apparently he did not turn away non-members, because the first annual report, covering the period from 15 December 1909 to 31 December 1910, showed that out of 102 persons admitted only 57 percent were members of the RLDS Church. The hospital continued to treat members of all faiths and allowed non-RLDS doctors to practice medicine in its facilities throughout the period of church ownership.26 While the RLDS Church worked hard to establish a hospital for its members in the first decade of the twentieth century, it also established institutions that would take care of members who gathered to Independence. In May 1910 the United Order of Enoch, founded on 26 October 1903, was incorporated. Its purpose was to “assist the worthy needy and poor in obtaining employment and homes, help the sick and afflicted and unfortunate in times of need, promote temperance, morality and equality.” In 1913 there were 141 members of the order, and by 1915 the order’s membership had grown to 202.27 24. Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Book of Doctrine and Covenants, 217–18, or D and C 127:1a. 25. Chris B. Hartshorn, “History of Independence Sanitarium, Section 1, 1909– 1959,” in folder 56, Chris Hartshorn Papers (RLDS Archives), 5, 9. 26. Ibid., 14. 27. “United Order of Enoch Articles of Association and By-Laws,” 11 May 1910, in

24


Construction of Independence Sanitarium, 1909. Courtesy Community of Christ Library-Archives, Independence, Missouri.

The order purchased lots for those who would gather to Independence and then sold them to members at a low cost when they arrived. In November 1911 the order “purchased, improved, and subdivided 80 acres” south of Independence into 291 lots and created the subdivision known as “Enoch Hill” or “Summit Addition.” The lots were sold at either $5 or $7 a foot depending upon the location and improvements made to the property. In 1917 the Order of Enoch meeting minutes noted a number of residents had purchased lots and constructed modest homes on them in the Summit Addition. The minutes also noted that members who intended to gather to Independence had purchased lots in advance of their arrival. In 1921 the order purchased seventy acres, which were then subdivided into 240 lots.28 folder 47, United Order of Enoch Papers, RLDS Archives. For the 1915 membership figure, see “Annual Report of the Board to the Membership,” 3 March 1916, in Minutes 1913–1928, ibid. 28. Larry E. Hunt, F. M. Smith: Saint as Reformer, 1874–1946, 1:168; minutes, 8 March


25

The church wielded considerable political power in the early twentieth century, as demonstrated by the number of lots the Order of Enoch purchased and by the political debate the church membership had with the surrounding community over the issue of prohibition. The saints concentrated their members in the First and Fourth wards where the Order of Enoch had purchased lots. While non-members did not seem to exhibit displeasure with this growing minority, historian Larry Hunt recounted how RLDS Church members patrolled the streets to prevent election fraud in a July 1914 prohibition vote. The dry voters prevailed, affirming the city’s commitment to prohibition. An editorial in the Saints’ Herald observed: “This makes one more forward step in preparation for the work of the redemption of Zion.”29

Zion’s Impact on the Political and Cultural Landscape Joseph Smith III died on 10 December 1914, and on 15 May 1915 Frederick M. Smith became president of the church. F. M. Smith was more aggressive than his father had been in calling church members to build up Zion/Independence and to gather to the city. He felt that the presidency should govern the church, and he took measures to see that the president’s office would exert more control.30 Joseph III would not have rejected these initiatives, but his son wanted to see the 1831 revelations of Joseph Smith fulfilled and knew it would take a strong leader to make this happen. F. M. was unlike his father in that he was not as publicly vociferous in denouncing the Utah church and its alleged experience with polygamy. F. M.’s focus was on building up Zion in Independence by building church institutions that would be open to the public—a marked difference between Salt Lake City and Independence.31 It became increasingly clear to F. M. Smith that Independence should 1917, in Minutes 1913–1928, folder 47, United Order of Enoch Papers, RLDS Archives; Hunt, F. M. Smith, 1:171–72. 29. Hunt, F. M. Smith, 2:408; “Notes and Comments,” Saints’ Herald 61, no. 34, 26 August 1914, 804. 30. In 1925 there was a power struggle between F. M. Smith and the presiding bishopric. Smith came out on top, but some members defected. See Howard, Church through the Years, 2:232– 41. 31. W. Wallace Smith, interview by E. Keith Henry, transcript, 1981 (RLDS Archives), 37. For F. M.’s private denunciation of polygamy, see Pearl Bridge to F. M. Smith, 9 July 1926, Smith to Bridge, 12 August 1926, in folder 35, Correspondence 1923–1929, Frederick M. Smith Records and Papers, RLDS Archives.

26


be the location of the church headquarters. F. M. had accompanied his father to the city when he decided to make Independence his home in 1906, and after F. M. became president, he moved more of the church operations to the city. At the 1920 church conference, members voted to transfer the church’s legal headquarters from Lamoni to Independence. The Independence Examiner observed: “The lack of opposition was due, partly, . . . to the fact that for fifteen years the actual transfer of the headquarters from Lamoni to Independence has been going on, and the greater part of the church business already had been brought here.” This was not the only important decision made at the conference. Attendees also voted to hold all future church conferences in Independence. The Stone Church had grown too small for these conferences, however, so Fred M. Smith proposed that an auditorium be constructed that would provide a place for the saints to hold their annual meeting.32 When the church decided to relocate to Independence, church officials also had to relocate. The church was headed by President F. M. Smith who was advised by two members of what was referred to as the First Presidency, which provided administrative direction for the denomination. The Presiding Bishopric, under the First Presidency, functioned as the “chief financial officers and trustees of the assets of the church.” The Council of Twelve, also under the First Presidency, was responsible for overseeing missionary work.33 In 1921 the church acquired title to what came to be known as the Battery Block on the Independence Square, and this provided office space for church administration. According to a mortgage executed on the property, these offices, as well as space for the newly relocated Saints’ Herald publishing house, were purchased for $68,331.16. The church would continue to use this location for its administrative offices until 1992.34 While the RLDS Church continued to develop Zion in Independence by planting firm institutional roots in the city, the church also continued periodically to encourage the gathered saints to participate in the electoral process. A July 1922 Saints’ Herald editorial observed: “It is our duty as cit32. “Adopt Moving Plans,” Independence Examiner, 12 April 1920 (quote); “To Build Auditorium,” Independence Examiner, 10 April 1920. 33. For a detailed account of the church administration, see Leonard M. Young, ed., Church Administrator’s Handbook, 1995 edition. The quote is from page 10. There are other offices, but these three are the most relevant to the study. 34. C. L. Olson to L. F. P. Curry, 20 December 1935, in “United Order of Enoch Successors: Central Development Association 1928–1935,” folder 264, Presiding Bishops’ Records and Papers, RLDS Archives.


27

izens to take our individual share in primary, general election, and caucus, in court and elsewhere, in order to maintain the principles of the law and of morals.” The church did not endorse any particular candidate; however, the editorial encouraged its membership, saying that if the “men and women of America are going to clean up the moral conditions” they must become interested in “politics and see that good men are chosen.”35 In November 1922 Independence voters went to the polls to elect an individual to serve as eastern district judge of Jackson County. Harry S. Truman was the Democratic candidate, and he handily defeated his Republican challenger. In Blue Township (composed primarily of Independence precincts), however, out of the 8,791 votes cast, Truman captured only 4,476 (only 161 more votes than his political opponent). Truman won the position on the court with the backing of the Pendergast political machine—a machine that would probably not have represented the “good men” that the Saints’ Herald editorial had encouraged its membership to support in the 1922 elections.36 The county court position was important to the church because Truman became the county contact that church officials would have to go through in order to obtain assistance with their local building projects, especially additions made to the hospital. Since the RLDS Church operated the largest hospital in eastern Jackson County and since the hospital provided indigent care for eastern Jackson County residents, following approvals of care contracts by the county court, Truman became an important elected official to church leaders. Even though Truman was in a key role vis-à-vis the RLDS Church, he was probably perceived as tainted because of his ties to the Pendergast machine. In 1923 F. M. Smith delivered a sermon where he once again described the role the church should play in politics: “Politics will become clean only when clean men enter politics, and politics will become religious only when the church forces religion into it and among the politicians.” Smith’s comments then turned toward the “political bosses,” presumably those such as Tom Pendergast who, he argued, managed government without concern for spiritual and religious matters: “The church and state have been taken advantage of by those

35. “Our Duty as Citizens,” Saints’ Herald 69, no. 28, 12 July 1922, 639. For the church membership for 1922, see Conference Minutes, 1917 to 1923, 3086. 36. For the unofficial precinct vote, see “The Precinct Vote in the County,” Independence Examiner, 9 November 1922. For more on the Pendergast machine, see William M. Reddig, Tom’s Town: Kansas City and the Pendergast Legend; Lyle W. Dorsett, The Pendergast Machine; Richard Lawrence Miller, Truman: The Rise to Power.

28


who would control politics [political bosses] and free from politics the guiding and balancing influence of religion.”37 In a February 1924 radio sermon published in the Saints’ Herald, Smith posed a question: “Shall ministers close their eyes to corruption in high places, and say nothing when men on the bench, in the city halls, in the nation’s legislature go wrong?” Then he answered: “Any minister who, seeing evil, fails to denounce it, is derelict in duty.” Smith continued to support and advocate for clean government.38 In November 1924 Truman ran for reelection, but this time his Republican opponent defeated him. In contrast to the 1922 election, where he won Independence by a slim margin, in this election he lost Independence by 411 votes and even suffered losses in the rural areas of the eastern district, which had supported him in his first election. The Kansas City Journal had accused him of corruption. While Truman’s defeat cannot be explained solely by a significant number of RLDS voters who embraced their president’s vision of clean government and saw Truman as anathema to that, the significant RLDS voting block could not be underestimated. However, both contemporary observers and historians who evaluated this election concluded that a Democratic faction opposing the Pendergast faction voted with the Republicans to ensure Truman’s defeat.39 While Truman was out of a political job in the aftermath of the November 1924 election, F. M. Smith was committed to building Zion in Independence, and he took measures to ensure that all who gathered to the Center Place would take part in the “redemption” of Zion. In a message delivered at the Stone Church in 1925, he explained: “To redeem it [Independence] means to change it from present conditions into those pointed out by divine instruction as being righteous. To buy it is not necessarily to redeem it. . . . The land as well as the people must be converted to God, be reconciled to him.”40 To Smith, the institutions established by the church in Independence were to be an example to church members throughout the country and the world. Smith believed there were Zionic 37. Sermon typescript, 5 August 1923, folder 82, Smith Records and Papers, RLDS Archives. 38. Hunt, F. M. Smith, 2:404. 39. Ibid.; “Truman Is Defeated,” Independence Examiner, 5 November 1924; Miller, Rise to Power, 203–4; Robert H. Ferrell, Harry S. Truman: A Life, 99–103; Alonzo Hamby, Man of the People: A Life of Harry S. Truman, 127–31. 40. Norman D. Ruoff, ed., The Writings of President Frederick M. Smith: Educating, Nurturing, and Upholding, 2:153.


29

economic and social components that the Independence saints needed to achieve in order to develop Zion in the city. The economic aspects of Zion could be found in the cooperative ventures Smith proposed for members. In a message delivered at the Stone Church in 1924, he asked his congregation: “How much longer are we going to live in Independence without producers in the outlying districts and let them sell their products to the middle men who are not members of the church, when we could just as well be functioning and keep those profits ourselves?”41 In 1925 Smith encouraged the founding of cooperatives. In fact, the presence of cooperatives in Independence was not new. Since the Order of Enoch was founded in 1903, the order had assisted in the establishment and funding of several enterprises in the city.42 These ventures unfortunately were not successful; in fact one 1919 venture that sold coal at reduced rates to members offended some local non-member coal retailers, because the price the church charged its members undercut local retailers. Smith noted in his 1925 address that a similar situation had transpired with the sanitarium in its early days of operation. The church purchased supplies directly from a wholesaler, which angered the city retailers who threatened to stop purchasing goods from the wholesaler. The wholesaler told the church he would have to stop selling goods to the church. Apparently, the church complied with the wishes of the wholesaler.43 The tension between RLDS Church members and those who were not members of the faith never reached the boiling point as it had during the 1830s expulsion, but the tension seemed always to be just beneath the surface of community relations. W. Wallace Smith, the half-brother of F. M. Smith who became church president in the 1960s, grew up in Independence and went through its school system during this time (1915–1925). He noted that most of the RLDS Church members lived on the east side of Independence while non-RLDS members lived on the west. Those on the east side attended Columbian School, located on South River, and those on the west side attended the Ott School. During their high school

41. Norman D. Ruoff, ed., The Writings of President Frederick M. Smith: Theology and Philosophy, 1:174 –75. 42. Good Morning Milling Company and Others 1923–1934, folder 281; Mining and Milling 1903–1914, folder 282; and Coal Mining 1916, folder 283; all in United Order of Enoch, Business Investments, Independence, in Presiding Bishops’ Records and Papers, RLDS Archives. 43. Ruoff, Theology and Philosophy, 1:175.

30


years, all students attended the same school, William Chrisman. In an oral history, Wallace Smith noted a rivalry that carried over from the grade school experience to the high school: “There was somewhat of a rivalry. I remember in our class there was what I guess you’d call class politics, or at least the rivalry between people who were running for class president. It came down, actually, to the fact that the Latter Day Saints would probably have a candidate and the others would have a candidate, and it’d [the presidency] kind of vacillated back and forth, first one and then the other.” Smith concluded by describing the rivalry as “good-natured,” saying that it never degenerated into “open warfare” or “fisticuffs.”44 Harry Truman also recognized that the tension between non–Latter Day Saints and the followers of Joseph Smith’s legacy was beneath the surface. In the 1960s author Merle Miller conducted a series of interviews with Harry Truman, and when Miller asked Truman about the Mormons in Independence he was quoted as saying: “People in Independence haven’t changed a bit. The old people hate them just as much now as they did then. It’s a violent prejudice. I don’t feel that way, and a great many of the people of Independence do not, but . . . the old Independence families, they won’t have anything to do with Mormons.” In 1995 the accuracy of Miller’s quotes in Plain Speaking came under fire from noted Truman historian Dr. Robert H. Ferrell, who, along with co-author Francis Heller, argued that Miller had embellished the quotes he used in the book. I checked the quote in Miller’s book against the taped conversation between Miller and Truman, and I found that, for the most part, the quote is accurate. Miller did embellish a portion of the quote, and I have not included that portion.45 This is the only known recorded statement that Truman made about the Mormons in Independence. In 1926 F. M. Smith launched an ambitious plan to construct a building large enough to serve as a meeting place for the church’s annual conference, breaking ground in February for what he referred to as the auditorium. The site was on a portion of the original Temple Lot that Joseph Smith had designated in 1831, and the auditorium became the first structure the RLDS would build on the Temple Lot. In a speech Smith delivered in May for the cornerstone laying he noted: “It is a time that we as a

44. Smith interview, 7–8. 45. For the quote, see Merle Miller, Plain Speaking: An Oral Biography of Harry S. Truman, 420. The veracity of Plain Speaking has been questioned by Robert H. Ferrell and Francis Heller in “Plain Faking?” American Heritage Magazine 46, no. 3 (1995): 14, 16. For the actual quote, see tape 4, side B, Merle Miller Papers, HSTL.


31

Aerial photo of Temple Lot around 1930, looking east. The RLDS purchased a portion of the lot in 1926 and began construction on the auditorium, which was in use by 1928. Notice the neighborhood that had developed south of the auditorium (it was removed in the 1950s and 1960s to add additional parking space for the facility). Photograph by C. Ed Miller, courtesy Community of Christ Library-Archives, Independence, Missouri.

people should be erecting buildings as monuments of progress.”46 The building’s elliptical shape made for a truly striking presence in the landscape of Independence. Designed to seat seven thousand people, the auditorium was the largest building in the city, and it served as a physical marker of the RLDS Church’s importance in the community. Construction began with $850,000 in pledges from members across the United States and the world. The year 1926, a milestone in the history of the RLDS Church, also marked a milestone in the political career of Harry S. Truman, who received Pendergast’s blessing to run as presiding judge of Jackson County. In contrast to the previous election, where only voters in eastern Jackson County voted for or against Truman, the voting for the presiding county judgeship would be decided by all county voters, including those in the Pendergast-controlled Kansas City wards. In Independence Truman outpolled his opponent by more than fifteen hundred votes, and he won easily in Kansas City.47 46. “The Auditorium,” Saints’ Herald 73, no. 39, 29 September 1926, 915. 47. “Precinct Vote in Jackson County,” Independence Examiner, 5 November 1930.

32


While Truman focused on county affairs, Fred M. Smith focused his efforts on the continued construction of the auditorium, a building he would allow to be used as a community event center. In 1927 the annual Harvest Home Festival, a Thanksgiving festival that originated with the RLDS Church, was held for the first time in the auditorium. Participants included church members and non-members, exhibiting flowers, fruits, vegetables, grains, and home products in a three-day festival. At the conclusion of the festival, the goods were then distributed to needy members of the community.48 Not only did F. M. Smith continue to fulfill the Zionic vision of building Independence by constructing the auditorium, but, like his grandfather, he encouraged the saints to gather to Independence. In 1927 the church surveyed 1,547 RLDS families to determine who owned outright, who owned with a mortgage, and who rented homes in Independence. The results showed that 683 owned their home, 463 owned their home with a mortgage, and 401 rented a dwelling. Smith wondered out loud in a 1927 speech just how successful the Order of Enoch had been in allowing these members to own their homes. It was Smith’s hope, he said, “that we may soon see the day when all the Saints in Independence will be owners of homes clear of debt.”49 Clearly, the Order of Enoch had been successful in providing members with the necessary property on which to build their homes, and the order fulfilled Joseph Smith’s vision of gathering members to Independence and building up the Center Place. Smith was cautious about who should gather, however. Writing in 1928 the president said: “the wise and the rich [were] to gather first to make the preparation for the coming of the others, for wisdom and riches are necessary elements in the Gathering if we are not to lose industrially and economically by the move.” The church outlined a process that members outside of Independence had to go through to be permitted to settle in Independence. The presiding bishop had to approve moves to Independence after a thorough review of the applicant’s background and family situation. Sometimes individuals were rejected, but more often than not they were permitted to gather. What concerned Smith and other church leaders the most was the fact that many members did not consult church leadership prior to their relocation to Independence. Many just showed 48. In 1929 the Independence Examiner noted that thirty-five thousand people attended the festival, which the auditorium continued to host until 1940. “In Six Days, Thirty-five Thousand,” Independence Examiner, 23 September 1929. 49. Norman D. Ruoff, ed., The Writings of President Frederick M. Smith: Zionic Enterprise, 34 – 35.


33

up, and this had the potential to tax the ability of the church to accommodate them, because many could not count themselves among those described by Smith as “the wise and the rich.”50 While Smith focused his energy on encouraging the saints to gather to Independence and on the construction of the auditorium, Truman focused his energy on a building project of his own. Soon after his 1926 election as presiding judge, Truman implemented a strategy to fund road improvement projects in Jackson County, and he assured county residents the projects could be achieved honestly. He promoted a bond issue to fund construction of enough roads so that no county resident would be farther than two and a half miles from a paved road, and he secured bipartisan support for the issue, which was approved in May 1928. Ferrell noted that, of the 244 miles paved under the bond issue, Pendergast’s notorious concrete company won a contract for only one half-mile, although the political boss might have received subcontracting work.51 The early 1930s were pivotal years for both the RLDS Church and Harry S. Truman. Church leaders and the county judge found themselves in the midst of a depression, but instead of maintaining a cautious fiscal approach, both Truman and the leaders of the church launched ambitious plans. In April 1930 F. M. Smith approached the community, primarily through the Independence Chamber of Commerce, and encouraged them to launch a fund-raising effort to construct an addition to the Independence Sanitarium. The Independence chamber, which had RLDS members, led the campaign. Mayor Roger Sermon, not a member of the church, served as honorary chairman, and Truman, presiding judge of the Jackson County Court, served as one of the group chairmen. Seven divisions of workers divided into sixty-four teams to collect donations for the hospital fund. The community raised approximately $138,000, and the church contributed $150,000 to the fund-raising effort. Since the community raised funds for the new hospital, the church for the first time allowed non-RLDS members a place on the sanitarium board. Chief among those non-RLDS members were the mayor of Independence and the eastern district judge of the Jackson County Court. The community support for the hospital project was overwhelming and demonstrated that the city was at ease with and supported the RLDS effort to improve the sanitarium.52 50. Ibid., 23–25 (25); for the guidelines for gathering, see also 194–96. 51. Ferrell, Truman: A Life, 111, 109 (Pendergast); Miller, Rise to Power, 221–22. 52. “Independence ‘Community’ Hospital Campaign Organization,” Independence Examiner, 17 June 1930; “Victory Dinner,” Kansas City Post, 1 July 1930; “Amend Incorporation of Indep. Sanitarium,” Independence Examiner, 1 August 1930.

34


In April 1930, when Smith announced plans to expand the hospital, the lieutenant governor of Missouri welcomed delegates to the 1930 general conference, which marked the one hundredth anniversary of the founding of the church. The mayor of Independence and one of the judges on the Jackson County Court also spoke words of welcome to the attendees. The willingness of these public officials to address members of the church demonstrated their tolerance of the church’s presence in Independence and in the state.53 In the midst of a depression, church members continued to follow Smith’s plea to gather to Independence and to visit the auditorium, which had now become a local tourist attraction. Church records reveal that the Independence church membership stood at fifty-eight hundred in 1930. The membership was a decided, yet influential, minority among Independence’s approximately fifteen thousand residents. During the summer season of 1933, over three thousand tourists and visitors registered their attendance at the auditorium. Elder C. J. Hunt said: “it was not unusual for groups of visitors to spend from one half hour to two hours, asking questions and listening to answers.”54 The depression seriously curtailed the construction effort on the auditorium as well as the church’s ability to succeed in the cooperative associations that Smith in the 1920s had urged his followers to undertake. Nevertheless, the church continued to build up the Center Place and to provide a place for those who gathered. On 28 May 1930, the Order of Enoch was superseded by the Central Development Association (CDA), incorporated with a total valuation of $58,100. Unlike the Order of Enoch, whose purpose was to help members find employment and property once they gathered, CDA’s sole responsibility was the management and acquisition of church property. The CDA had a board of directors who held stock in the corporation, but board members received no compensation for their work and they pledged to donate any profits made by the company back to the church. CDA actively acquired property around the auditorium, which would later be developed as part of the Zionic mission.55 In November 1930 Jackson County residents overwhelmingly reelected Truman to another four-year term as presiding judge. Out of the almost 53. “Welcome Conference Officially Tonight,” Independence Examiner, 7 April 1930. 54. Independence Examiner, 1 April 1930; “Auditorium a Missionary Center,” Saints’ Herald 80, no. 39, 26 September 1933, 1243 (quote). 55. Roger Yarrington, The Auditorium, 77–84; Central Development Association Articles of Incorporation, 12 June 1930, folder CDA Bishop Boren 1965–1967, Presiding Bishopric Papers, RLDS Archives.


35

nine thousand votes cast in Blue Township, Truman received over six thousand; it was his most decisive victory to date in the city. It is difficult to know exactly what inspired his decisive margin of victory, but he had made good on his commitment to bring the citizens of Jackson County good roads, and he had supported the RLDS effort to expand the hospital. The voters once again demonstrated their faith in his leadership in May 1931, when they approved a second bond issue to finish the road-building project, to construct a new Kansas City courthouse, and to remodel the one in Independence. In 1933 Truman presided over the dedication of the new courthouse in Independence. The county judge’s commitment to planning must have caught the eye of F. M. Smith, whose call for clean government had seemingly been answered by Truman’s successful road construction program and courthouse building program. Unfortunately Smith never publicly revealed his thoughts about Truman, nor did Truman reveal his about Smith, but the decisive election victory seems to demonstrate that Truman received the support of some RLDS voters.56 The 1930s depression forced the church into an indebtedness that has been estimated at $1,814,892.83. Construction work on the auditorium ceased. Unfortunately, the depression also halted work on the hospital expansion. In 1934 the state elected Harry S. Truman as U.S. senator. Campaigning as an honest county administrator, Truman took his record to the voters in the 1934 senate campaign where he outpolled his Republican opponent in Blue Township by over 9,500 votes—a substantial victory. Six years later, during the 1940 senate election (a campaign that Truman ran without Pendergast support and under a considerable cloud because the political boss had been jailed on tax evasion charges), Truman defeated his Republican opponent in Blue Township by only 2,879 votes.57 By 1940 Bishop G. Leslie DeLapp, who was responsible for the financial affairs of the RLDS Church, developed a financial plan that was implemented by the church and which allowed the institution to emerge from the depression on a sound financial footing. In 1940 Bishop DeLapp approached Mayor Roger Sermon, a Truman political ally during the Pendergast years, to ask about federal help for the hospital expansion. Senator Truman and Congressman C. Jasper Bell secured a matching grant-inaid that resulted in the construction of seven new hospital floors, as well 56. “Precinct Vote in Jackson County,” Independence Examiner, 5 November 1930; Miller, Rise to Power, 223; Hamby, Man of the People, 167–68. 57. “How Jackson County Voted,” Independence Examiner, 7 November 1934; “Unofficial Tabulation of Votes by Precincts in Independence,” Independence Examiner, 7 November 1940.

36


The Independence courthouse Truman remodeled in 1933. Courtesy of author.

as the acquisition of medical equipment for each floor. On 18 December 1942, at an open house and banquet for the new hospital, Mayor Roger Sermon said: “We asked [the Federal Government] for $228,000; we were allotted $232,000; and we finally got $288,000. . . . It is truly a community hospital. We have watched closely, and we have never seen any sign of favoritism or of religious intolerance. Only a third of the people treated there have been members of the Church that sponsors the Institution; the other two-thirds have been outsiders, yet everybody has been treated alike.”58 With the church back on solid financial ground, F. M. Smith continued 58. For a detailed account of DeLapp’s strategy and its success, see Howard, Church through the Years, 2:278–86. For the sanitarium, see “History of Independence Sanitarium Section 1, 1900–1959,” folder 56, Hartshorn Papers (RLDS Archives), 65–66 (quote). The federal funding was granted also because the Independence Sanitarium was the closest hospital to the Lake City ammunitions plant, a major supplier of World War II ammunition, which was proposed as early as November 1940 and opened in 1941. See “Says Arms Plant Will Bring New Civic Problems,” Independence Examiner, 7 November 1940.


37

to build up Zion, and he began a mission to finish the auditorium. In a message to the general conference in 1944, Smith again noted how significant it was to him for the church to make a visible impression on Independence’s skyline: “Any people that have as great an objective as we in the establishment of Zion and improvement of social conditions must leave behind . . . monuments of progress reflected in the architecture and in the utility of the buildings they use for religious purposes.”59 The church responded to Smith’s call to finish the auditorium by voting to expend $25,000 to finish three additional offices in the building. However, the “finishing” proceeded at a slow rate. F. M. Smith died on 20 March 1946, and Israel Smith, his brother, was chosen as his successor. On 12 April 1945, only weeks after F. M. Smith’s death, Independence residents were shocked to learn of Franklin Roosevelt’s death and the news that Harry S. Truman, their hometown career politician, was now president. In June 1945 Truman returned to the city for the first time as president. The chamber of commerce spearheaded a rally that culminated in a presidential address delivered to a packed RLDS auditorium. The president was elated to see all the people gathered: “I can’t possibly tell you how much I appreciate this demonstration. I am going to spend the next two or three days in Jackson County trying my best, with all the handicaps of the President of the United States to enjoy myself with you as I formerly did when a judge of the County Court.”60 While the community welcomed the spotlight as it played hometown host to a president of the United States, the RLDS Church continued to develop the Center Place. Around 1946 the Walnut Park Development Association was formed to manage and develop sixty-three acres of land located two miles south of the Independence Square on South Noland Road, adjacent to the Golden Acres residential area. The purpose was “to demonstrate how people can work together in solving their individual and neighborhood problems and in meeting their needs.” The stockholders would turn their stock over to the RLDS Church in 1954, and in 1963 the corporation name would change to the Bellevista Development Corporation Inc. This was the last residential area developed by the church, which would retain an active interest in the area as late as 1975.61 59. Auditorium Construction: Fundraising and History, Sanitarium Sun Deck (1947–1954), folder 200, Presiding Bishops’ Records and Papers, RLDS Archives. 60. “Truman Makes Direct Report to Home Folks,” Independence Examiner, 28 June 1945. 61. “Prospectus Walnut Park Development Association, Inc., Independence, Missouri,” and “Notes of Bellevista Development Corporation Master Plan Committee,”

38


The completion of the auditorium was one of Israel Smith’s chief goals as president of the church. He secured an appropriation of $200,000 for the preservation and acoustical treatment of the building in 1946. This appropriation also covered the construction of a copper dome that would make the structure stand out in the Independence skyline. In 1947 another appropriation of $75,000 covered increased costs, and in 1950 the church launched an additional fund-raising effort to secure $500,000 more for auditorium work. A $400,000 contract was signed in 1954 that funded the remodeling of the auditorium’s foyer and added interior columns of red granite to complement the exterior columns of gray granite. The Saints’ Herald announced that the building represented an investment of more than $1.5 million.62 In February 1953 the RLDS Church took time out to honor the city’s most notable political figure when the Laurel Club, located in the auditorium, sponsored a homecoming dinner in honor of Harry S. Truman and his family. G. Leslie DeLapp, presiding bishop of the church, organized the dinner, which was attended by 650 Truman political associates, neighbors, and relatives. Mayor Robert Weatherford, when he introduced the former president, called Truman a “good neighbor” and a “dear friend,” and Truman spoke about the significant role Independence had played in his personal history.63 While the RLDS Church took time out to honor the return of Truman to the city as a retired public official, the CDA continued to acquire residential property around the auditorium. Many of these lots were needed to construct parking lots for auditorium visitors; after the property was acquired, the houses were rented out for a time, and then they were demolished. CDA minutes for the meeting on 6 July 1954 note that the board gave tenants notice to vacate 325 and 327 South Grand and 324 South Bowen by 1 September 1954, “for the purpose of razing these buildings to provide parking space for the Auditorium.”64 Israel Smith’s efforts to build up Independence were not limited just to dated 20 August 1975, in Gathering Committee: Bellevista Subdivison, folder 27, Gathering Committee Papers, RLDS Archives. 62. “History of the Auditorium,” in Auditorium Construction: Fundraising and History, Sanitarium Sun Deck 1947–1954, folder 200, Presiding Bishops’ Records and Papers, RLDS Archives. 63. Kansas City Star and Kansas City Times, 6 February 1953; quotes from the folder Testimonial dinner, February 5, Independence, Missouri, General file, Speech files, PPP, Truman Papers, HSTL. (Truman’s speech will be discussed in Chapter 3). 64. Minutes, 6 July 1954, in CDA Minutes 1940–1954, folder 3, Presiding Bishopric Papers, RLDS Archives.


39

the auditorium. Under his administration, the church continued its commitment to the Center Place. On 23 August 1954, construction began on Resthaven, a home designed for senior adults entering the latter stages of their life. The home was funded by oblation funds—monies collected by the Presiding Bishopric from all its churches on Communion Sunday, the first Sunday of every month. According to a promotional brochure: “Resthaven stands as a monument to our desire to implement the basic ideals of Zion—to ‘remember’ in all things the poor and the needy, the sick and afflicted.”65 Although Israel Smith’s attention was temporarily diverted to the construction of Resthaven, the church once again refocused on the auditorium in 1957 when it announced an additional construction contract of $1.1 million. It was no surprise that the RLDS leadership wanted to make substantial progress toward finishing the auditorium in 1957, because this was the year the Truman library opened to the public. Bishop H. L. Livingston noted that the opening of the library would bring many people to Independence from all over the world and he asked: “Are we going to be there in an unfinished building to welcome them?” The bishop went on to acknowledge that the Truman presidency was significant: “Scholars will come from every quarter of the earth, and we should be prepared to receive these people with a story of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and with some concrete evidence of the fact that we are a vital, dynamic church.”66 The church celebrated its commitment to the hospital when new building additions were dedicated on 14 and 15 June 1958. The total cost for the project was $893,500. Of that amount, $97,000 was funded by a Ford Foundation grant, $236,500 from federal funds, $300,000 from the Independence community and medical staff, $225,000 from the RLDS Church, and $35,000 in miscellaneous donations. Once again, the church received community and federal support as it had previously in both 1930 and 1940– 1941. The hospital continued to integrate the church into the Independence community. In a 1953 RLDS committee meeting, A. Neel Deaver shrewdly observed: “The hospital has become a common meeting place for influential citizens of the community who might not otherwise come 65. “A Master Plan for Resthaven,” March 1974, 6, in folder 324, W. Wallace Smith, President Emeritus Papers, RLDS Archives. The quote is from the brochure titled “Our Institutions Implement Great Ideas!” in folder 34, Sanitarium Papers, RLDS Archives. An additional wing was added to Resthaven in 1966, and from 1971 to 1973 the average number of residents was 160. 66. Bishop G. Leslie DeLapp, comp., “The Auditorium: Financial and Construction Problems,” 18 October 1955, Auditorium Construction 1955–1957, folder 201, Presiding Bishops’ Records and Papers, RLDS Archives.

40


to view the work of the church, and who in some cases have [not] even accepted of it. The work of the hospital has molded the organization of the Ministerial Alliance into a solid working body for the hospital, and many friends have been won to the church thereby.”67 In addition to the hospital construction, completion of the auditorium remained a priority for Israel Smith. The conference chamber was finished, and additional office space as well as east and west porticoes were added. Unfortunately he was unable to see the auditorium’s final completion for he was killed on the morning of 14 June 1958 in an automobile accident while he was traveling to Graceland University to speak.68 Wallace A. Smith, his half-brother, became president of the church shortly thereafter and presided over the dedication of the finished building in 1962. The completion of the auditorium was a milestone in the life of the RLDS Church. The building was the focal point for the church and served as another example of Zionic achievement in Independence. A book published in 1962 by the church press touted the auditorium as the “hub, the nerve center for the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.” It observed: “Construction of the Auditorium has been a vital part of building up the Center Place.” Twenty-three thousand guests registered a visit to the site in 1962.69 In 1964 Bishop G. Leslie DeLapp hosted another dinner in Truman’s honor in the RLDS Laurel Club. Billed as the “Farmer’s Tribute to Harry S. Truman,” the dinner honored Truman’s support of American farming and featured remarks by Undersecretary of State W. Averill Harriman and Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman.70 This was the last time Truman attended a dinner held in his honor at the auditorium. Three years after the final touches were made on the auditorium, in 1965 the Mormon Church announced it would construct a museum on the property it had acquired in 1904. The museum, which officially became known as the Mormon Visitors’ Center, was a significant structure that 67. “Independence Sanitarium and Hospital” brochure, in Public Relations 1918– 1968, folder 25, Sanitarium Papers, RLDS Archives; “A Close Up View: Lectures and Discussions at the Business and Professional Men’s Institute,” February 1953, 95 (quote), in Gathering Committee: Zionic Problems, folder 20, Gathering Committee Papers, RLDS Archives. 68. Ron Romig, archivist, Community of Christ Church, telephone conversation with author, 9 March 2004. 69. Roger Yarrington, The Auditorium, 15 (quote), 88 (quote), 90. 70. “Farmer’s Tribute to Harry S. Truman,” program brochure in Miscellaneous Historical Documents Collection no. 652, HSTL.


41

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS) Visitors’ Center, constructed in 1971 on a portion of the Temple Lot. Courtesy of author.

came to dominate the already crowded sixty-three-acre Temple Lot, although the structure was not as imposing as the RLDS Auditorium. The museum, constructed on a portion of the original sixty-three-acre lot, opened in 1971, and served as a visible reminder that the church had a claim to Joseph Smith’s Temple Lot.71

RLDS Temple Construction:A Zionic Dream Realized During Israel Smith’s tenure as church president the Central Development Association was heavily involved in buying land for congregations in Independence. More important, the CDA actively acquired property in and around the Temple Lot where the auditorium was situated. Most of the nearby land was residential, so the church acquired the property piecemeal. The process of acquiring, renting, and then demolishing residential properties continued from the 1950s until the 1990s, when all the property for the Temple Lot was acquired and the temple construction was completed in 1992. This operating procedure resulted in the piece71. Campbell, New Jerusalem, 170 –71.

42


Aerial shot of the Temple Lot in 1964, looking north. Notice the development of the parking lots to the south and to the northeast of the auditorium. Courtesy Community of Christ Library-Archives, Independence, Missouri.

meal destruction of the neighborhood homes that once occupied the Temple Lot, and it set the tone for how other churches in Independence would expand to meet the needs of their own growing congregations. When W. Wallace Smith became president of the church in 1962, like his predecessors he continued to build up the Center Place, but unlike them he did not focus on Independence as Zion or issue pleas for the saints to gather. He supported the continued development of the hospital and the auditorium as well as the development of other institutions in Independence—all in an effort to build up Independence as the world headquarters for the RLDS Church. What distinguished Wallace from his predecessors was that he pursued the globalization of the church at the same time that he also reinvigorated among the saints in Independence Joseph


43

Smith’s 1830s revelation to construct a temple. Wallace Smith was committed to pushing the church’s membership base from one firmly drawn from North America to a membership reflecting a worldwide following. As he noted in his oral history: “I felt that the outreach program needed to be defined, and that our moving into various cultures was essential.” This “moving into various cultures” is exactly what the church accomplished. By 1991 the church had active mission programs in Latin America, Africa, and Asia.72 The new emphasis on creating a world church also influenced the role that Independence played as Zion. Now, church leaders stressed Independence as the world church headquarters, not so much as Zion or the Center Place. This meant that Independence was expected to resemble a world headquarters. Making the city the centerpiece of a global denomination strained the church’s budget, but the church still maintained and developed new institutions in order to build up the Center Place. In the 1960s and 1970s the church, through its corporations, continued to plan for the temple and build up institutions that would serve its members in Independence. The CDA, which had acquired properties for the auditorium construction, now focused its efforts on acquiring property for Joseph Smith’s envisioned temple. In 1965 the church commissioned Winford Winholtz to study the area around the auditorium and recommend a temple site. The church retained Winholtz again in 1968 to make a more detailed study of the area, and the CDA continued to acquire and raze property around the auditorium in preparation for the eventual construction of the temple. W. Wallace Smith described the property acquisitions in this manner: “We found out where the ownership of some of that [property] was, and we aggressively started to acquire those pieces of property so that we could consolidate the area. And this was done quietly, but it was done with a specific object in mind, and that was to have available when the time came sufficient ground on which we could build what would be known as the temple.”73 The building up of the Center Place continued in 1966 when the Center 72. Smith interview, 100. For an in-depth discussion of RLDS mission efforts, see Howard, Church through the Years, 2:322– 52. 73. See also “Policy Statement Regarding the Development of the Master Site Plan for the Auditorium-Temple Complex Area,” 5 June 1972, in Temple: Environmental Architects Collaborative, folder 403, Smith Papers, RLDS Archives; CDA Minutes, folders 1963–1965 and 1966–1969, Presiding Bishopric Papers, RLDS Archives. Smith interview, 208 (quote).

44


Stake, as the RLDS churches in Independence were collectively called, approved the purchase of the Watson Memorial Methodist Church building, located at the northwest corner of Delaware and West Maple Avenue, directly west of the Truman home. The 1903 Methodist Church sanctuary was demolished, and the RLDS Church located the Center Stake offices in an educational wing the Methodist Church had constructed. This demolition was one of the first to occur in what would later come to be known as the Harry S Truman Historic District National Historic Landmark.74 In 1968 Wallace Smith and the RLDS Church took a significant step forward in realizing the construction of Joseph Smith’s temple. At the conference that year, Smith announced in his revelation: “The time has come for a start to be made toward building my [God’s] temple in the Center Place. It shall stand on a portion of the plot of ground set apart for this purpose many years ago by my servant Joseph Smith, Jr.” And it was funded by church members.75 While Smith focused his efforts on encouraging the saints to fund the temple construction, he also continued to support the other institutions his predecessors had deemed important to church work, and he actively secured funding for additional projects in the Center Place. In 1968 Congressman William J. Randall came to Independence to dedicate a new diagnostic center for the sanitarium in which the church had invested $2.1 million of its own money. Randall had served on the sanitarium’s board of directors when he was eastern judge of the Jackson County Court. A few years later, in 1971, President Smith wrote Randall about securing his support for funding an urban renewal project on the Independence Square. The proposal called for the demolition of the old Battery Block (the block the church used for its offices when the church first relocated from Lamoni) and the construction of a new building. The project was aided by federal money, and a new building, the Central Professional Building, eventually took the place of the old structure and became office space for the RLDS Church.76 Under Wallace Smith’s tenure, the church several times tapped into federal funds to provide improvements in the Center Stake. The Center Place Improvement Inc. formed in the 1970s as a not-for-profit corporation 74. “RLDS Approves Building Purchase,” Kansas City Times, 7 March 1966; Ron Cockrell, The Trumans of Independence, 343. 75. Reorganized Latter Day Saints, Book of Doctrine and Covenants, 247. 76. “New Facilities at Hospital to Be Dedicated Sunday,” Pictorial News, 6 June 1968; Wallace Smith to William J. Randall, 27 May 1971, folder 102, First Presidency Papers, RG29-2, RLDS Archives.


45

The Independence Regional Medical Center (Sanitarium) as it appeared around 1970, with Resthaven located directly north of the hospital. Courtesy Community of Christ Library-Archives, Independence, Missouri.

(much like the Order of Enoch and its successor, the CDA) and applied for sponsorship of a Federal Housing Administration–subsidized multifamily housing project in 1971. The corporation wanted to provide better quality housing for low-to-moderate-income elderly people in Independence. Clearly, this building was designed to provide housing for many of the saints who had gathered to Independence and who were now approaching advanced age. The project was approved, and construction began in 1973 on an eight-story apartment building, which contained 167 one-bedroom units when it was finished in 1975. The building, located at 666 North Spring, was constructed on residential property that had been cleared by urban renewal.77 While RLDS-led projects for the Center Place continued to address the needs of both RLDS members and the Independence community, the church continued to move forward on the construction of the temple. President Smith believed that, since the auditorium was complete and the church enjoyed a relative “affluence in the economy” at the time (1968), it would be a good time for the church to build the temple. A confidential master plan for the temple complex was circulated among church leaders in 1972. However, the church did not have title to all the sixty-four acres 77. “Heritage House,” brochure in Heritage House Opening 1975, folder 33, Gathering Committee Papers, RLDS Archives.

46


required to implement the plan. Some of the acreage was owned by other churches, including the Church of Christ, a restoration group that in 1867 had acquired property that was part of Joseph Smith’s original Temple Lot designation, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS), the Utah-based Mormons. The RLDS Church wanted to acquire land on the west side of Grand Avenue and on the north and south sides of Walnut Street.78 In 1973 a series of meetings was held between RLDS, the Church of Christ, and LDS officials in order to achieve some consensus about the dispensation of lands owned by each church. The RLDS Church, in order to obtain the blessing of the Church of Christ for its redevelopment plans, assured the smaller congregation it would continue to allow the Church of Christ to use RLDS parking lots. In order to secure land from the LDS Church, a deal was struck in which land owned by the RLDS Church in Nauvoo, Illinois, and considered sacred by the LDS Church was traded for LDS-owned land in Independence.79 Even though Wallace Smith deemphasized the concept of gathering to Independence, the saints continued to come. In 1973 the population of Independence was 116,473, and the Independence RLDS Church membership stood at 20,558, which represented nearly 18 percent of the total population. Members of the Independence city government appreciated the fact that Wallace Smith continued to allow the auditorium to be used for public events. In 1974, after delivering a welcome speech at the annual conference, Mayor Richard A. King wrote to President Smith acknowledging how important the church was to the city: “I am very happy to live in a city which is influenced by the presence of your world headquarters within its borders.” He thanked the church for providing the auditorium as a “concert hall or a forum for public ceremony and discussion.”80 By 1974 the CDA had acquired all but twenty-four parcels of the Temple Lot property. Most of the parcels not yet acquired were located southwest of the auditorium and were bounded by Grand, Lexington, Short, and Pacific streets. At the April 1974 church conference, officials unveiled a model of the proposed temple complex and began working with city officials to ensure that church and city plans for the area meshed.81 78. Smith interview, 208. 79. Ibid., 209 –10. 80. “Membership—Independence Population Statistics,” 18 January 1974, and Richard A. King to Smith, 10 May 1974, both in folder 102, First Presidency Papers, RG29-2, RLDS Archives. 81. Minutes of annual meeting, 9 January 1974, in CDA Minutes 1966–1975, folder


47

Throughout the remainder of the 1970s and early 1980s, CDA continued to acquire and demolish property for the temple complex site. It is interesting that the homes the CDA acquired for the temple complex were part of the history of Independence as well as the history of the RLDS, and yet the significant number of demolitions undertaken by the church seemingly drew no community opposition. After all, church members occupied most of the homes in the area. More significant was the fact that the acquisitions and demolitions were carried out because church leaders and members believed they were fulfilling Joseph Smith’s vision of creating Zion in Independence. These homes, historical assets to the community, were considered expendable when the church was fulfilling its commitment to build Zion. The demolition of structures in and around the auditorium and temple complex did not mean the church was not interested in preserving its history. Wallace Smith was very interested in preserving the history of the church, and in 1977 the church released Preserving and Interpreting Our Physical Heritage, which outlined a strategy to preserve historic sites that were important to the RLDS Church. The church owned historic properties in Nauvoo, Illinois, in Kirtland, Ohio, in Lamoni, Iowa, and in Independence, Missouri, among other places. In Nauvoo the church operated the Joseph Smith Historic Center, which comprised forty acres of historic properties including the Joseph Smith Family Cemetery, Joseph Smith’s Nauvoo home, and other structures associated with Smith’s descendants. These RLDS properties along with LDS historic properties associated with the Mormon experience in Nauvoo were designated a national historic landmark (NHL) in 1966. Kirtland was home to the first Mormon temple constructed by Joseph Smith and his followers in 1836. The temple, owned by the RLDS Church, was designated an NHL in 1969 and was revered by the membership of both the RLDS and LDS churches. Lamoni, headquarters of the church from 1881 until 1906, was also an important location outlined in the 1977 study. Specifically, Liberty Hall, home of Joseph Smith III from 1881 to 1905, was held in high regard and in 1983 was listed on the National Register of Historic Places.82 91, ibid., RG29-1; “Independence Core: City’s Problem Area,” Independence Examiner, 28 August 1978. 82. F. Mark McKiernan, Preserving and Interpreting Our Physical Heritage: A Master Plan of the Historic Properties of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 24–30. For dates of NHL and National Register designation, see National Park Service, ed., National Register of Historic Places 1966 to 1994: Cumulative List through January 1, 1994.

48


The 1977 study noted that the most important “living” historical building in Independence was the auditorium: the “Auditorium should be interpreted as a living historic site representing the international headquarters of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.”83 In addition to its international significance for a growing world church, the auditorium was the place where officials met and planned the church’s future. The plan noted the significance of two other Independence structures, the Frederick M. Smith study and the Flournoy House, the home of the man who sold Edward Partridge and other Mormon individuals the Temple Lot in 1831. By 1977 both structures had been relocated from their original sites to an area around the auditorium known as the “Restoration Heritage Plaza.” The plaza was to be an integral part of the Temple Lot master plan, but by century’s end, only these two historic structures had been moved to the Temple Lot and no RLDS or LDS structures in Independence were listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Significant structures related to RLDS history in Independence were limited. Why? Independence was not similar to Nauvoo, Kirtland, or Lamoni, because Joseph Smith had not designated these places Zion. For all practical purposes, the church history had already been made in those places, and they were places members could return to in order to reflect on the history of their faith. In Independence, on the other hand, the history of the RLDS Church was still being made. Building up Zion in Independence was an evolving process. As a result, the neighborhoods surrounding the auditorium, products of the RLDS call to gather to Independence, were expendable because their destruction would fulfill the church’s mission to create Zion. Buildings far removed from Independence resonated more deeply within the historical consciousness of RLDS leaders than the historic structures surrounding the Temple Lot in Independence. W. Wallace Smith retired as president of the church in 1978, and the leadership of the church fell to his son, Wallace Bunnell Smith. Known as “Wally” to church members, the son continued to develop Independence as the central headquarters for the newly emerging global church. In 1984 he pushed the church further into the mainstream of American Protestantism when he supported a general conference resolution advocating the ordination of women to church offices. Prior to this resolution, many women were excluded from holding important church positions. Smith’s support for this resolution angered many within the church. He tried to 83. McKiernan, Our Physical Heritage, 176.


49

smooth over this rift by making a firm commitment to start the temple construction, which the more conservative members wanted to see happen. President W. B. Smith unveiled the design plans for the temple in September 1988. The proposed thirty-five-million-dollar temple would be constructed of stone, copper, and glass and would be shaped like a nautilus seashell with its spire protruding upward to the heavens. Smith commented: “Because it’s related to a design that’s found in nature, we feel all cultures will recognize this spiral form and respond to its design as a timeless expression of God’s creative energy.” Temple construction began, but not before a considerable number of people left the church to start competing “restoration” branches whose leaders continued to exclude women from church leadership roles and whose congregations focused on building Zion in Independence. Many of those who left were also uncomfortable with the increasingly global outlook taken by the church.84 In 1992 the nautilus-shaped temple replaced the auditorium as the structure best symbolizing the rise of the RLDS Church to global stature and provided another striking addition to Independence’s cultural landscape. CDA property acquisitions grew more rare after the temple construction; however, since Independence was the world headquarters of a global church and because the church had invested millions of dollars in the sanitarium, auditorium, and temple, church leaders wanted to ensure that the area surrounding the temple would remain stable and secure for the future. In November 1993 CDA hired the firm Ochsner Hare & Hare to undertake a study of the large residential area surrounding the temple complex, which included also most of the Harry S Truman Historic District NHL and the Harry S Truman NHS. The firm prepared a revitalization plan for the area, and on 31 August 1994 the plan was presented to the city’s Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Commission to create a TIF district to fund revitalization efforts in the city. The city of Independence created the Midtown/Truman Road Corridor Redevelopment Corporation (M/TRC) to oversee the redevelopment planned by Ochsner Hare & Hare.85 George Romney’s 2001 statement “We really feel this whole area is sa84. Beverly Potter, “A Spire toward the Sky,” Kansas City Times, 17 September 1988 (quote); Amanda Curtright, “Remnant Leader Following in His Ancestors’ Steps,” Independence Examiner, 12 June 2002. For other splinter factions, see Campbell, New Jerusalem, 269 – 85. 85. The M/TRC’s impact on the Truman neighborhood will be detailed in Chapter 6.

50


The Temple was completed in 1992 and dedicated in 1994. Courtesy of author.

cred ground” (which prefaces this chapter) cannot be easily understood unless one understands the role played by Independence in the history of the Church of Christ (Temple Lot), the RLDS Church, and the LDS Church. The churches were in competition with one another for slices of the sixtythree-acre parcel that Joseph Smith had envisioned as part of the Temple Lot. Particularly for the RLDS Church, the concept of Independence as


51

Zion and the gathering to Independence are crucial to understand in interpreting the cultural landscape of Independence. Church leaders worked hard to distance themselves from their LDS cousins and at the same time sought to gain community acceptance by opening their institutions to non-members. Because of this openness, the church experienced success at integrating itself into the community. However, the quest to create Zion in Independence and to fulfill Joseph Smith’s vision of building a temple also brought destruction to the built environment of the city and unwittingly created a policy that would be followed by other Independence churches as they fulfilled their own missions of church expansion. The mission of Zion continued to be fulfilled in the guise of the M/TRC, and its impact on the Harry S Truman Historic District NHL is only beginning to be understood. As Truman aged and eventually died in 1972 and as the church continued to develop its Zionic mission, the stage was set for the presidential and Mormon histories to clash. Geographically both histories were juxtaposed in the same area of town—the temple complex site was immediately west of the Truman home and the Truman neighborhood. The historical memory of Independence as Zion would soon clash with the historical memory of those neighbors who both remembered Truman walking in the neighborhood and wanted to see that walking environment preserved for future generations of Americans.

2

Trails West L. S.Williams from Williams, Ariz made the best plea I ever listened to, but Williams was like Independence[:] they never had done anything for the National Old Trails. —Harry S.Truman, 1927

In the perspective of history the trails of the great western migrations that filled the continent are far more important than the happenstance of a President happening to call Independence his home.To my mind the existing Truman Library and Museum, coupled with nationalization of his home, is ample recognition for the man; it is a mistake to have everything in the city of Independence revolve around Truman. —Merrill J. Mattes, Oregon-California Trails Association board member, 1985

The idea that Independence played an important role in the western development of the country has always been a part of the city’s twentiethcentury heritage. In the early part of the century, the Independence Chamber of Commerce and Harry S. Truman, through his active participation in the National Old Trails Association (NOTA), reminded the city of its trails heritage. In 1940 the city, under the direction of the chamber, commemorated its association with the Santa Fe, California, and Oregon trails by sponsoring the Santa-Cali-Gon Festival, which highlighted the city’s role in westward expansion. The festival, held only one other time, in 1947,

52

Trails West

53

was revived again in 1973 by the chamber and the urban renewal manager to attract businesses and shoppers to a newly renovated yet economically struggling Independence Square. While the square adopted a trails theme with the addition of woodshingled fronts to a few of its buildings as part of urban renewal during the 1970s, by the 1980s the city government attempted to honor the city’s association with the trails permanently by establishing a trails museum. City leaders—reinvigorated by a National Park Service study suggesting a trails museum in the city, and by the impending opening of the Harry S Truman National Historic Site—sought and received state money to construct a trails center. City officials believed it would complement the Truman history and bolster the city’s standing as a tourist destination. In 1990, under city management, the state-funded National Frontier Trails Center opened to the public to tell the story of the Santa Fe, Oregon, and California trails. The story of President Truman’s connection to the trails is an interesting one, and so is the revival of the trails history of Independence, along with the various roles played by the Independence Chamber of Commerce, the Jackson County Historical Society (JCHS), the National Archives, and the National Park Service (NPS). The community’s memory of its pioneer and trails history has been confined largely to the Independence Square, because the square is traditionally where twentiethcentury residents have come to commemorate their pioneer history. It is highly unlikely the proposed trails center would ever have been constructed had it not been for support from the National Archives and the NPS. These federal agencies breathed new life into an aspect of the city’s history that was previously barely visible in the community’s cultural landscape. By 1990 there were only a couple of buildings left on the square dating to the time of the trails; a few more contained parts of buildings constructed during the 1850s. In fact, by 1990 most of the buildings remaining on the square dated from the early twentieth century, and many had ties to the community’s presidential history, not to its trails history.

The Community Revives and Commemorates Its Pioneer Past Twentieth-century residents of Independence first publicly honored the city’s ties to its trails history in May 1913, when the local chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) dedicated a red granite monument to the Santa Fe Trail on the southwest corner of the square. The dedication was one of many held on this day across the state to com-

54


memorate Santa Fe Trail sites—from Franklin, Missouri, to the western edge of the state. According to a newspaper report, DAR members and descendants of the pioneers talked about the importance of the trails and about the early pioneers. One DAR member discussed “the debt of gratitude the present generation owes to the pioneers of the old trails days.”1 The city of Independence began to preserve its pioneer history in 1916 when a group of local citizens worked to save the original 1827 log courthouse from demolition. It had served as the county’s first courthouse until a more permanent one could be constructed on the square. At that time, a private individual purchased the log structure and then later sold it and the surrounding property to Algernon S. Gilbert and Newell K. Whitney, the two proprietors of Gilbert and Whitney, the Mormon-owned drygoods shop. Gilbert and Whitney utilized the structure as a store warehouse until the Mormons were driven out of Independence in 1833.2 A committee of local citizens joined efforts in 1916 to move the log courthouse from its original location to the grounds of city hall. Frederick M. Smith, soon to become president of the RLDS Church, served on this committee, which raised $300 from community donations to move the courthouse. An additional $600 was raised by the Community Welfare League to erect a foundation and to finish the interior walls. The old courthouse, newly renovated, was furnished with “relics of the early days of the town,” and a nephew of the courthouse builder donated a large desk and chair. Another individual gave an American flag that had hung in the structure when it was still a courthouse. After these finishing touches, the renovated log structure served as the office for the Community Welfare League.3 City leaders did not always work hard to preserve the city’s pioneer history, however. In 1921 the city council condemned the Robert Weston blacksmith shop located at the corner of Liberty and Kansas streets because of its poor structural condition. Weston was a noted blacksmith and wagon maker who had outfitted numerous pioneers on their westward travels. In 1926 the local DAR chapter recognized the contributions of Weston when they erected a granite marker near the shop’s location. In 1931 the shop was torn down, and now all that remains is the DAR marker.4 1. See Nancy Short, Louise Taraba, and Rolfe Teague, Milestones in Missouri’s Past; “Dedicated the Marker,” Jackson Examiner, 16 May 1913 (quote). 2. Pearl Wilcox, Jackson County Pioneers, 136. 3. Pearl Wilcox, Independence and Twentieth-Century Pioneers: The Years from 1900 to 1928, 384 – 87. 4. Ibid., 434–36; “Unveiled Weston Marker,” Independence Examiner, 26 April 1926. For the year of removal, see “Weston Most Famed of Blacksmith Shops,” Independence Examiner, 26 February 1962.

Trails West

55

While the city’s trails and pioneer history resonated within the historical consciousness of those involved in the preservation of the 1827 courthouse, the region’s pioneer history also resonated within the mind of Harry S. Truman. His maternal grandfather, Solomon Young, had been a freighter along the trails. As president, Truman often spoke about his grandfather and his occupation as a freighter. On the 1948 campaign trail in Utah and Colorado, the president acknowledged his family’s ties to the trails, remarking: “My grandfather used to run a wagon train from Westport, now part of Kansas City, Mo., to Salt Lake City and Denver and San Francisco, from 1846 to about 1860, and I have heard a great many stories from him on how the opening of this country came about.”5 It is no surprise, then, that Truman joined the National Old Trails Association in the 1920s, and in 1926 he became its president, a position he held until his death.6 NOTA held its first convention in Kansas City in 1912, and the association had established its national headquarters in Kansas City by the time Truman served as president. In 1913 the organization introduced a bill in Congress that would have resulted in the construction of a “system of National or Interstate Highways.” The organization lobbied officials in the states west of Kansas City to hard-surface a trail that ran from Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles. According to Truman biographer Alonzo Hamby, the organization never developed a mass following, but it was successful in promoting good roads and the commemoration of the older ones. The organization’s chapters spread from Ohio to California, and they forged an informal association with the DAR and the American Automobile Association.7 Truman worked hard to get Independence to fund the creation of the National Old Trails Road. At a meeting of the Independence Chamber of Commerce board, on 22 November 1926, Truman asked them to support NOTA. The meeting minutes noted that Truman “explained that the only way of financing this National Old Trails road was by subscription and suggested that a number of Independence citizens be solicited by subscription as aid toward establishing this historical road.” A chamber committee was appointed, and its members were instructed to “render every assistance possible to Judge Truman in the National Old Trails.”8 5. Harry S. Truman, Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Harry S. Truman, 1948, 4:522. 6. Harry S. Truman to W. L. Young, 19 May 1961, PPP General file, HSTL. 7. Judge J. M. Lowe, The National Old Trails Road: The Great Historic Highway of America, 229 (quote); “Elected President of Old Trails Association Friday,” Independence Examiner, 24 July 1926; Hamby, Man of the People, 135 –36. 8. Board minutes, 22 November 1926, in bound volume 1924–1929, Independence Chamber of Commerce.

56


As NOTA president and in conjunction with the DAR, Truman traveled to several towns across the United States as part of a selection committee to see which towns would qualify for the placement of Pioneer Mother statues. It was at a stop in Williams, Arizona, in 1927 that he wrote his wife, Bess, about his hometown’s lack of concern for its trails history: “L. S. Williams from Williams, Ariz made the best plea I ever listened to, but Williams was like Independence they never had done anything for the National Old Trails.”9 It is difficult to ascertain exactly what caused Truman to reach this conclusion. He would have known, of course, about the city’s decision to condemn the Weston shop in 1921. Clearly, he thought the city had not done enough to honor its trails history. If one had visited Independence, Missouri, and its square in 1927 one could have found a visible presence of the trails history in the built environment. At the present-day intersection of Liberty Street and Highway 24 stood Hiram Young’s blacksmith shop. Young, a freed African American, was noted for his fine freight wagons and ox yokes.10 His wagon shop was torn down prior to the 1970s. At the northeast corner of Liberty and Maple stood the old Jones Hotel, founded by Louis Jones, a Santa Fe Trail freighter. The hotel was remodeled in 1927, and its façade, gracing Independence’s streetscape since the 1840s, was altered to accommodate retail space on the first floor.11 The hotel was torn down in 1976 and the property sold to a developer by the Independence Urban Renewal Authority. Urban renewal redevelopment would also claim the McCurdy blacksmith shop, which was located on Main Street just north of White Oak.12 Other buildings related to the trails would also be lost either prior to or because of urban renewal. By the end of the twentieth century, the 1859 jail, managed by the JCHS, would be the only building on the square that served as an extant reminder of the city’s trails past.13 In 1927 the chamber honored the city’s past when it served as sponsor to the city’s centennial celebration, which prominently featured historical vignettes from days gone by, including its trails history. The celebration 9. Truman to Bess Truman, 3 October 1927, Personal Family and Business Papers, HSTL. 10. For more information about the built environment of Independence during the Santa Fe Trail period, see William Patrick O’Brien, “Independence, Missouri’s Trade with Mexico, 1827–1860: A Study in International Consensus and Cooperation.” 11. For the remodeling, see Kansas City Journal Post, 25 September 1927. 12. Author’s telephone conversation with Patrick O’Brien, 26 June 2007. 13. In 1990 the NPS released a report certifying that 205 N. Main Street, 207–209 N. Main Street, and 206–208 N. Main all still showed construction elements dating to the trails period.

Trails West

57

began on 2 October 1927 and featured several parades with floats depicting historical scenes from the city’s past. The event culminated on 7 October with the presentation of a pageant, appropriately titled “One Hundred Years of Independence.”14 Independence was one of the cities that competed for a DAR Pioneer Mother statue, but unfortunately the nearby town of Lexington, Missouri, was chosen in 1928. Truman did not say why Lexington was chosen over Independence, but the inscription on the statue referred to Lexington as the “early terminus of river transportation” and the “starting point of the western trail of the pack pony and ox cart.”15 The Independence Examiner remarked: “The Pioneer Mother monument is the one that Independence made an effort to get. In failing in the quest it rejoices that Lexington was successful.” Amid much fanfare and a speech delivered by Harry Truman, the statue was unveiled and dedicated in Lexington in September 1928.16 Truman continued to travel across the United States honoring the old trails and the people who had used them. In 1929 he visited Bethesda, Maryland, where he dedicated the last pioneer woman statue marking the beginning of the Old National Road. In his speech he said: “There she stands the mother of the country—the finest thing on earth I think and here at the beginning of the Trail and the Country we erect the last monument to the Pioneer Mother.”17 As a county judge, Truman was also interested in the old trails because much of his work as a county administrator involved road building. Many of the old trails in and around Independence became paved roads. Writing in 1950 he observed: “While I was Presiding Judge of the Jackson County Court, I had a survey made by the Highway Engineer of the Trail from Independence to New Santa Fe and I also had some research made 14. Correspondence 1935 [1936] folder, Independence Chamber of Commerce Collection, JCHS. For more on historical pageantry, see David Glassberg, American Historical Pageantry: The Uses of Tradition in the Early Twentieth Century. 15. “To Dedicate Marker,” Independence Examiner, 15 September 1928. 16. Editorial, Independence Examiner, 18 September 1928. The secretary of the interior’s standards were established in 1978 to provide guidance for property owners who wanted to know how best to treat historic properties and for commercial property owners who wanted to rehabilitate historic properties in order to obtain a federal tax credit. The standards have been revised several times since 1978 and there are secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitating, preserving, restoring, and reconstructing historic properties. Tyler, in his book on historic preservation, noted: “The standards and guidelines are nationally accepted and represent the best thinking on appropriate methods of intervention.” Tyler, Historic Preservation, 146. See also the standards Web sites in the Bibliography. 17. Draft of speech, 13 April 1929, County Judge Papers, Truman Papers, HSTL.

58


on the road from the foot of Grand Avenue to its connection with the Santa Fe Trail from Independence and Santa Fe.”18 Truman was not the only person in Jackson County interested in the area’s trails history. In 1930 the chamber of commerce, along with several other civic organizations, sponsored a community-wide contest to craft a slogan for the city. The selection committee settled on “Queen City of the Trails,” the slogan submitted by Mrs. Ardelia Hardin Palmer (who had been Truman’s Latin teacher at Independence High School). Frank Rucker, representing the Kiwanis Club on the selection committee, said the slogan was picked because it “reflects the city’s past history, when it was the starting point of three great pioneer trails. It alludes also to the present, when Independence has become an important point on modern highways.”19 Rucker’s explanation of the significance of the title was only partially correct. Although he believed that all three trails began in Independence, in actuality only the California and Oregon trails started in Independence. The Santa Fe Trail had its origin in Franklin, Missouri. Thus, the myth that Independence was the starting point of all three trails was perpetuated by the “Queen City of the Trails” slogan.20 Ten years later, in August 1940, the chamber of commerce announced they would sponsor a citywide pioneer celebration in October to honor the city’s association with the three trails. Chamber officials originally called the event Old Settlers Days, but they quickly sponsored a renaming contest in August. Miss Velma Resch submitted the name Santa-CaliGon and it won the contest. The 1940 trails celebration ended in fine fashion in the RLDS auditorium where the White Masque Players, a drama troupe of the RLDS Church, staged a trails pageant.21 Shortly after the pioneer celebration was renamed, J. Orrin Moon, president of the chamber, wrote to Truman, now a U.S. senator, to enlist his help in promoting the festival. Moon asked Truman to write a letter to a Warner Brothers Studio executive, to ask him if Independence and the Santa-Cali-Gon Festival could premiere the movie Santa Fe Trail. Truman

18. Truman to Dean Wood, 29 August 1950, WHCF: PPF no. 5938, Truman Papers, HSTL. 19. Rucker cited in “Mrs. W. L. C. Palmer Titled City ‘Queen of Trails’ 18 Years Ago,” Independence Examiner, 1 January 1949. 20. With the disappearance of Franklin, owing to flooding of the Missouri River, Boonville and Arrow Rock have each staked a claim as the starting point for the Santa Fe Trail. 21. Board minutes, 19 August 1940, in bound volume 1930–1941, Independence Chamber of Commerce.

Trails West

59

Santa-Cali-Gon Festival booths on the Independence Square in 1940. Courtesy Community of Christ Library-Archives, Independence, Missouri.

sent a letter to the executive, which began: “I am a resident of Independence, Missouri, ‘The Queen City of the Trails,’ and am very much interested in . . . commemorating the starting of the trails from this historic city.” The senator encouraged the executive to premiere the movie at the Santa-Cali-Gon Festival, but unfortunately, the Independence premiere was not possible.22 The October celebration moved forward nevertheless and featured three parades—one parade honoring each trail. The chamber was not the only entity in Independence interested in the city’s history in August 1940. In 1938 the city council, with the intent of founding a museum, appointed a museum committee, and on 29 August 1940 a group of men and women from this committee met in the Memorial Building, just west of the square, where they organized the Jackson County Historical Society. The JCHS adopted as its objectives: “to stimu22. J. Orrin Moon to Truman, 21 August 1940, Truman to S. Charles Einfeld, 24 August 1940, Einfeld to Truman, 28, 30 August 1940, folder “Independence,” Senatorial and Vice-Presidential Papers, Truman Papers, HSTL.

60


late and encourage the study of history of Jackson county, its towns, and subdivisions; to collect, preserve, and disseminate historical information about the county; to locate, mark, and preserve historic sites, graves, and buildings; to promote the establishment of a museum at Independence that will properly represent the historical background and resources of Jackson county.” Frederick M. Smith, president of the RLDS Church, was present for the first meeting. The JCHS wasted no time in promoting local history and supporting the chamber of commerce’s Santa-Cali-Gon Festival by conducting tours of the city’s prominent historic sites.23 The year 1940 was also when the Native Sons of Kansas City, an organization founded in 1931, first showed an interest in the preservation of a local fort site east of Independence. The organization was composed of men who had been born within the city limits of Kansas City, and yet their focus was on the preservation of those sites related to pioneer history in the greater Kansas City area. In 1940 the Jackson County Court purchased the site of Fort Osage, which had been constructed by General William Clark and Major George Sibley in 1808. Over the 1940s, the Native Sons spearheaded an effort to research the site and to reconstruct one of the fort’s blockhouses.24 While the Native Sons continued their efforts to restore Fort Osage, JCHS members devoted their efforts to the commemoration of Independence’s trails history. In 1942 the society and the American Pioneer Trails Association jointly dedicated a historical marker to the Independence and Missouri River Railroad, which they claimed was the first railroad west of the Mississippi.25 Also in 1942 the JCHS worked with the chamber of commerce to draft a brochure that discussed Independence’s role as the “Mother of the West.” This brochure recognized the importance of the Oregon and California trails and conceded that the city “must share with Old Franklin [Missouri], . . . the recognition of being the starting point of the Santa Fe Trail.”26 By 1942 the society had a membership of 155.27 23. “An Historical Society Formed,” Independence Examiner, 30 August 1940. 24. See brochure in folder Historic Sites 1945–1949, Advisory Board on National Parks, Historic Sites, Buildings and Monuments, WHCF: OF.6P, Truman Papers, HSTL. 25. Special Committee Meeting notes, 16 September 1942, in folder 1940, 1941, 1942, 1948, 1949, Society Minute Book 1940–1961 Papers, JCHS. 26. For the brochure date, see board minutes, 22 May 1942, in bound volume 1942– 1944, Independence Chamber of Commerce. For the brochure, see Santa-Cali-Gon folder, “Chamber of Commerce Papers, Edward C. Wright, Jr., Papers, 1940–1969,” JCHS. 27. “Action Taken to Preserve the History of This County,” Independence Examiner, 28 January 1942.

Trails West

61

Truman continued his interest in the county’s pioneer and trails history by sponsoring Senate bill no. 147 in 1943 to create the Russell, Majors, Waddell National Monument located on the state line between Missouri and Kansas. The three men were trail freighters like Truman’s grandfather. No action was taken on the bill while he was senator, and it was not until after he became president that he attempted once again to have the site commemorated. In February 1946, as president, Truman responded to a letter from Harold Ickes, secretary of the interior, in which Ickes said he believed a “station or depot on one of the historic routes” other than the home of Alexander Majors should be recognized. The president, who was not completely satisfied with the answer, responded: “I hope that some means may be found of commemorating the place which the oldtime freighters had in our transportation system.” After this exchange of letters, the president did not pursue the creation of the national monument.28 Shortly after Truman became president in 1945, George Green, a member of the Native Sons, invited him to a joint picnic of the American Pioneer Trails Association and the Jackson County Historical Society. Truman, with the nation still at war, could not attend, and his secretary responded to the invitation. Green wrote the president: “It has seemed to us a great oversight on the part of our government that Missouri, ‘Mother of the West,’ does not have a single park dedicated to our pioneers, and we know of no place of more historical significance or suitable than Fort Osage.”29 Green wanted Fort Osage to become a national monument. While the Kansas City Native Sons were pushing for national monument status for Fort Osage, the Independence Chamber of Commerce was once again promoting the connection between Independence and the trails. In September 1947 the chamber once again sponsored the SantaCali-Gon Festival. The festival featured trails parades, and costumed pioneers and Indians filled the streets of the Independence Square.30 In September 1948 the JCHS assisted the Native Sons of Kansas City with the dedication of the restored Blockhouse no. 1 at Fort Osage. President Truman was invited to speak at the dedication, but his presidential schedule prevented his attendance. He did, however, send a telegram to Flavel Robertson who headed the restoration project for the Native Sons: 28. Harold Ickes to Truman, 7 February, Truman to Ickes, 8 February 1946, WHCF: OF 572, Truman Papers, HSTL. Also see the folder Russell-Majors Waddell National Monument, Senatorial and Vice-Presidential Papers, Truman Papers, HSTL. 29. George Green to Truman, 2 August 1945, folder Invitation F (1945), WHCF: OF 200, Truman Papers, HSTL. 30. See American War Mothers, Official Program and Souvenir Booklet of the Santa-CaliGon.

62


Santa-Cali-Gon brochure from 1947. Courtesy of author.

Trails West

63

Oregon Trail marker on the Independence Square. Courtesy of author.

“My warmest congratulations to the Native Sons of Kansas City for preserving a segment of America’s historic heritage in Old Fort Osage. You are helping all Americans to a fuller understanding of our great past and are advancing the valuable and important monument to conserve those places which remind us of it.”31 31. Copy of a telegram from Truman to Flavel Robertson, 10 September 1948, fold-

64


The JCHS once again commemorated the trails history of the city and county on 7 November 1948 when it unveiled and dedicated a memorial to the Oregon Trail on the northwest side of the Independence courthouse. Funded by a joint county and city appropriation, this Oregon Trail marker was designed to complement the 1909 DAR Santa Fe Trail monument on the square.32 These markers helped Independence residents remember the role their community played in westward expansion. For the next two years the society was fairly active in civic life, commissioning “a group of portraits of men who have had much to do with the history and development of Missouri and Jackson County.” In February 1950 a portrait of Joseph Smith was dedicated by Israel Smith, his grandson, in the society’s headquarters in the Memorial Building. It hung alongside portraits of other prominent men, including Independence native Lilburn W. Boggs, the governor of Missouri who had issued the expulsion order against Smith and his followers in 1838.33

Trails History Threatened, Preserved, and Presented to the Public While the JCHS was dedicating portraits and trail markers, in September 1950 Truman expressed concern about the destruction of trails monuments that had been previously erected. Responding to a letter about the Santa Fe Trail from a lawyer who was a member of the American Pioneer Trails Association, the president wrote: “There were other [DAR] markers of the Old Santa Fe Road closer to Independence but they have been obliterated by building operations which have gone on there since.” It is remarkable that Truman, during the early stages of the Korean War, took time out of his busy presidential schedule to reflect back on the area’s trails history.34 The JCHS maintained a low profile in the community for the next several years, but the community and other organizations continued to discuss and promote the city’s pioneer history. In 1951 the chamber appointed a five-person committee to confer with the mayor and the American Legion regarding the legion’s use of the old jail building. The er Historic Sites 1945–1949, Advisory Board on National Parks, Historic Sites, Buildings and Monuments, WHCF: OF 6p, Truman Papers, HSTL. 32. “Historical Group Endorses Museum,” Independence Examiner, 17 May 1948; “Dedication Nov. 7 of Oregon Marker,” Independence Examiner, 26 October 1948. 33. “Church Founder’s Portrait Is Hung,” Independence Examiner, 4 February 1950. 34. Truman to Dean Wood, 11 September 1950, PPF no. 5938, HSTL.

Trails West

65

jail dated from the trails era, and at the time a local women’s organization, the Junior Service League, wanted to establish an Independence museum in the building.35 In 1953 some city residents became concerned that the city was losing “old Independence.” There had been some demolitions around the square, which must have alarmed those who frequented the shops on the square. In August a group of about one hundred citizens signed their names to a petition protesting the decision of the American Legion’s Tirey J. Ford Post to tear down the 1859 jail on Main Street. The petition read: “We feel that the destruction of this building would deprive us of one of the last vestiges of Historic Old Independence. We appreciate progress and the development of our city. However, we feel the retention of this building is necessary for a proper perspective of this growth.” Another resident of Independence, in a letter to the commander of the American Legion, noted: “We feel that this building represents the last remaining landmark of historic old Independence.” While the term “old Independence” was never fully defined, it clearly meant structures associated with the city’s pioneer and trails history. The petition outlined two options for the building. The first called for the city of Independence to take title to the building and provide the required maintenance and stabilization. The second outlined plans to turn the jail into a public museum devoted to the history of Independence.36 The jail’s status remained in limbo for several more years until finally in 1956 a new organization—Historic Independence, headed by Jerry Surber—launched an initiative to preserve the historic site and turn it into a museum. Surber, who became president of Historic Independence, continued to press for the preservation of the building, and he linked the city’s pioneer history with its presidential history. In a letter to the commander of the American Legion, Surber observed: “With the opening of the Truman library soon, coupled with the already well known and publicized historical background of Independence, this is certainly the time for the Post, as an organization interested in civic betterment, to make known its stand toward creation of a Independence Museum.”37 35. Board minutes, 7 March, 4 April 1951, in bound volume 1945–1952, Independence Chamber of Commerce. 36. Petition for Conversion of Old Jail to Public Museum 8/1/53, Dr. Philip C. Brooks Collection, JCHS; William E. Basye to Commander, Tirey J. Ford Post, 21 September 1953, in folder Correspondence Regarding Preservation of Old Jail 1953–1956, ibid. 37. Board minutes, 18 September 1956, in folder Historic Independence Organiza-

66


Surber was not the only one to link the preservation of the community’s pioneer history with presidential history. On 4 April 1957, the Independence Examiner editorialized: “Now that the Harry S. Truman Library is about ready for dedication and will draw tourists from near and far, it would seem that the city has a greater obligation than ever to boost its historical significance.” However, without explanation and in a manner eerily reminiscent of Truman’s 1924 comment about the city’s commitment to its trails history, the editor stated that the city had been apathetic and lethargic in “promoting the ‘Queen City of the Trails.’”38 On 6 July 1957 the city received the editorialized “boost to its historical significance” when the Harry S. Truman Library and Museum opened to the public.39 The opening of the library also focused an increased interest on community history, because it brought expertise in museum and archives management to the city. Philip Brooks, director of the Truman library, became closely involved in the preservation of the old jail and offered his expertise as well as the expertise of the Truman library museum curator, Milton Perry. In fact, the library facilities factored prominently in the JCHS reorganization. Influenced in part by a renewed interest in community history fostered by the newly formed Historic Independence organization and the newly opened Truman Library and Museum, the JCHS conducted another reorganizational meeting in the auditorium of the Truman library on 19 January 1958. Harry and Bess Truman attended the meeting and accepted honorary lifetime memberships in the society. Truman described the county’s historical legacy and told a story about how, as county judge, he had found the oldest court records in the courthouse attic and had them rebound to preserve them. W. Howard Adams, executive vice president of the Adams dairy in Blue Springs, Missouri, accepted the presidency of the organization.40 Adams began his acceptance speech by noting sadly how Independence had lost its trails history: “As late as the 1920’s, Mr. Weston’s blacksmith shop which could be likened somewhat to the shipyard that built the ‘Mayflower,’ still stood a block from the square. Efforts of Mr. Nat Jackson and Mrs. Joseph Green to save it were to no avail. This was a ter-

tion Minutes, ibid.; W. J. Surber to Commander Harry Stoller, 28 March 1957, in folder Correspondence Regarding Preservation of Old Jail 1957–1958, ibid. 38. Editorial, Independence Examiner, 4 April 1957. 39. The research library opened to the public on 8 May 1959. 40. “Historical Society Is Reorganized,” Independence Examiner, 20 January 1958.

Trails West

67

rible loss not only locally but to the entire country.”41 Then Adams outlined five priorities for the reorganized society. The society was to preserve the records, documents, and old photographs of Jackson County. He encouraged the group to “survey and photograph all remaining buildings and houses of historical interest in the county.” The third objective was to preserve the county jail. The fourth was to mark the county’s Civil War battlefield sites. The final objective was to establish a program committee to secure quality speakers for society programs.42 After this reorganizational meeting, the JCHS continued to resurrect its interest in history, but the preservation of the old jail soon became its top priority. In May 1958 Historic Independence Inc. dissolved as an organization after deciding to work for the preservation of the jail through the JCHS instead. Other political and civic groups joined the preservation effort. The board of directors of the Eastern Jackson County Young Democrats Inc. passed a resolution supporting the preservation of the building, as did the chamber of commerce and the Kiwanis and Optimist clubs.43 The American Legion Post succumbed to community pressure and came to an agreement with the JCHS that ensured the old jail’s preservation for future generations. The JCHS and the chamber of commerce, which had formed the Tourist and Historic Committee headed by Edward C. Wright, Jr., combined their efforts to raise money to restore the jail. The chamber members joined the effort because they recognized the economic importance of the community’s history. Wright shrewdly observed: “The Truman Library is outstanding as a tourist attraction and as a ‘stopper’ for those passing through. . . . In order to capitalize on this asset effectively however we must present other attractions to hold the visitors in the community at least for a few hours and preferably for several days.”44 The JCHS and the chamber of commerce launched an ambitious fundraising campaign to restore the old jail, which raised over $26,000 for restoration costs.45 On 14 October 1958, Truman drafted a statement of support for the capital campaign: “I commend the Jackson County His41. W. Howard Adams, “Remarks to the Jackson County Historical Society at the Truman Library, January 19, 1958,” folder General 1958, W. Howard Adams Papers, JCHS. 42. “Historical Society Is Reorganized,” Independence Examiner, 20 January 1958. 43. See resolutions of support in folder Resolutions by Local Organizations for Preservation of Old Jail, Brooks Collection, JCHS. 44. Edward C. Wright, Jr., to JCHS, 4 February 1959, Brooks Collection, JCHS. 45. Board minutes, 13 March 1959, in bound volume 1957–1959, Independence Chamber of Commerce.

68


torical Society for its effort to develop a museum to display historic treasures of the past. The old jail building is one of our few standing mementos of early days in this area, and well worth preserving. I am glad that it is a County-wide movement, as all the people of the County share the heritage of great events and lives that have made our history.”46 Truman incorporated the city’s pioneer history into his presidential library when Thomas Hart Benton was commissioned in 1958 to paint a mural in the entryway. The work was entitled “Independence and the Opening of the West” and was completed in March 1961. The painting demonstrated just how important Truman viewed Independence and its place in westward expansion.47 In November 1957 the chamber placed “publicize tourist and historical places” at the top of its priorities list for 1958 and pledged to work with officials from the Truman library, RLDS Church, and the then newly organized Historic Independence Inc. to accomplish that goal. In December 1958 the chamber again placed “tourist and historical promotion” at the top of its goals for the next year, ahead of “industrial development” and “urban renewal.” Clearly, the chamber was committed to promoting Independence as a tourist destination.48 In the fall of 1959 five hundred people attended the dedication of the Old Jail Museum. Dr. Ernest Allen Connally, associate professor of architecture at the University of Illinois, delivered the keynote address, and Truman delivered a short statement of support for the project. The newspaper quoted Truman as saying the restoration of the jail was “a great thing.”49 In his post-presidential years Truman continued to reflect on the significance of the city’s trails history and his lifelong association with organizations that commemorated it. He revealed to an admirer in a May 1961 letter that he had never been replaced as NOTA president: “No one has ever been elected to succeed me so I guess I am still the President.” Even

46. Draft statement by Truman concerning the old jail restoration, 14 October 1958, folder Correspondence as Historical Society Member 1958–1971, Brooks Collection, JCHS. 47. For information regarding “Independence and the Opening of the West,” see “Harry S. Truman Library Mural Painting,” PPP, HSTL; Thomas Hart Benton, Independence and the Opening of the West. 48. Board minutes, 14 November 1957, 12 December 1958, in bound volume 1957– 1959, Independence Chamber of Commerce. 49. “Useful Preservation of Old Jail Is Lauded,” Independence Examiner, 5 October 1959.

Trails West

69

in the former president’s retirement years he was still thinking about his grandfather’s trails.50 During the 1960s, the chamber continued to promote Independence history when it published a couple of tourist guides touting the city’s trails, presidential, and church history. The JCHS witnessed a growth in membership from fifteen hundred members in 1959 to twenty-five hundred members by 1969.51 From 1959 to 1973, the JCHS capitalized on a renewed interest in history among the residents of Jackson County, and of Independence in particular, but the organization did very little to promote Independence as a tourist attraction.

Urban Renewal and the Destruction of Historic Fabric In August 1973 the chamber of commerce and John Hayner, urban renewal director, refocused the city’s attention on its trails history when both organizations joined forces to host the Three Trails Days.52 The festival name was quickly changed back to Santa-Cali-Gon, and the focal point for the celebration was again the Independence Square. Indeed, the 1973 celebration was held just in time for the dedication of a new mall that urban renewal had brought to the square. The mall project, approved in 1967 with construction beginning in 1972, resulted in five new parking lots and the erection of overhead concrete canopies to protect shoppers from the elements as they strolled in front of the shops on the square. A huge fountain and pedestrian mall were constructed immediately east and west of the Independence courthouse, closing both Main and Liberty streets to Lexington Street.53 Urban renewal not only brought a pedestrian mall to the Independence Square, to compete with a newly opened Blue Ridge suburban mall located five miles to the southwest, it also brought destruction and contro-

50. Truman to W. L. Young, 19 May 1961, General file, PPP, Truman Papers, HSTL. 51. Board minutes, 15 November 1963, in bound volume 1963 and 1969, Independence Chamber of Commerce. The chamber is missing board minutes from 1960–1962 and 1964–1968. For JCHS membership, see W. Howard Adams to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, 16 April 1959, folder J–Z, Correspondence 1959, Adams Papers, JCHS. 52. See Chapter 3 for more details about the urban renewal program in Independence. 53. For information about the construction of the pedestrian mall, see Kansas City Star, 2 August 1973; “Uptown Mall, HST Offices Dedicated,” Independence Examiner, 6 August 1973; Kansas City Star, 6 August 1973.

70


versy to the square. The Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority (LCRA) was an advisory board appointed by the mayor that was charged with deciding which parcels would be acquired and demolished. LCRA members discussed the preservation of buildings but absolved themselves of responsibility. While board members believed buildings such as the courthouse were indeed historic, as defined by the National Register criteria, they also stated “the Authority [was] not responsible for the initiation or preparation of a plan for historic preservation” for the project area—meaning, in effect, that some commercial buildings were expendable.54 This applied to the Jones Hotel, which anchored the block at Liberty and Maple immediately north of the Jackson County courthouse where Harry Truman had worked as county judge. The Jones Hotel was closed by court order in 1974 for failing to pass a city fire department inspection. Two years later Rufus Burrus II, attorney for the owner of the hotel, submitted the paperwork to the Governor’s Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to nominate the hotel to the National Register. Burrus received assistance in compiling historical information about the hotel from James Ryan, consultant to the heritage commission, and Eric Fowler, local historian and freelance writer.55 The governor’s council nominated the structure to the National Register based on the information provided by Burrus in an attempt to prevent the demolition of the building by the local urban renewal redevelopment board. Unlike the preservation of the old 1859 jail, which enjoyed wide community support from the Independence Chamber of Commerce and other civic organizations, the hotel’s National Register nomination was opposed by virtually every governmental and civic entity in the city, including the city council, the chamber of commerce, the LCRA, and the Independence Square Association, an organization composed of square merchants.56 The Independence Examiner also opposed the preservation of the building, stating: “A variety store, large or small, is desperately needed on the Square; but a run-down hotel, which could be a target for vandals and arsonists, certainly has no place on the square where progress is on the move.”57 The JCHS remained silent on the issue. 54. LCRA board minutes, 5 November 1969, bound volume 1969, JCHS. 55. “Hotel Nomination Blocks Plan,” Independence Examiner, 9 March 1976. 56. For opposition from the city, see “Hotel Nominated as Historic Site over Opposition,” Independence Examiner, 6 March 1976; for opposition from the chamber, see board minutes, 12 March 1976, in bound volume 1970–1982, Independence Chamber of Commerce; for opposition from the Independence Square Association, see “Association’s Letter Opposes Hotel Naming,” Independence Examiner, 15 March 1976. 57. Editorial, “Square Is No Place for Run-Down Hotel,” Independence Examiner, 12 March 1976.

Trails West

71

One lone local supporter for the preservation of the hotel emerged. Eric Fowler remarked in a letter published in the Independence Examiner how the city had preserved the log courthouse, the Truman courthouse, and the 1859 jail, and then he observed: “Independence also has, at least for the time being, the Independence Hotel [Jones Hotel], the last remaining commercial structure on the square linking Independence to the Santa Fe and Oregon Trails, the California gold rush and the Civil War. If it goes, all that will be left will be a few impersonal bronze plaques and granite markers.”58 Ironically, Fowler made the same argument that Jerry Surber had made in the 1950s when he tried to gain support for the preservation of the old jail. There was one major difference, however; the old jail was seen as a destination point for tourists and a tourist draw to complement the Truman library. In short, these attractions provided an economic benefit to the community, whereas the old Jones Hotel had little to offer tourists and was seen as an impediment to the economic growth of the city. So the old Jones building came down, in 1976, and its lot was sold to a developer who erected a prefabricated cinema building. With the demolition of the Jones Hotel, the city’s governmental officials and its civic organizations turned a deaf ear to city history and opened the other to the economic potential of a new retail concern.

Independence Revives Its Trails History The chamber of commerce continued to provide the main sponsorship of the Santa-Cali-Gon Festival every Labor Day weekend. The modern Santa-Cali-Gon did not devote a separate day to honor each of the three trails as in the 1940 and 1947 celebrations. Instead, the event became a carnival and an arts and crafts fair that annually drew in excess of a hundred thousand people to Independence and the square over the Labor Day weekend. Little of the trails history was honored through the celebration. The modern Santa-Cali-Gon Festival provided an economic boost to the chamber of commerce and the city as well as to local civic groups that rented space from the chamber to engage in their own fund-raising efforts. In 1984 an economic impact assessment commissioned by the chamber noted that the total economic impact (representing money spent at the carnival, at arts and crafts booths, and on lodging) amounted to $2.8 million dollars. The Santa-Cali-Gon Festival established itself as one of the pre58. Eric Fowler, “Old Hotel Deserves to Stay,” letter to the editor, Independence Examiner, 4 March 1976.

72


mier arts and crafts shows in the country and continued to draw well over one hundred thousand people to the square in the 1980s.59 While chamber officials were once again reasserting the city’s claim to its trails history by resurrecting the Santa-Cali-Gon Festival, the NPS in the same period reinvigorated the trails history in the nation’s consciousness. On 2 October 1968, the National Trails System Act passed Congress, outlining three types of trails that could be designated: national recreation trails, national scenic trails, and connecting or side trails. The act listed fourteen trails, including the Oregon and Santa Fe trails, to be studied for consideration as national scenic trails and noted that Independence would serve as the starting point for investigating the significance of the Oregon and Santa Fe trails.60 The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation in the Department of Interior, the agency assigned to inform the public about the Oregon Trail study and to gather public comment about the proposed trail, hosted a public meeting at the Truman library in 1974. Approximately fifty local and federal officials attended the meeting, and according to the newspaper reporter, the “general consensus” of those who attended was that the Oregon Trail should be included in the national trails system. The mayor of Independence and the presidents of both the chamber of commerce and the JCHS supported the Oregon Trail.61 The National Trails System Act of 1968 was amended in 1978 to allow the creation of another category, that of national historic trails. In order for a trail to be included as a national historic trail, it had to meet three criteria. First, the trail “must have been established by historic use, and it must be historically significant as a result of that use.” Second, the trail “must be of national significance with respect to American history.” Third, the trail “must have significant potential for public recreational use or historical interest, based on historic interpretation and appreciation.”62 In November 1978 the Oregon, Mormon Pioneer, Lewis and Clark, and Iditarod trails were designated as the nation’s first national historic trails.63 After 59. See the report entitled “Economic Impact of the Santa-Cali-Gon on Independence, Missouri, 1984,” in bound volume 1984, Independence Chamber of Commerce. 60. Lary Dilsaver, ed., America’s National Park System: The Critical Documents, 325. 61. “Trail as Historic Route Topic for Meeting Here,” Independence Examiner, 23 February 1974; Sue Gentry, “Include Trail in National System, Residents Urge,” Independence Examiner, 28 February 1974. 62. The criteria were explained in Santa Fe National Historic Trail Comprehensive Management and Use Plan. 63. Steve Elkinton, “CRM and the National Trails System,” CRM 20, no. 1 (1997): 4. The Mormon Trail was identified for further study in the 1968 National Trails System Act, but its genesis, according to the legislation, was Nauvoo, Illinois, not Independence. See Dilsaver, National Park System, 32.

Trails West

73

the trails were designated, the federal agency responsible for designation initiated a management and use plan for the trail, which required the agency to draft a plan and present it for public comment in the communities affected by the designation. In 1981 the NPS released a management and use plan for the Oregon Trail and identified Independence as a potential location for an Oregon Trail interpretive center.64 The city welcomed this report with open arms because it was at that time beginning to embark on a campaign to develop Independence as a major tourist center. The push to develop tourism received a boost when city leaders planned a citywide celebration of Truman’s hundredth birthday, to coincide with the opening of the Harry S Truman National Historic Site in 1984. City officials including Mayor Barbara Potts, elected in 1982, hoped tourists coming to view the city’s presidential history would also stay and visit the city’s other historical attractions, including the Mormon and RLDS sites, two historic house museums, and eventually they hoped an interpretive trails museum. Mayor Potts took steps to make the proposed interpretive trails center a reality in 1983 when she created a task force to study the role played by Independence in the three trails. By September the city paid for a “study phase report” entitled “Oregon California Santa Fe Trails Interpretation Center.” This report also argued that a trails center would complement the other historic sites in Independence and suggested the center should be located in an old 1860s flour mill.65 Support for the Independence trails interpretive center reached the highest levels within the NPS. Russell Dickenson, director of the service, traveled to Independence in 1983 to visit the soon-to-open Harry S Truman NHS and to attend the annual meeting of the Oregon-California Trails Association (OCTA), an organization formed in 1982 to promote the preservation and interpretation of the Oregon and California trails. Millie Nesbitt, chairperson of the city’s tourism commission and council member, attended the meeting and asked Dickenson to comment on the proposed location of the interpretive center. Nesbitt told the Independence Examiner that Dickenson “seemed to think the spot was the ideal one in Independence. . . . Dickenson’s support for that location is important because his agency would be participating in the development of the trails interpretive center here.”66 64. Comprehensive Management and Use Plan: Oregon National Historic Trail. 65. The report is reprinted in Joanne Chiles Eakin, comp., The National Frontier Trails Center and Its History, 195, 199, 201, 204. 66. “Old Flour Mill May Blossom into Museum,” Independence Examiner, 14 September 1983.

74


Independence had one problem with developing the trails center museum, and this was funding. In August 1984, however, Missouri voters approved a one-tenth-cent sales tax that was to be divided equally between the state parks and soil and water conservation programs within the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The sales tax was supported by the Missouri Parks Association, an organization formed in 1982 in order to “foster public understanding of the values embodied in the parks and historic sites and to serve as a watchdog and support group for the parks division and for the integrity of the system.” The sales tax revenue was expected to pour $13.5 million per year into the state parks, and this money was to be combined with $60 million from a $600 million bond issue for capital improvements approved by voters in June 1982.67 While the sales tax and bond revenue money looked like promising sources of funding to those in Independence who wanted to create a national trails center, local boosters faced another problem. Both the sales tax revenue and bond money for parks could only go to established state parks or historic sites. Independence did not have a state historic site associated with the trails. Nevertheless, Carole Roper-Park, state representative from Sugar Creek and member of the House Budget Committee, led an Independence coalition to secure funding for the center. Roper-Park supported the use of sales tax and bond revenue money to fund the trails interpretive center. She clearly linked the proposed center with the city’s presidential history. A newspaper article quoted her as saying: “The legislature became aware of the importance of Independence historically” when the city received national exposure promoting the 1984 Truman centennial. Then she observed: “It’s not just the Truman home, it’s the home of the entire westward movement—the three trails. . . . We tend to just think about what is the most recent, which is the fact that we had a president who lived here. But it goes way back.”68 In order to allow Independence to receive funding for the proposed interpretive center, Roper-Park’s budget committee held hearings on a proposal that would allow communities such as Independence to give a municipal or county park temporarily to the state, so it would become a state park and therefore be eligible for the bond and sales tax money. Then, after the money was expended, the area would be given back to the city or county to be managed. Barbara Potts, Millie Nesbitt, and Bill Bullard, di67. Susan Flader, ed., Exploring Missouri’s Legacy: State Parks and Historic Sites, 19. 68. Jan Smith, “Officials Envision Museum, Park at Old Mill Site,” Independence Examiner, 22 March 1985.

Trails West

75

rector of city planning, testified before the appropriations committee and urged the committee to approve the funding scheme for the trails center. In Nesbitt’s testimony before the committee she stated: “Independence, Missouri was the trailhead of western history.” Bullard echoed her and testified that “Independence, Missouri was the trailhead of the western movement.”69 The Missouri Parks Association, a citizens advocacy organization for state parks, strongly opposed the scheme to use the park tax and bond money for the interpretive center and labeled the project “pork barrel,” because the proposed location of the center, the old mill, “had little if anything to do with the westward trails.”70 The old mill did not meet the criteria for a state park, and the attorney general had issued an opinion that park funds could be used only for state parks. The Independence Examiner responded to these criticisms on its editorial page: “Sometimes such hometown projects are viewed as pure porkbarrel. This one is not. Tourism is one of Missouri’s top industries and Independence brings hundreds of thousands of people to western Missouri each year.” Millie Nesbitt also believed the center would provide additional “tourism dollars and jobs” to the city.71 In April the Missouri legislature approved $2.1 million for the trails center, taking $1.5 million from the park division’s Capital Improvement Bond Fund and $550,000 from the parks sales tax.72 However, the issue of how the old mill was to become a state park would not be resolved until later. In the meantime both the superintendent of the Harry S Truman NHS and, more important, the Truman library director, Benedict Zobrist, continued to support the city’s quest for a trails center.73 Zobrist headed a three-person mayoral-appointed committee charged with drafting a historical statement about the significance of Independence in America’s westward expansion. The other two members were Dr. Neil Johnson, archivist at the Truman library, and Pauline Fowler, local historian. In September 1985 the committee released “Independence and the Three Trails,” which clearly hailed Independence as the key city in America’s westward 69. Heritage, 10 April 1985; “Local Officials Make Pitch for State Money,” Independence Examiner, 4 April 1985; Millie Nesbitt and William Bullard, transcripts of testimony before the committee, folder [National Frontier Trails Center—1985], ser. 14, Subject file 1967–1997, Potts Papers. 70. Heritage, 10 April, 2 December 1985. 71. Editorial, Independence Examiner, 22 March 1985. 72. Heritage, 2 December 1985. 73. See memos from Superintendent to Midwest Regional Director, 10 December 1984, 25 March 1985, Blues file, Harry S Truman NHS.

76


expansion from 1827 to 1850: “Independence served as the most important site for the assembling and equipping of pack trains and wagon caravans to the far West.”74 The report did not receive wide circulation, but it was seen and commented on by OCTA president Gregory Franzwa, who was mystified as to why the authors of the report had concluded that Independence served “as the most important site” from 1827 until 1850. He noted the increasing importance of Westport and St. Joseph in the late 1840s. Franzwa suggested to the committee: “I would be inclined to use the 1848 date if I were you, and even that is conjectural.” He concluded: “It seems to me that Independence has a rather considerable trail mystique already. Exaggeration does not serve you well; you don’t need it.” The mayor sent Franzwa’s letter to the committee members and urged them to respond to his concerns. In their response they noted: “He accepts, by and large, the major thesis of our study which concludes that Independence, Missouri was preeminent as the starting point of the Santa Fe, Oregon, and California trails during the formative period of the three trails.” They dismissed Franzwa’s interpretation that other cities were significant in America’s westward expansion and stated that his conclusions were “not borne out by the documentation we examined.”75 There were few individuals who doubted the importance of Independence as a trails city—and rightly so. All the trails either passed through or originated in Independence. What seems to have always been an exaggeration is that Independence was the starting point for the Santa Fe Trail. This distinction goes to Franklin in Howard County, Missouri, not to Jackson County and Independence as is often stated. However, what emerged in the historical consciousness of Independence leaders and locally elected politicians in 1985 was the belief that Independence was the preeminent trails city. Boosters of Independence trails were not willing to concede as Franzwa did that there were several important cities associated with the country’s westward expansion. In 1985 it was easy for the city’s trails boosters to argue that their own city was the most important trails city because individuals and groups had honored their trails history for almost seventy years, as when they erected historical trails markers, hosted the Santa-Cali-Gon Festival, preserved trails-era structures 74. “Independence and the Three Trails,” in folder Research Paper—Independence and the Three Trails, Benedict K. Zobrist Papers, HSTL. 75. Gregory M. Franzwa to Barbara Potts, 10 September 1985; Pauline Fowler, Niel Johnson, and Zobrist to Franzwa, 16 October 1985, both in Zobrist Papers, HSTL.

Trails West

77

such as the 1827 courthouse and the 1859 jail, and adopted the “Queen City of the Trails” motto as the city slogan. Since the state attorney general had ruled in 1985 that the DNR and its parks division could legally spend money from the bond and sales tax funds only for existing state parks, Independence trails boosters could not tap state money for a trails center unless the property was a state park. In May 1986 the city proposed to transfer the title to the land upon which the interpretive center was to be built to the state, which in turn would allow the city to operate the trails center as a state park. The agreement was approved, but not without the dissent of the Missouri Parks Association, which still believed the $2.1 million dollar appropriation was a “boondoggle” and considered the interpretive trails center an “urban renewal project pushed by the city of Independence.”76 The city also was not satisfied with the $2.1 million appropriation. In 1986 city officials requested an additional $1.3 million for the trails center project. This time Governor John Ashcroft vetoed the measure, much to the satisfaction of the Missouri Parks Association.77 Nevertheless the city continued to develop the trails center and sought additional funds for the project. The $2.1 million state funding paid for a design plan and the eventual rehabilitation of the old flour mill into an interpretive trails center and archives. An August 1987 draft plan stated that the intent of the center was “to be an interpretive point to educate the public through exhibits, experiences and artifacts of the period of westward migration.”78 The plan called for the center to be housed in buildings that were once a part of the Waggoner-Gates Milling Company, located just south of the square. None of these buildings dated from the trails era. As the report stated: “A clear understanding will be established that these buildings hold no position in the trails story, but act as a symbolic reference to . . . Independence which grew from the trails commerce.” The mill was the largest of its kind built in Independence after 1860. A spring, which settlers might have visited on their way out of the city, was also located on the site, but by 1987 it had been filled in. The plan called for its restoration.79 76. Heritage, 2 December 1985, 15 May 1986. 77. Heritage, 3 July 1986; “Ashcroft Vetoes Trails Center Funds,” Independence Examiner, 20 June 1986. 78. Shaughnessy, Fickel, and Scott Architects Inc., “The National Frontier Trails Center Independence, Missouri Study Phase Report,” 5 August 1987 (expanded version, in folder National Frontier Trails Center Independence, Missouri, Study Phase Report, ser. 14, Subject file 1967–1997, Potts Papers). Quote on p. 2. 79. See ibid, 2, 5.

78


In May 1987 the NPS validated the city’s trails history again when the Santa Fe Trail was designated a national historic trail.80 However, the community still had much work to do to secure funding for the trails center, and to solidify its claim to be the most important trails city in the United States. Governor John Ashcroft vetoed additional funding for the trails center, and the Independence center faced competition from another proposed center in Council Bluffs, Iowa, so city trails boosters sought out relationships with other groups that could promote Independence’s claim to be “the trailhead of western history.” In 1987 the city launched a campaign to have the OCTA offices move to Independence, to be located in a building at the trails center site. The Independence City Council passed a resolution that encouraged OCTA to come to Independence. The director of the Truman library and the superintendent of Harry S Truman NHS also sent letters to the organization encouraging it to relocate to Independence.81 In August 1987 OCTA agreed to relocate its offices to Independence, and the city agreed to provide the trails group with office space in the lower level of city hall. When the trails center was completed, OCTA moved its headquarters to the site, and as agreed in 1987, the city provided the organization rent-free space and paid the association’s utilities. The agreement could be revoked by either the city or the organization with six months’ notice. At the time of its relocation, OCTA had twenty-five hundred members from across the United States and eight other countries.82 Trails boosters went on a public relations campaign for the trails center and funded a promotional brochure. Its introduction cited how much support the city had received from both the National Park Service and the National Archives, as well as from members of OCTA. The brochure continued: “Independence has long been a major tourist center because of the City’s most famous son, Harry Truman. Independence has a proven record in tourism and historic preservation. . . . After years of neglect, the people of Independence now realize that the trails represent an untapped, major source of research, tourism and recreation for the entire country.”83 In 1987 Governor Ashcroft had vetoed an $850,000 appropriation approved by the state legislature for the trails center, but in June 1988 he ap80. Elkinton, “CRM and the National Trails System,” 4. 81. Zobrist to OCTA board of directors, 23 July 1987, Norman J. Reigle to OCTA board of directors, 14 July 1987, in box 1, ser. 14, Subject file 1967–1997, Potts Papers. 82. Eakin, National Frontier Trails Center, 126. 83. “National Frontier Trails Center,” in box 1, ser. 14, Subject file 1967–1997, Potts Papers.

Trails West

79

proved a smaller $250,000 appropriation, which funded site excavation and exhibits for the new museum.84 In 1989 NPS officials held a public meeting in Independence on the plan for the historic Santa Fe Trail, which had received its historic trail designation in 1987. While the 1968 National Trails System Act called for the Santa Fe Trail to be studied from Independence to Santa Fe, New Mexico, the draft and final management plan acknowledged that the starting point for the trail was actually Old Franklin, not Independence, and the plan proposed the creation of an interpretive center in Arrow Rock.85 Independence residents at the public meeting voiced no opposition to the Arrow Rock interpretive center, but they did express concern about how sites would be certified as part of the trail and how sites would be marked.86 In November 1989 Dan Holt, director of the National Frontier Trails Center, testified before Congress and praised the cooperation between the local, state, and federal agencies that had produced the trails center in Independence: “The State of Missouri, in cooperation with the City of Independence, local interest groups, and with input from the National Park Service provided over $3 million in . . . costs.”87 By March 1990 the finishing touches were made to the state-funded National Frontier Trails Center. Under an agreement with the city, the state owned the property and the city provided the operating costs to staff the center. On 26 March 1990, the city launched a three-day series of events culminating in the dedication of the center on 28 March 1990. Just as in the original Santa-Cali-Gon celebration, each of the three days honored one of the three trails. When the center opened, the National Park Service designated it an official interpretive center for the Santa Fe and Oregon trails and NPS representatives attended the dedication.88 The city was optimistic that the center would bring in the tourism Mayor Potts spoke about in her memo to the director of the state DNR and hoped the center would attract 30,000 people a year to Independence. In the center’s first two months, 11,600 visitors came from forty-three states and six foreign countries. Dan Holt attributed the high attendance to those 84. “Drive Continues for Pioneer Statue,” Independence Examiner, 29 June 1988. 85. Charles Burke, “Local Federal Trails Efforts Linked,” Independence Examiner, 22 May 1989. 86. Charles Burke, “Area Residents Confer on Santa Fe Trail Plan,” Independence Examiner, 26 May 1989. Santa Fe National Historic Trail. 87. “Holt Speaks to Panel about Protecting Trails,” Independence Examiner, 8 November 1989. 88. Supplement, “Celebrate Historic Independence, March 24–28 1990,” Independence Examiner, 21 March 1990.

80


National Frontier Trails Center in Independence, Missouri. Courtesy of author.

who came to the grand opening ceremonies and to members of the RLDS Church who traveled to the city for the church conference. He also noted that since there was a national emphasis on the trails, many individuals found their way to Independence.89 The National Park Service continued to validate the significance of the city’s trails history in the public memory of the community when the California Trail was granted national historic trail status in 1992. The NPS drafted a management plan and descended upon the city for public comment on the plan, which clearly noted that the trail originated in Jackson County, Missouri. The final management plan was released in 1999.90 89. Kelly Garbus, “Attendance ‘Outstanding’ at Trails Center,” Kansas City Star, 7 June 1990. 90. See Draft Comprehensive Management and Use Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Statement: California National Historic Trail, Pony Express National Historic Trail. Confirmation of the NPS-led public comment sessions on the California Trail plan was obtained from John Mark Lambertson, director of the National Frontier Trails Center, personal conversation with author, 8 March 2004. For the final plan, see Comprehensive Management and Use Plan, Final EIS: California National Historic Trial, Pony Express National Historic Trail.

Trails West

81

The opening of the trails center solidified the status of Independence as the “Queen City of the Trails.” It also reinforced within the community’s historical consciousness the city’s importance in the history of American westward expansion. The trails center created a physical space within the community to which city leaders and trails boosters could point in order to validate the city’s western heritage, even though most of the city’s trails structures had already been obliterated from the cultural landscape. The community was able to remember its trails history in 1990 because the historical consciousness of that history had been kept alive by the Independence residents who had dedicated historical markers to the trails, even though the city had preserved only a few of its trails-related structures over the course of the twentieth century. The Independence Chamber of Commerce and its creation and sponsorship of the Santa-Cali-Gon Festival also raised the city’s historical consciousness concerning its trails history. However, having city leaders and residents with a historical consciousness of their city’s trails history was not enough to ensure that a trails center would be built. The federal agencies and the managers who came to Independence to manage the community’s presidential history also reinforced within the community’s historical consciousness the importance of the city’s trails history. The National Park Service, under the National Trails Act of 1968, sent representatives to Independence on several occasions to discuss the city’s contribution to the nation’s westward expansion. In 1981 a study on the Oregon Trail had identified Independence as a potential location for a trails interpretive center. The director of the Truman library drafted a statement that essentially declared Independence to be the most prominent city in the history of American westward expansion. Both the director of the Truman library and the superintendent of the Harry S Truman NHS supported the city’s effort to persuade OCTA to relocate its offices to Independence, a move designed to further legitimize Independence’s role as “the trailhead of western history.” However, one of the most important factors that reenergized the city’s interest in its trails history was the city’s Truman history. This is an ironic twist. It was in 1924 that Truman observed how Independence had done little to recognize its trails history, yet sixty years later city leaders utilized the history of their favorite son to justify the redevelopment of its trails history. Carole Roper-Park described how the Truman history received the attention of the state during the 1984 centennial celebration of his birth, but city leaders used that focus to redirect it to fund a trails center. The brochure printed by the city officials to pro-

82


mote the trails center noted how the city had neglected its trails history, but it also noted that the city was still a major tourist attraction because of its presidential history. City leaders pursued the trails center because it would provide an additional tourist attraction for visitors who came to visit the city’s Truman sites. William Bullard, the city’s director of planning, noted in his 1985 testimony before the House appropriations committee that the “Trails Center would have instant exposure to the hundreds of thousands of people who visit Independence yearly because of the Truman connection.”91 The city’s desire to create a National Frontier Trails Center went largely unopposed and unquestioned except for the opposition from the Missouri Parks Association, which argued that the proposed site of the trails center did not possess any historical integrity from the trails period and that the large appropriations diverted from the state parks bond and sales tax funds would deprive other state historic sites with unquestioned integrity of much-needed financial revenue. The association viewed the center as just a slum clearance and urban redevelopment project for the city, which never had any intention of the center’s being operated as a unit of the state park system. The argument was valid, because the center was housed in a historic structure that postdated the city’s trails history, and it has never been operated as a state historic site. Clearly, the city’s trails history was inextricably linked with the city’s presidential history. The decision to place the Truman library in Independence brought a new federal agency to town—the National Archives. What remains to be examined is how significant Independence was to Harry S. Truman and how the city reacted to the presidential library. Prior to the opening of the Truman library in 1957, the city’s presidential history was commemorated and promoted by the Independence Chamber of Commerce. Now the chamber would have to share responsibility for its presidential history with a federal agency.

91. Folder [National Frontier Trails Center—1985], ser. 14, Subject file 1967–1997, Potts Papers.

3

A President Returns Home We are back home for good. —Harry S.Truman

Harry S. Truman and Bess, his wife, returned from Washington, D.C., to Independence and their home at 219 North Delaware on 22 January 1953. At the train depot, located just south of the RLDS auditorium, ten thousand well-wishers greeted the ex-president and first lady. In a short speech the former president thanked the mayor and all those who had gathered to greet them. He remarked of the homecoming: “It is more than I expected. And it is more to the heart than I expected it would be. We are back home for good.”1 Independence was truly home to the president because he had spent sixty-four years of his life in the community. His family had moved to the city in 1890 so the children could attend its well-respected public school system. The young man graduated in 1901, in the same class as his future wife, and immediately went to work in Kansas City. In 1906 he left Kansas City to work on his maternal grandfather’s farm in Grandview and continued as a farmer through 1917 when he enlisted to serve in the U.S. Army. While working on the farm he reacquainted himself with his former classmate Bess Wallace, and when he returned from the war, the couple married in 1919 and moved into her family’s home at 219 North 1. “Hail Trumans as Returning Good Neighbors,” Independence Examiner, 22 January 1953.

83

84


Delaware. They spent the remainder of their adult lives in one community and in the same house they had known since their courtship.

Truman’s Relationship with His Neighborhood When Truman returned to his hometown in 1953, he returned to a city that had offered its support throughout his political career. He was a World War I veteran and an active member of the Masonic organization. In politics, in sometimes close elections, the residents of Independence had voted him into office as a member of the Jackson County Court in the 1920s and elected him senator in 1934 and 1940. When Truman received Franklin D. Roosevelt’s nomination as vice president in August 1944, the Independence Chamber of Commerce erected a sign on the courthouse lawn that honored his nomination. A celebration was held on the Independence Square on 4 November 1944 to honor Truman’s election as vice president, and the chamber of commerce paid for the flags that decorated the square in Truman’s honor.2 The chamber support continued when he became U.S. president on 12 April 1945, and on that day his friends in Independence sent their encouragement to Washington. George Dodsworth, chamber president, sent his support and encouragement, as did William Southern, Jr., publisher and editor of the Independence Examiner. In an interview conducted by the Kansas City Times, Southern noted: “Harry Truman will handle the situation and do it well.” In its meeting on 6 June 1945, the chamber’s publicity committee voted to undertake a fund-raising campaign to purchase signs that would proclaim “Independence as the Home Town of the President of the United States.”3 Truman’s ascendancy to the presidency made little visible impact on the city unless he scheduled a trip home. His first visit to his hometown as president was in June 1945. Bess had arrived a month earlier to oversee a complete renovation and painting of her family’s house. The Trumans were not the only ones to tidy up in anticipation of his arrival. Their neighbors also wanted to make sure they would be ready for a presidential visit. Ruth Cook at 610 N. Delaware commented that she was not sure whether she would be able to mow the family’s lawn in time for the first 2. Board minutes, 9 August, 8 November 1944, in bound volume 1942–1944, Independence Chamber of Commerce. 3. “Home Town Calm,” Kansas City Times, 13 April 1945; Board minutes, 6 June 1945, in bound volume 1945–1952, Independence Chamber of Commerce.

A President Returns Home

85

Harry S. Truman, featured guest, in the June 1945 Independence homecoming parade. Copyright unknown, courtesy Truman library.

presidential visit.4 When Truman arrived in his hometown on 27 June 1945, he was picked up from the downtown Kansas City Municipal Airport and whisked to Independence where, riding in a blue Cadillac convertible, he became the featured celebrity in an impromptu parade. The parade route passed by places on the Independence Square that were familiar to him both personally and politically. He was greeted by more than two thousand banners saying “Welcome Home, Mr. President,” paid for by the chamber of commerce and posted in Independence Square businesses.5 The parade returned the president to his home at 219 North Delaware where he was welcomed by a throng of friends, relatives, and onlookers on the front lawn. Later that evening, he addressed the citizens of Independence from the RLDS auditorium. The Examiner noted: “There never before had been so many parked motor cars in Independence for any oc4. Kansas City Star, 15 June 1945. 5. Independence Examiner, 27 June 1945.

86


Harry Truman voting at the Memorial Building. Photographer Sammie Feeback, courtesy Truman library.

casion.”6 The following day, as the president accepted an honorary degree from the University of Kansas City, he remarked: “When I come to Jackson County, I can’t realize that I am the President of the United States. I feel like I am just one of your fellow citizens. I see the same faces, and I try to talk to the same people. But, you know, there is one thing that I have found it impossible to do, and that is to shake hands with and talk to five hundred thousand people in 3 days.”7 The president enjoyed his time at home, but he was also aware of the immense job it was to be president. World War II was still going on against Japan, and while he was glad to be home, his mind was overseas. Truman was only able to visit Independence several times a year dur6. “At Last, Truman Fills Auditorium, Crowd of Ten Thousand,” Independence Examiner, 28 June 1945. 7. Truman, Public Papers, 1:152.


87

“The Truman Early Risers Walking Society” of Independence, Missouri, December 22–24, 1948. Copyright unknown, courtesy Truman library.

88


ing his seven-year presidency, but not every visit was like the June 1945 homecoming. On most visits he wanted to maintain his privacy and made few public appearances. But this did not mean he shunned the public. Truman had, as a senator, become known for taking daily walks, and he continued these exercises as president, so when he visited Independence he enjoyed strolls through his neighborhood amid much fanfare and press attention. The president returned to Independence to vote in November 1948. On 1 November, the day before the crucial 2 November 1948 election, Truman took one of his famous walks through the neighborhood. However, uncharacteristically, Truman asked the Secret Service not to allow the press to follow him. Unfortunately we will never know exactly what the president was thinking, but perhaps he was pondering what the results of the impending election would hold for his presidency and whether he would walk through his neighborhood again as president.8 As the voters decided, Truman had many more walks though the neighborhood as president. When he returned home for Christmas in December 1948, the president formed the Truman Early Risers Walking Society. The club, composed of newsmen and cameramen who were fit enough to keep up with him on his two-mile walks through the neighborhood, continued to trail him through the streets of Independence on future hometown visits.9 Truman’s walks through the neighborhood took him past the homes and businesses of people he had known throughout his personal and political career. He enjoyed stopping by Wills Garage at 800 W. Maple Ave. The president and Ray Wills, owner of the garage, exchanged correspondence and when Truman received word that his friend was ill he sent a letter of encouragement. It read: “Take good care of yourself. Union Street and Maple Avenue will not be the same corner unless you are there to make it run.” Occasionally, on his jaunts, the president would see Rees Alexander who lived at 814 W. Van Horn Road. He was Independence’s unofficial historian and wrote a column for the Independence Examiner entitled “Rees’ Reminiscences.” Since his home was located near the Truman home, he kept an eye on the place while the Trumans were away. Alexander wrote to the president and described the number of cars with out-ofstate license plates that passed by the Truman home on a regular basis. The president responded: “It is quite interesting the variety and number 8. Harry S. Truman, Mr. Citizen, 31; “President’s Day Begins at 7 a.m.,” Independence Examiner, 1 November 1948. 9. Independence Examiner, 27 December 1948.


89

of people who want to take a look at the old house on Delaware Street. I don’t understand why they want to do it but, if it gives them any pleasure, I have no objection as long as they don’t tear it down and carry it away.”10 Residents of the neighborhood demonstrated their support in the correspondence exchanged with Truman prior to, and just after, the 1948 election campaign. Polly Compton, neighbor at 318 North Delaware, was just one example of a supportive neighbor. In June 1948 Compton delivered ice cream to 219 North Delaware and left a note enclosing money to “cover some expense not covered by the campaign.” The Twymans, at 416 North Delaware, sent a letter of congratulations when Truman won the close 1948 election. Truman responded: “The good wishes of old friends and neighbors are indeed helpful and mean more to me than I can say.”11 The Independence Chamber of Commerce once again displayed its support when it solicited community subscriptions to raise $5,000 to purchase a Gutenberg Bible, which was sent to the January 1949 inauguration ceremony and used by Truman during his swearing-in ceremony. The chamber, keenly interested in the increased number of people visiting the city to see the Truman home, also voted to pay for directional signs to the home. Clearly the chamber supported Harry S. Truman as president and also wanted to promote tourism by marking the route to his home.12 When the president returned to Independence in 1953, the house he worried about in his response to Rees Alexander was still in place, and he continued to take those famous neighborhood strolls. The walks continued to connect him with his neighborhood, but they also connected him with his own past. The physical structures he passed became his personal landmarks, and later some of them would become part of a national landmark. In February 1953 Truman acknowledged the importance of these personal landmarks at a dinner speech he delivered at the RLDS Laurel Club, located in the RLDS auditorium. The occasion offered an opportunity for local individuals to express their appreciation to Truman 10. Truman to Ray Wills, 26 May 1948, WHCF: PPF 3193; Truman to Rees Alexander, 10 April 1948, PSF Personal file “A,” Truman Papers, HSTL. 11. Polly Compton to Truman, 30 July, Truman to Compton, 4 August, Truman to Mrs. Thomas Twyman, 24 November 1948, WHCF: PPF 4037, 4037, 1627, Truman Papers, HSTL. 12. For the Bible, see board minutes, 13 January 1949, in bound volume 1945–1952, Independence Chamber of Commerce; “Gutenberg Bible Back at Library,” Independence Examiner, 24 January 1949. For the signs, see board minutes, 10 November 1948, 13 January, 9 March, 14 December 1949, 18 January 1950, in bound volume 1945–1952, Independence Chamber of Commerce.

90


and his family for their many years of public service. Truman stated eloquently just how significant Independence was to his personal history: I’ve been taking my morning walks around the city and passing places that bring back wonderful recollections. The Presbyterian Church at Lexington and Pleasant Streets where I started to Sunday School at the age of six years, where I first saw a lovely little goldenhaired girl who is still the lovely lady—Margie’s mother. I pass by the Noland School where I first went to school in 1892. Had a white cap with [a] sign across the cap’s visor, which said, “Grover Cleveland for President and Adlai Stevenson for Vice-President”—the grandfather of the man I supported in 1952 sixty years later. Just south of this building stood the old Columbian School, which was brandnew when I was ready for the third and fourth grades. The Ott School over on Liberty and College where I was in the fifth grade under Aunt Nanny Wallace—Bess’s aunt. I pass the site of the old Independence High School at Maple and Pleasant. Ours was the first class to be graduated there, in 1901—fifty two years ago. And so it goes. What a pleasure to be back here at home—once more a free and independent citizen of the gateway city of the Old Great West.13

It is clear from this speech that the president relished his past and the opportunity to revisit those personal landmarks on his walks.

Genesis of the Truman Library When Truman returned to his hometown in January 1953, he busied himself with duties as leader of the national Democratic Party. More important, he began work on his presidential library.14 The work and planning for the Truman library had its genesis during Truman’s presidency, but the impetus to create a presidential library came from his predecessor, Franklin D. Roosevelt. In December 1938 Roosevelt had held a press conference and outlined a plan to create the first presidential library on his estate at Hyde Park. Up until that time, presidents had been allowed to 13. The handwritten copy can be found in 5 February Speech folder, Longhand Personal Memos 1953, PSF Longhand notes file, Truman Papers, HSTL. A mimeographed copy is in the folder Testimonial dinner, February 5, [1953] Independence, Speech files, General file, PPP, Truman Papers, HSTL. Also see Robert H. Ferrell, ed., The Autobiography of Harry S. Truman, 109 –110. 14. Gary Sands, Truman in Retirement: A Former President Views the Nation and the World; Kelly Woestman, “Mr. Citizen: Harry S. Truman and the Institutionalization of the Ex-Presidency.”


91

Harry Truman ready for a neighborhood stroll. Photographer Sammie Feeback, courtesy Truman library.

take their papers with them after leaving office. Roosevelt’s pathbreaking announcement provided for public access to, preservation of, and protection for presidential records. In July 1939 Congress enacted Roosevelt’s plan to place the proposed library under the administration of the National Archives and to authorize the Archivist of the United States to accept collections of papers and other archival material related to Roosevelt’s presidency. A private group raised the construction funds for the library, and in a June 1941 ceremony it was dedicated and opened to the public. A future director of the Roosevelt library noted: “The library established for the first time in this country, under federal control for the use of the public, an extensive collection of source material relating to a specific period in American history.”15 15. Quoted in Cynthia M. Koch and Lynn A. Bassanese, “Roosevelt and His Library,” Prologue 33, no. 2 (2001).

92


It was not too far into Truman’s term as president that the subject of his own presidential library came up. As early as 1946, but more formally in 1949, Independence mayor Roger Sermon approached Truman about the possibility that Independence might host the president’s library. In a letter dated 23 March 1949, the mayor wrote: “I have only two objectives in mind. I want you to have a fitting tribute in the form of something of a lasting nature, and secondly, I want the old town to have a magnificent building in honor of its most famous citizen.” A few days later the president responded: I read with a lot of interest your good letter of March twenty-third and you’ve rather put me on the spot. I’ve never been very much in favor of memorials to people who are alive. You never can tell what foolishness they may get into before they get into a pine box and then the memorial sometimes has to be torn down. . . . I am not a good person to advise you on the subject at all for the simple reason that I’ve never come to the conclusion that I’ve earned a memorial of any sort. You compliment me very highly by the idea and incline me to swell up like a poisoned pup over it, but I’d rather you would talk with your friends and colleagues in that part of the world and then make whatever decision you think is proper. I still have three years and ten months to go as President and I may be impeached during that time and you may not want to erect any memorial in remembrance of me. Just bear that in mind while you are working on that proposition.16

In April 1949 a group of notable Independence and Kansas City residents including the mayor met and formed the Truman Foundation, with the purpose of raising money for a future presidential museum. The mayor hoped the foundation would be “established at Independence from small contributions from the ‘common men’ that voted to elect president Truman in 1948.” Shortly after the foundation announced its existence, one of the largest contributions came in from W. T. Kemper, Jr., president of the First National Bank of Independence. Kemper’s money was used to purchase coins bearing Truman’s likeness, which were then given to the foundation donors. Sermon briefed the president on this April meeting, but Truman was concerned that the mayor was trying to create a memorial to honor his presidency—something to which he was adamantly opposed. Truman told Sermon he did not want a “great elaborate building program . . . undertaken” for the purposes of a memorial; he only want16. See Truman to Roger T. Sermon, 10 January 1946, Sermon to Truman, 15 January 1946, 23 March 1949, Truman to Sermon, 28 March 1949, all in Roger T. Sermon folder, Truman Library Foundation file, PSF, Truman Papers, HSTL.


93

ed space to “store the gadgets and things I have received from all over the world for public view.”17 After this exchange, there is no evidence the mayor approached the president again on the matter. When Sermon passed away unexpectedly from a heart attack, Robert P. Weatherford was elected to fill his position as chairman of the Truman Foundation committee. Weatherford immediately wrote the president about Independence’s role in hosting a presidential library. Apparently, he did not have access to the correspondence the president and Sermon had exchanged concerning the memorial, so Truman dispatched a representative to brief him on the situation.18 A group of Truman’s political admirers, centered mainly on the East Coast, formed the Harry S. Truman Library Inc. on 8 July 1950, but the mayor of Independence was not named as one of the organization’s board of directors. Shortly thereafter the newly formed organization announced that the library would be constructed on the president’s farm in Grandview, Missouri. Weatherford expressed mild shock at the announcement in a letter to the president in July 1950. Truman responded to the mayor’s concerns: “The only reason that I located the Library at Grandview is because I own the land and can donate it and that the farm has been in the family for three generations. It is located conveniently to both Independence and the rest of the County. I spent most of my life on that farm and feel very strongly that that is the proper location for the Library.”19 Truman’s decision to locate the library in the Midwest was unique because it would position a major center of research out of reach of the East Coast. Noted historians Henry Steele Commager and Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., expressed concern about Truman’s decision. In a meeting with the president on 28 May 1952, Commager explained that it would be convenient for scholars if the presidential papers were housed in Washington. Schlesinger, while not as concerned as his colleague about the midwestern location, wanted to make sure scholars would have a place to stay in Grandview if they wanted to conduct research at the library for several days.20 Truman let his true feelings be known about the library’s location in a memo sent to David Lloyd, who would later oversee the development 17. See Blevins Davis folder, and Truman to Sermon, 13 April 1949, Roger T. Sermon folder, ibid. 18. Robert P. Weatherford to Truman, 10 April, Truman to Weatherford, 13 April, Weatherford to Truman, 25 April 1950, all in Robert P. Weatherford folder, ibid. 19. Weatherford to Truman, 17 July, Truman to Weatherford, 21 July 1950, ibid. 20. See memo for the President, 28 May 1952, President’s Appointments file, 1945– 1953, PSF, Truman Papers, HSTL.

94


of the Truman library. Truman believed that the Midwest and Far West could profit from a presidential library. He shrewdly remarked to Lloyd: “I think we have a sales job to do if we expect to get the cooperation of these people. When they suggest that all the historical documents should be housed in one place in Virginia I think they are displaying a provincial attitude to which I expect to pay no attention.”21 When Truman left office, the Harry S. Truman Library Inc. paid “no attention” and spearheaded the effort to construct the library on the farm. In December 1953 the president toured the potential location for the library in Grandview. At the time of his tour, Kansas City University made an offer to house the library on its campus. Shortly thereafter, the University of Missouri in Columbia extended an offer to locate the library on its campus. There was still uncertainty concerning the location in February 1954, and the uncertainty had not subsided by May when Truman wrote to Dr. Earl J. McGrath, president of Kansas City University: “I don’t know yet what I am going to do. It is the first time in my life that I have hesitated so long in making a decision.”22 It was a difficult decision for three reasons. Truman wanted the library close to Independence so he could easily access his presidential papers, which were crucial to his post-presidential pursuit of writing his memoirs. In Grandview, the library would be about fifteen miles from the president’s home in Independence. Placing the library on the Truman farm property in Grandview also had a financial impact on the family. If the family’s personal land were donated for the library, they could not then sell the farmland, so the family would realize a substantial personal savings if someone other than Truman donated the land for the library. The final concern about siting the library in Grandview regarded a problem with the terrain of the farm acreage, a problem Truman’s architects had identified when they inspected the site.23 In June 1954 Independence mayor Robert P. Weatherford made an effort to put Truman’s mind at rest about the location of the library. Weatherford delivered a speech before the Jackson Day Democratic luncheon, 21. Memo from Truman to David Lloyd, 18 June 1952, in folder Disposition and Care of Presidential Papers, Officers and Trustees file, HSTL Inc. Papers, HSTL. 22. See Ed Neild to Lloyd, 15 December 1953, Lloyd to Neild, 10 February 1954, Architects—Somdal & Gentry, folder 1, Architect and Contractor file, HSTL Inc. Papers, HSTL; Truman to Dr. Earl J. McGrath, 25 May 1954, folder Location (Truman Library Site), Library-Museum file 1953–1972, PPP, Truman Papers, HSTL. 23. Lon Gentry to Lloyd, 14 December 1954, Architects—Somdal & Gentry, folder 1, Architect and Contractor file, HSTL Inc. Papers, HSTL.


95

attended by Harry and Bess Truman, at the American Legion building on West Maple. After the speech, Weatherford and Truman had a conversation about the location of the library. Weatherford offered to find land for the library to be built in Independence. Initially, Truman wanted the library constructed on the RLDS campus where the church had a ball diamond. The church refused to relinquish the land unless Weatherford approached the Mormon Church in Salt Lake City to see if they were willing to allow the RLDS Church to acquire an LDS-owned parcel of property north of the ball diamond. Weatherford recalled: “When I approached them [the Mormon Church] I hit a stone wall there. They are fine people, loyal citizens, but there is a little interchurch conflict of interest that surfaced very quickly, and I backed off.”24 Undeterred, Weatherford approached his city council and discussed the situation with them. The council agreed to donate 10.45 acres of Slover Park, located a mile north of the Truman home, for the library. An additional 2.82 acres, containing the homes of seven families, was acquired by the city at a cost of $115,381.39.25 Years later the mayor recalled: “We had some appraisals made of a block of houses that sat where the Library building is now, and we actually bought those houses quietly for less than the appraisal. . . . We never had to do a condemnation; we had no problems.”26 The total value of the land, including parkland, donated to the General Services Administration, the federal agency that eventually came to oversee the grounds and library building, stood at $219,881.39. This was the city’s first investment in its presidential history. The board of trustees of the Truman Library Inc. announced that Independence had been chosen as the site of the presidential library on 7 July 1954. The next day the displaced residents sent Truman a letter that read: “It was with some degree of shock we received the proposal of the City of Independence, and it was with a great deal of concern that we approached 24. Robert P. Weatherford, Jr., interview by J. R. Fuchs, 11 June 1976, transcript, 19– 21, HSTL. Also see Lloyd to Basil O’Connor, 14 June 1954, folder Location of Library, HSTL Building Materials file, HSTL Inc. Papers, HSTL. 25. Handwritten note by Weatherford furnished to Brooks at the request of the General Services Administration, folder Post dedication U–V, Library-Museum file 1953– 1972, PPP, Truman Papers, HSTL. 26. Weatherford interview, 24. As late as 14 June 1954, Mayor Weatherford had not confirmed a library site in Independence because the negotiations with the RLDS Church fell through. By 17 June 1954, however, Weatherford sent Truman a letter outlining the proposed Slover Park location. See Weatherford to Truman, 17 June, Truman to Weatherford, 18 June, Special Meeting July 7, 1954, folder City of Independence Missouri Site Offer, Annual Meeting file, HSTL Inc. Papers, HSTL.

96


the problem of finding new home sites. We had all anticipated being established for some years—adjacent to the Park and fairly close to the schools, churches, and the business district. Our location is ideal and we all regret somewhat having to leave.” Then the residents stated that once they had thought about the proposal they believed it was their “civic responsibility” to allow the Truman library to be built on their property because they “realized what a tremendous effect the establishment of the Library . . . would mean to [the] city.”27 On 31 August 1954, almost two months later, Truman responded that he was happy the library was going to be built “with the generous help of the good friends and neighbors of my home town,” but he was apologetic “for the inconvenience and trouble this has caused you.”28 Mayor Weatherford also helped the Truman Library Inc. obtain options just south of the library and Highway 24 on land in direct view of the proposed library so it would not be used for “commercial purposes.”29 However, while the purpose of the land acquisition was to prevent commercial use of the property, which would detract from the library, the purpose was also functional because the acquired land would be used to build an overpass interchange to allow access to the library. Since the city could not afford to purchase the property, the Harry S. Truman Library Inc. advanced the cash to the city, which held the lands in a trust. The Missouri Department of Transportation then purchased the land from the city in order to build the interchange, and the department reimbursed Truman Library Inc.30 In addition to the land for the Truman library, the city provided one more important perk. When Truman returned to Independence as former 27. Mr. and Mrs. A. E. Terryberry, Mr. and Mrs. Raymond E. Brewer, Mr. and Mrs. Stanley Larson, Mr. and Mrs. Howard F. Lade, Mr. and Mrs. W. E. McConnell, Mr. and Mrs. L. E. Stoner, and Fred L. Hammontree to Truman, 8 July 1954, folder Pre-dedication Site (Truman Library), Library-Museum file 1953–1972, PPP, Truman Papers, HSTL. 28. Truman to Fred L. Hammontree, Mr. and Mrs. L. E. Stoner, Mr. and Mrs. W. E. McConnell, Mr. and Mrs. Howard F. Lade, Mr. and Mrs. Stanley Larson, Mr. and Mrs. Raymond E. Brewer, and Mr. and Mrs. A. E. Terryberry, 31 August 1954, ibid. 29. Weatherford to Lloyd, 28 June 1954, Special Meeting 7 July 1954, folder City of Independence Site Offer, and Tom Evans to Wilmer J. Waller, 14 September 1954, folder Acquisition of the Site of Harry S. Truman Library, HSTL Building Materials file, HSTL Inc. Papers, HSTL. 30. Weatherford to Lloyd, 28 June 1954, Special Meeting 7 July 1954, folder City of Independence Site Offer, and Tom Evans to Wilmer J. Waller, 14 September 1954, also Lloyd to Rufus Burrus, 8 June 1955, folder Acquisition of the Site of Harry S. Truman Library, HSTL Building Materials file, HSTL Inc. Papers, HSTL.


97

president, he no longer had Secret Service protection. Mayor Weatherford appointed Mike Westwood, a police officer on the Independence force, to accompany the former president and first lady in public places and to chauffeur them to various places. Westwood and Truman were frequently seen together on Truman’s walks throughout the neighborhood. Later, in the wake of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, President Truman became eligible for Secret Service protection, and he accepted it reluctantly, but Mike Westwood still accompanied him in public.31 With the land secure for the library, Truman Library Inc. began a fundraising effort to secure money to construct the library, which would then be given to the federal government to manage. While the majority of the fund-raising was organized in Washington, D.C., by David Lloyd, executive director of the corporation, Independence residents did also contribute. In June 1954 a dinner costing $25 a plate, sponsored by the Independence Chamber of Commerce and held in the auditorium of the RLDS Church, collected $7,531.26 for the library fund.32 In November of that same year, a boxed lunch sale and auction of donated items held at the National Guard Armory raised $4,250.00 for the presidential library.33 Truman received congressional support for his presidential library when Congress passed the Presidential Libraries Act in 1955. The act codified the way future libraries, including the Truman library, would be constructed and managed. The Presidential Libraries Act stated that private funds would have to be expended to construct the libraries and then the National Archives and Record Administration would manage the library facilities.34 Not only did the city support the Truman library, the chamber of commerce pledged to promote the library and played an active part in preparing the community for the library opening. Chamber officials met with the former president in May 1955 and asked him how much publicity he would like for the library. Truman encouraged the organization to go as far as they could, so “long as the area immediately surrounding the library is not commercialized in a cheap manner.” A month later, the chamber of 31. Weatherford interview, 40. 32. John H. Lund to Truman, 7 July 1954, folder Fund Raising Committees for the Harry S. Truman Library, Kansas City, Missouri, HSTL Inc. Papers, HSTL. 33. “Await Opening Bang of Gavel by Auctioneer,” Independence Examiner, 18 November 1954. For the amount raised, see Lloyd to G. R. Tompkins, 16 December 1954, folder Fund Raising Committees for the Harry S. Truman Library, Kansas City, Missouri, HSTL Inc. Papers, HSTL. 34. Web site www.archives.gov/presidential_libraries/about.

98


commerce established a tourist promotion committee. Although the meeting minutes do not state the specific reason for forming the committee, the timing of its creation leaves no doubt that the presidential history had influenced the chamber’s decision to create the committee.35 As the 6 July 1957 dedication day approached, the chamber of commerce created a library dedication committee, headed by Bishop G. Leslie DeLapp of the RLDS Church. The committee was asked to secure the Red Cross and Salvation Army First Aid Mobile Units, to provide six convertible cars that would be used only in emergencies, and to decorate the Independence Square.36 In addition to the library dedication committee, the chamber, which also had an Independence merchants’ committee, agreed to create a free-standing yet closely aligned Uptown Merchants Association to take advantage of what they thought would be an increased traffic flow through Independence as a result of library visitors. The association sponsored special promotions at area stores on 12 and 13 July, the weekend after the dedication.37 Amid grand fanfare and with a keynote speech by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Truman library was dedicated in a public ceremony and opened to the community on 6 July 1957. On that day Harry S. Truman handed the deed to the library property to Robert Weatherford, who in turn delivered it to the General Services Administration. Truman also handed Weatherford the deed for all his papers and personal mementos he had acquired as president. The only request Truman made in return was that there would be a library office maintained for his personal use for the rest of his life.38

35. Board minutes, 10 June 1954, 5 May, 2 June 1955, in bound volume 1953–1956, Independence Chamber of Commerce. 36. Board minutes, 1 July 1957, in ibid. 1957–1959. 37. Board minutes, 6 May, 3 June, 1957, in ibid. 38. Weatherford interview, 46–47. Roosevelt’s will did not outline how his papers were to be disposed of upon his death, and he never signed a deed of gift assigning his copyright to them to the public domain. See Wills of the United States Presidents, 212. Truman was the first ex-president to sign the deed of gift to his papers over to the public domain, which meant he no longer held a private copyright to his written manuscripts. It was not until after the passage of the Presidential Records Act of 1978 that the papers of the presidents were regarded as federal property, not the personal property of the former president. See www.archives.gov/presidential_libraries/about.


99

The Truman Library opened on 6 July 1957. Courtesy of author.

Integration of the Truman Library into the Community With the library established, Truman allowed its administrators to perform their jobs with little interference from him. Philip Brooks, the library’s first director, established the tone that would be followed by other federal administrators. His primary goal was to oversee the public opening of the Truman presidential papers and the acquisition of the papers from other individuals who had served in the Truman administration.39 He was also interested in securing research materials related to Truman’s early political career in Jackson County. The library director played an active part in reestablishing the Jackson County Historical Society, by offering both storage space for the society’s collections and the li39. See Philip Brooks to Lloyd, 23 January 1959, folder Correspondence, Dr. Brooks 1959, Truman Library file, HSTL Inc. Papers, HSTL. Also see “Recent Research Developments at the Harry S. Truman Library,” 9 September 1960, in folder Correspondence, Dr. Brooks 1960, ibid.

100


brary’s auditorium as a meeting place. He provided expertise in museum management during the society’s restoration of the old jail. Brooks had a professional interest in the success of the JCHS because he believed that a strong local historical society would help him locate and preserve materials related to Truman’s early career.40 Dr. Brooks oversaw and developed the archives side of the library, but there was also a museum component to the library, which opened in September 1957. The museum was not aggressive in acquiring artifacts related to the Truman administration, however, because Truman did not want to have museum exhibits focused solely on his presidential accomplishments. Instead, he wanted his library to be an institution where students of history could come and study the presidency, not just about himself as president. The focus was on the archives, not the museum, also because Truman wanted it that way. He was a staunch supporter of the public’s right to examine the actions of its leaders. For the most part Truman allowed Brooks to manage the library as he saw fit, but in this one area, he pushed Brooks to make selected portions of his papers available for scholarly research. Brooks commented to David Lloyd in January 1959: “The most avid in urging that we get scholars working in the Research Room is Mr. Truman.”41 Brooks also fostered relationships with the Independence community. This interaction came primarily through his association with the JCHS, which he served as vice president from the time he joined the organization in 1958 until he retired from federal service in 1971. Brooks interacted with the leadership of the RLDS Church through the JCHS. In 1962 the church president W. Wallace Smith expressed concern to Brooks about the JCHS proposal to reprint the 1881 History of Jackson County, which Smith and specifically the church historian, Charles A. Davies, believed to be prejudicial to the church. In response to Smith’s concerns, Brooks responded: “My own thought to be candid, is that we would be reprinting a historic volume for whatever reference value it may contain, fully recognizing that it has many errors of fact and opinion, and very definitely not endorsing the content of the book.”42 The JCHS executive committee 40. Memo from Brooks, 2 December 1960, Subject: Acquisition Policy—Kansas City Area, Brooks Collection, JCHS. 41. Brooks to Lloyd, 23 January 1959, folder Correspondence, Dr. Brooks 1959, Truman Library file, HSTL Inc. Papers, HSTL. 42. W. Wallace Smith to Brooks, 18 April, Charles A. Davies to Smith, 18 April, Brooks to Smith, 20 April 1962, folder Correspondence as Historical Society Member 1958–1971, Brooks Collection, JCHS.


101

at first decided not to reprint the book but then, in 1966, changed its mind and reprinted the volume. What the reaction of the RLDS Church was to the society’s decision is unclear. What is clear is that Brooks initially took the RLDS Church leaders’ objections to reprinting the volume seriously and offered to share these objections with other members of the JCHS. Brooks continued to use his position and the library facility as a way to bring people from other Independence organizations together to promote the city’s history. In April 1962 representatives from the old jail, the Independence Square merchants, the city, and the RLDS Church all met at the library to discuss the possibility of erecting directional signage to the city’s attractions.43 A year later, Brooks approached chamber of commerce president Harold R. Boehmer to see if the chamber might fund such a project. Without explanation the chamber’s historical promotion committee decided not to support the effort, and Brooks then approached the JCHS and the RLDS Church separately. Both organizations agreed to share the costs of the signs with the Truman library.44 Clearly, Brooks fostered a spirit of cooperation with other Independence tourist attractions, realizing that in order for all of them to succeed in attracting visitation they had to work together.

Urban Renewal and the Truman Library Brooks again came into contact with Independence community leaders through his limited involvement in Independence’s urban renewal program. In February 1959 the city submitted an application for urban renewal funds to redevelop over a ten-year period a 520-acre section of the city that included the neighborhoods surrounding the Truman library, Truman home, and the Independence Square. In order to apply for the funds the city had to draft a comprehensive plan for the city and appoint an urban renewal and planning advisory board. The reason cited for undertaking the renewal program was the decline of the central business district. By 1960 the urban renewal advisory board was appointed and was holding meetings. In 1961 it produced the first comprehensive plan for Independence.45 The following year the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority (LCRA) was established. Its members, appointed by the may43. Memo on Conference on Historic Tour Signs, 16 April 1962, ibid. 44. Memo from Brooks, 17 April 1963, subject Directional Signs, ibid. 45. “A Comprehensive Plan for Independence, Missouri, April 1960,” Robert Stanton Everitt Collection, JCHS.

102


or, made decisions on which properties should be acquired, which properties demolished, and how the property should be developed after acquisition. The LCRA in Independence carried out its urban renewal program in two large projects. The first, known as the Northwest Parkway project, had as its goal the “improvement” of a residential area immediately south of the Truman library and Highway 24. A large part of the area of “improvement”—known as the Neck—was racially mixed and contained primarily working-class residents.46 The second, known as the Jackson Square project, was the revitalization of the Independence Square. City leaders, in particular Philip Brooks, were intensely interested in the Northwest Parkway development, as it involved the area immediately south of the Truman library, and they floated several ideas about how the cleared land should be redeveloped. Mayor L. F. P. Curry, a member of the RLDS Church, recommended that the city create a pioneer village in the area, and he urged the JCHS to play a prominent role in this endeavor. However, the society was just finishing the old jail museum restoration, and the county had just started to assemble a historic village in nearby Blue Springs, so the organization declined to get involved with Curry’s project. However, the society president, who sought the advice of Brooks on the matter and in fact used language crafted by Dr. Brooks in her response to the mayor, assured the mayor that the society supported the proposed Northwest Parkway project. In part, the letter read: “We [JCHS] would like to have it understood that our objections to the proposed Trailhead village do not extend to the Northwest Parkway redevelopment project. We feel that this plan is an important one for the city, and should by all means be approved.”47 Support for the Northwest Parkway project came not only from the director of the Truman library but from Truman also. In 1963 the expresident urged the council to accomplish the “improvement of the area adjacent to the Harry S. Truman Library . . . as soon as possible.”48 It is unclear why Truman supported this project. Was he concerned that the area

46. See Alversia Brown Pettigrew, Memories of a Neck Child. Pettigrew noted that the origin of the word “Neck” to describe the area has never been fully explained. 47. Mrs. J. Roger DeWitt to Mayor L. F. P. Curry, 3 September, 29 October 1962 (quote), folder Correspondence as Historical Society Member 1958–1971, Brooks Collection, JCHS. 48. Truman to Members of the City Council, 10 December 1963, folder IndependenceIndh, General Correspondence file 1953–1972, PPP, Truman Papers, HSTL.


103

around the library would become commercialized? Perhaps he thought that the proposed redevelopment plan, which called for the creation of a park south of the library, would stem any unwanted commercial development.49 Truman might have also recognized that the urban renewal plan for the area would eliminate the Neck as a public eyesore within view of the Truman library, which tourists undoubtedly observed on their visits to the city. Truman was not interested in the preservation of the parkway area, but in 1950 he spoke about preserving the Independence Square. In response to a letter from Albert Schoenberg, a Kansas City developer who offered to “modernize and improve a number of different buildings around the Square or erect new buildings where they have outlived their usefulness,” Truman wrote: “Between you and me and the gatepost I like the old Square like it is. I don’t think I could recognize my home town if the Courthouse were surrounded with a bunch of modern business buildings, although undoubtedly that will come about in time.”50 The following month, Schoenberg sent Truman a series of photographs that showed some of the improvements made on the Independence Square. Truman responded again, but this time the preservation tone exhibited in the first letter was blunted and he seemed resigned to accept change: “The Independence that I knew in 1890 long since disappeared in every particular; the Independence I knew in 1928, when we voted the Democratic Bonds, has also disappeared; and I suppose the one of the present day will be a thing of the past in another twenty years and that is as it should be.”51 After Truman returned to Independence in 1953, the square—where he had held court in the 1920s and 1930s, patronized the stores of his fellow neighbors and constituents, and thanked his hometown for supporting him in the close 1948 election—underwent additional change. Again, Truman expressed his ambivalence over the change in the city’s cultural landscape. He supported the construction of a new post office and small federal building on the Independence Square in 1963, but he wanted to retain the original post office. Writing to William J. Randall, his congressman, in July 1963 Truman remarked: “I don’t want to see that old post office torn

49. Weatherford interview, 29. 50. Albert Schoenberg to Truman, 19 April, Truman to Schoenberg, 26 April 1950, WHCF: PPF 168, Truman Papers, HSTL. 51. Schoenberg to Truman, 1 June, Truman to Schoenberg, 6 June 1950, WHCF: PPF 168, Truman Papers, HSTL. “Democratic Bonds” refers to the bonds Jackson County voters approved for county road improvement in 1928. See Miller, Rise to Power, 222.

104


down because it can be used very conveniently when the new building is completed.”52 Unfortunately, the congressman did not heed Truman’s wishes, and the building was demolished. Truman apparently did not react publicly to the demolition. Felthan Watson, attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice, wrote to Truman in 1965 seeking advice on how to stop the destruction of the Old Post Office Building in St. Louis—another urban renewal recommendation. Truman responded by saying that a Kansas Citian had little pull in St. Louis but that he would “like to see the Old Post Office kept because it is a historical landmark.”53 Clearly, Truman was interested in the preservation of old buildings, but his view of preservation did not extend to working-class residential districts such as those found in the Northwest Parkway. Like Truman, the director of the Truman library never wavered in his support of the Northwest Parkway redevelopment plan. Unlike other city leaders and residents, however, Truman never publicly stated what he hoped to see constructed on the cleared land. In a draft letter to the editor submitted for publication in the Independence Examiner on 17 December 1964, the library director gave urban renewal a stunning endorsement: “This kind of development should move with deliberate speed to provide sound progress and to avoid the cheap and the tawdry.” Like Truman and other city residents and officials, Brooks did not see the area as significant to the city’s past. He wrote: “The heritage of Independence includes physical monuments of the past, with the Courthouses and the historic jail, the antebellum houses, and the landmarks of important events as outstanding. They remind us of other phases of our heritage, notably the problems and accomplishments of outstanding citizens and fine old families as well as the common man.” While Brooks recognized the contributions of the “outstanding citizens” and “fine old families” in his description of the historic sites Independence was to preserve, the “common man” of Independence and the Northwest Parkway was largely excluded from the list, unless Brooks considered the old jail a “common” site.54 Brooks continued his letter by reiterating the national significance of the 52. Truman to William J. Randall, 23 July 1963, folder Post Office Independence, Missouri, Secretary’s Office files, PPP, Truman Papers, HSTL. 53. Felthan Watson to Truman, 13 April, Truman to Watson, 21 April 1965, folder Post Office: Missouri, General Correspondence file 1953–1972, PPP, Truman Papers, HSTL. 54. Draft copy of Independence Examiner letter to the editor, December 1964, in folder Independence (Mo.) Local Affairs, Community Affairs file, Philip C. Brooks Papers, HSTL.


105

Truman library. He rightly observed how the library “stimulat[ed] the historical interest of people here,” and the “thousands of visitors” who came to Independence because of the library and who “will want to see other points of interest” in the city. He noted the possible economic impact of their visits and then observed: “One of the attractive features of the Northwest Parkway project is that it will provide a convenient and attractive link between the Library and the Square.”55 For the first time Brooks clarified that the library supported the Northwest Parkway project because it would improve the “attractiveness” of the area. If tourists were to travel from the library to the square they had two choices. Either they could go through the “eyesore” known as the Neck or they could detour around the area. Clearly, the Northwest Parkway project was designed to enhance the city’s number one tourist attraction—the Truman library. Some city leaders and residents not only wanted to make the area “attractive” but also wanted to create another historical attraction to benefit the city economically. In 1962 Mayor L. F. P. Curry encouraged the development of a pioneer village on the cleared land. Other proposals for the newly vacated land included a possible site for the American Numismatic Association museum and a branch location of the RLDS-sponsored Graceland College.56 Mrs. Gene L. Tandy addressed the LCRA board in 1966 and once again revived Mayor Curry’s idea of erecting a pioneer village: “We, the Citizens of Independence, should recognize the opportunity we have in property located in the Northwest Parkway project for our economic growth.” It is unclear how representative Tandy’s views were, or how many Independence residents thought the same way, but she wanted to re-create old town Independence in the Northwest Parkway to serve as an additional tourist venue for people visiting the Truman library.57 Tandy’s comments reveal that once again the city’s presidential history had influenced the proposed creation of another tourist attraction, and that the reason to “create” an additional “historical stop” was to reap the economic reward of tourist dollars. 55. Ibid. 56. “Annual Report for 1962: Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority,” in LCRA Board Minutes, bound volume 1962; LCRA board minutes, 4, 17 March 1965, bound volume 1965, JCHS. 57. “Progress Report for Northwest Parkway Project: Year Ending 31 December 1965,” LCRA Board Minutes, bound volume 1966, JCHS. The Independence Chamber of Commerce supported the urban renewal effort; however, it has been difficult to uncover whether they supported the creation of another historical attraction, more commercial development, or a park, because the board minutes for 1960–1962 and 1964– 1968, key years in Independence’s urban renewal program, are missing.

106


The LCRA board did not want to demolish every structure in either the Northwest Parkway or the Independence Square. In fact, they did take history into account when they commissioned the Jackson County Historical Society to study the area and list the historic sites contained in the project area.58 The JCHS committee that worked on the historic sites list presented its findings to the LCRA board in April 1963. Unfortunately, the list did not survive. The JCHS committee members who drafted the report were all white and hailed from the upper ranks of Independence society, however. They probably did not recommend the retention of the smallflat apartments and craftsman bungalows in the project area. “History” to these committee members occurred a few streets to the west of the Neck, on streets such as Delaware, Union, and River, which housed the home of a president and other prominent businessmen, the shapers of Independence’s past.59 The reason the JCHS committee and the LCRA board failed to recognize the Northwest Parkway as a place with a past certainly involved issues of race and class. But the failure can not be blamed solely on the differing race and class status separating members of the JCHS committee and LCRA board from residents of the Northwest Parkway area. In 1965 the field of historic preservation was only just beginning, and most preservation practitioners also would have overlooked the contributions of this lower-class, racially mixed neighborhood to the city’s history. In 1965 the focus of historic preservation was still on preserving the individual homes of important people.60 Furthermore, the idea of preserving an entire neighborhood had not yet fully emerged as a preservation concept. The Northwest Parkway project included over 345 structures including residences and other associated structures such as garages and outbuildings. At the outset of the project, a survey revealed that there were thirtythree non-white families in the project area, and of those thirty-three, twenty-six owned their homes.61 The acquisition of properties began in 1962 and continued through 1968. The LCRA acquired 208 of the 345 structures in the area and demolished 167 residences and buildings. The

58. “Annual Report for 1962: Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority of Independence, Missouri,” LCRA Board Minutes, in bound volume 1962, JCHS. 59. LCRA board minutes, 4 April 1963, ibid., 1963. 60. See Hosmer, Presence of the Past. 61. LCRA board minutes, 5 April 1962, and “Progress Report for the Northwest Parkway Urban Renewal Project for the Month Ending 31 May 1965,” in bound volumes 1962, 1965, JCHS.


107

total number of white and minority families relocated from the project area was 179.62 While the African American residents made up a small percentage of the displaced population, they remained staunch critics of Independence’s urban renewal program, expressing their opposition to the LCRA board that oversaw the project. In December 1963 the LCRA board held a meeting with the members of the Negro for Progress in Independence Committee, which was composed of at least four members—two pastors from Independence’s African American churches along with Earl Moreland and Virginia Jacobs. Committee members asked the LCRA board whether African Americans affected by the project would receive just compensation for their homes. The LCRA assured the committee that African Americans would be treated fairly when their property was purchased in the project area. Negotiating the purchase price for the properties was one of the easiest tasks for the LCRA board. What remained difficult was the board’s task to find suitable replacement dwellings for the displaced African Americans. Oberheide, the LCRA staff member, noted that the LCRA took “as few homes of the Negroes as possible, because of the difficulty in relocating them.”63 Virginia Jacobs, head of the Independence Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and member of the Negro for Progress in Independence Committee, attended a meeting of the LCRA in 1965. Earl Moreland, president of the Citizens Progressive Committee (CPC), no doubt the same organization present at the 1963 meeting but with a slightly different organizational title, also attended the meeting. Oberheide noted in the meeting minutes: “Only about three Negro residents that are to be acquired by the project are members of the CORE group, while Mr. Moreland’s group has the majority of the residents. While the CPC group has tried to be cooperative with the Authority, we have had trouble in getting the cooperation of the CORE group.”64 The LCRA meeting minutes did not note the presence of either CORE or CPC members at board meetings after March 1965. The local CORE organization was receiving support from CORE’s Chicago regional office by May 1966. Julius E. Williams, regional director, met with four Independence residents including Virginia Jacobs to discuss the situation in the Northwest Parkway neighborhood. The other three individuals, Mrs. 62. “LCRA Report for the Year Ending December 31, 1968,” ibid., 1969. 63. LCRA board minutes, 6 February 1964, ibid., 1964. 64. LCRA board minutes, 22 January 1965, ibid., 1965.

108


Reva Fender, Mrs. Seymour Pearley, and Mrs. Rodney Mahl, were white and did not own property in the project area. The four women organized a petition drive in the urban renewal area stating that African American residents were the targets of racial discrimination and that they were not being offered the full value for their land and structures in the project area. The petition, signed by twenty-three persons, was sent to Senator Stuart Symington, Senator Edward Long, officials of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the national offices of CORE and the NAACP.65 A few months later, on 4 July 1966, Virginia Jacobs and about a hundred other demonstrators assembled at the Truman library to protest the actions of the LCRA, during a speech delivered by Truman on the library’s front steps. Demonstrators included members of both the Independence and Kansas City CORE chapters as well as black and white residents of the Northwest Parkway project.66 Despite these protests, however, the LCRA continued to acquire properties in the Parkway area. LCRA meeting minutes revealed that in 1966 fifty-six of the ninety properties acquired during the year were obtained through condemnation proceedings—proceedings that slowed down the project. Unfortunately, a racial breakdown of the number of minority properties was not given. However, the same report observed that, at the end of 1966, almost two-thirds of the minority families had not relocated. Apparently the African American families were resisting their enforced removal.67 The African American population of the Northwest Parkway project was most vocal in opposing and expressing concern about the project. The lower-class whites who comprised the majority of families displaced in the area apparently did not form any organized opposition groups such as CORE or CPC. They did participate in the 4 July 1966 demonstration at the Truman library, however, and they also might have slowed the project down by forcing the LCRA board to condemn their properties. It is hard to interpret what this lack of organized opposition means, but it is clear that, regardless of color, city leaders, including those who sat on the LCRA board, considered the neighborhood an eyesore and believed that the area’s homes did not represent the type of history the city wished to share

65. “Have Complaint on Relocation,” Kansas City Star, 25 May 1966. 66. Undated Independence Examiner article, “Local Woman Helped Realize King’s Dream.” 67. “Progress report on the Northwest Parkway Urban Renewal Project for the year ending 31 December 1966,” in LCRA board minutes, bound volume 1967, JCHS.


109

with tourists visiting the old 1859 jail, the Truman library, or the RLDS Church sites. The disposition of the urban renewal land was hotly debated by the LCRA board. What clearly emerged from the debate was that whatever occupied the land would have to accommodate either commercial or residential needs and would complement the Truman library. When Truman made his favorable comments about the plan in 1963, the board had not yet decided what would replace the Neck neighborhood, and the board remained undecided in 1964 when Brooks endorsed the parkway project as a way of connecting the library to the square. In April 1966 Truman’s personal attorney Rufus Burrus sent a note to the regional director of the Department of Housing and Urban Development urging him to encourage the LCRA board to create a park out of the cleared lands. Burrus echoed the concerns of the president when he wrote: “To me it would be an affront to the people who helped build the Library, which includes thousands of persons from all over the world, as well as Mr. Truman to permit a commercial development of this area directly across from the Library.” Leonard E. Church, the regional director, responded to Burrus and told him there was little he could do because “such decisions [regarding cleared land] are strictly local ones.”68 Finally, in November 1966 the LCRA board concurred with the city council’s decision to create an eighteen-acre park out of the vacant land, and the commercialization of the area, to which the former president was opposed, was avoided. Paramount in the board’s decision to create the park was the fact that it would create an attractive view for the Truman library.69 The redevelopment in the area moved closer to Delaware Street and the Truman home when the RLDS Center Stake purchased the Watson Memorial Methodist Church building located at 700 West Maple, directly west of the Truman home, to use as stake headquarters in 1966. The RLDS Center Stake tore down the Methodist Church sanctuary that had been constructed in 1903 and utilized a structure built on to the sanctuary in 1960 for the Center Stake offices.70 Neighborhood reaction to the de68. Rufus Burrus to Department of Housing and Urban Development, 7 April 1966, and Leonard E. Church, regional director, Urban Renewal Division, to Burrus, 2 May 1966, folder Urban Renewal Park Across from the Truman Library 1966, Rufus Burrus Papers, HSTL. 69. “Board Approves Park, but with Reservations,” Independence Examiner, 11 November 1966. 70. Kansas City Times, 7 March 1966; “RLDS Center Stake Approves Purchase of Methodist Church,” Independence Examiner, 7 March 1966.

110


molition could not be found, but it was one of the first demolitions in what later became the Truman NHL district. The following year, another plan to redevelop a section of North Delaware Street, adjacent to the Northwest Parkway project, did not go unopposed. A developer put forth a proposal to erect townhomes at the north end of Delaware, just south of the Truman library, in 1967. The developer approached the Independence city planning commission on 19 September 1967. He asked the commission to recommend to the city council that the land be rezoned from family residential and apartment residential to planned apartment residential. Thirty-two neighborhood residents, including Harry and Bess Truman, signed a petition against the proposed zoning change. The attorney who represented the neighborhood residents argued that the area should not be altered because one day it would become “a national shrine.”71 The request to rezone the land was denied. By 1969 the LRCA had removed all residents from the Neck and constructed a parkway that connected the Truman library to the Independence Square (see Map 3 for the demolitions and Map 2 for the parkway). Although there is no record of either Brooks’s or the former president’s reaction to the completion of the Northwest Parkway project, the project clearly came to a successful conclusion for the library, at the expense of destroying a neighborhood. The parkway connected the library with the Independence Square and prevented the commercialization of the area surrounding the library, which had been feared by the president and his attorney.

Creation of a National Historic Landmark While city leaders and the Truman library director spent their energies on the Northwest Parkway project, from 1960 to 1969 Truman took steps to preserve his legacy in Independence. In a 1960 memo for the file, Philip Brooks wrote after a visit with the former president at his home on North Delaware that Truman wished “his home would eventually come under the same authority as that of the Library.” Brooks noted that Truman’s statement seemed surprisingly “definite,” given that Brooks had heard

71. “Petition Opposing Delaware Rezoning Signed by Trumans,” Independence Examiner, 20 September 1967.


111

him on “several previous occasions” state that “his home would never be a public museum.”72 In 1964 Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall sent Truman a letter outlining the NPS initiative to create a national historic landmark to honor every president. He wrote: “We would welcome from you an evaluation of which site or building you judge to possess the strongest historical identification with your life and services.” Udall enclosed two leaflets that described the NHL program and encouraged the president to respond.73 At the basis of the national historic landmark program was the Historic Sites Act of 1935, which authorized the National Park Service to conduct a historical survey of properties in the United States and maintain a list of properties that the service deemed nationally significant. The NPS established the NHL program in 1960 as a way to recognize historic properties that were nationally significant, but whose ownership remained outside of federal hands. NPS director Conrad Wirth supported the new program. The Department of Interior press release explained that the new program designation recognized “a long-felt need for the Federal Government to give moral support and recognition to organizations now concerned with the preservation of . . . historic properties,” and that, since these nationally significant places were so numerous, the new designation would allow recognition to properties that the government was not able to “acquire or manage . . . financially.”74 While Secretary of the Interior Udall utilized the NHL program as a pretext to gauge Truman’s thoughts on what should be preserved as part of his legacy, ironically, Udall’s request was politically motivated. At the time Udall made his inquiry to Truman, Lyndon Johnson was president. Johnson had reconstructed his birthplace on the LBJ Ranch and had restored his boyhood home in Johnson City, Texas; then in the fall of 1964 Johnson requested that Secretary Udall recognize these sites as historically significant. According to NPS historian Barry Mackintosh: “Interior and Park Service officials feared adverse public reaction to what might be viewed as unseemly self-commemoration by the president.” In order to

72. See Memo: Truman Library to National Archives regarding Truman Home, 25 August 1960, in folder Home—219 N. Delaware Independence, MO (2 of 2), Vertical file, HSTL. 73. Stewart Udall to Truman, 24 December 1964, folder Cabinet: Stewart Udall, Secretary’s Office file, PPP, Truman Papers, HSTL. 74. Quoted in Barry Mackintosh, The Historic Sites Survey and National Historic Landmarks Program: A History, 41.

112


make Johnson’s request more palatable, NPS chief historian Robert Utley prepared letters for the secretary of interior’s signature to both Truman and Eisenhower asking them to suggest sites that commemorated their presidencies.75 Truman responded to Udall’s letter in January 1965 in his characteristic fashion, saying he did not want to “contribute to any effort designed to commemorate my Presidency.”76 He concluded his letter to Udall: “But the scope of your plan is such that I must now think about it.” The former president hoped to discuss the NHL nomination with Udall on a trip to Washington.77 While Truman was undecided about how to proceed, the NPS was equally divided over how to commemorate the presidential sites of living ex-presidents. Utley was reluctant to have the NPS commemorate the lives of living presidents, and an advisory committee—a committee that met to determine whether sites met the relevant criteria—was also reluctant to honor a living president with an NHL designation. The advisory committee’s decision not to honor living presidents meant that the Johnson sites would not be federally recognized, and NPS director George Hartzog received “high-level displeasure” from the Johnson administration that the Johnson sites would be excluded. Hartzog disagreed with Utley’s decision to exclude the properties of living presidents from NHL consideration and convinced the committee to reconsider its decision. In April 1966 the advisory committee met again and this time agreed to grant NHL status to the Johnson and Eisenhower properties. Having the issue settled concerning whether the properties of living ex-presidents should

75. Ibid., 85–86. 76. Although Truman made such comments throughout his lifetime, in 1959 he had allowed his birthplace home to be opened as a Missouri state historic site, and in 1965 both he and Bess gave their blessing to the effort to change the name of the Independence High School to Truman High School in their honor. See Sandi Myers, “Former President Speaks at Dedication,” Spirit of ’65, 21 December 1964, folder Truman High School Indep, Mo., Invitations file; Ray Morgan, “Early Truman Home to State,” Kansas City Times, 20 April 1959, in Lamar Birthplace, folder 1, Name file, both in PPP, Truman Papers, HSTL. Even after the formal dedication of his birthplace, Truman was still ambivalent about commemorating buildings in his honor. In a 24 April 1959 letter to Silas Garner, he wrote: “The meeting at Lamar was a very good one, but it still seems to me that such events should be better postponed for twenty or so years after a man is dead and gone.” Lamar Data, folder 1, Secretary’s Office file, PPP, Truman Papers, HSTL. 77. Truman to Udall, 19 January 1965, folder Cabinet: Stewart Udall, Secretary’s Office file, PPP, Truman Papers, HSTL.


113

be designated NHLs paved the way for NPS officials to pursue an NHL nomination that would honor Truman also.78 Apparently Truman never met with Interior Secretary Udall in Washington to discuss a potential NHL nomination, but library director Brooks and the NPS were ever vigilant in their push to recognize the significance of the neighborhood surrounding the Truman home. Ernest Allen Connally—newly appointed chief of the NPS Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, and the same individual who had shared the stage with Truman and delivered the keynote speech at the 1959 old jail dedication— inquired of Truman’s personal secretary, Rose Conway, as to when the service could photograph the interior of the home. Conway told Connally she had submitted his request to the president and discussed it with him, but then she noted: “It would not be convenient to have photographs taken of the interior at this time.”79 NPS officials, including Connally and Lynn H. Thompson, deputy assistant director for legislation, met with James B. Rhoads, the Archivist of the United States, and Daniel J. Reed, assistant archivist for presidential libraries, in June 1971 to discuss the Truman properties and each agency’s role in preserving and managing them. A memo of the meeting, drafted by Reed, was sent to the director of the Truman library noting that all the participants had agreed the designation should create a “historic territory” around the Truman home to preserve it and protect it from deterioration. Reed noted Connally’s suggestion that the easiest way for this “historic territory” to be created would be to designate the neighborhood a national historic landmark.80 Both the NPS and the Truman library wanted to proceed with the plan to create a Truman NHL, but they were reluctant to move forward because the former president had not given his consent to the creation of the historic district. Director Brooks and Dr. Benedict K. Zobrist, who had joined the library staff as assistant director on 2 September 1969, continued to work behind the scenes for this consent. On 11 August 1971, Connally and Zobrist met with Truman’s son-in-law, E. Clifton Daniel, in New York to discuss the NHL nomination. Zobrist wrote his impressions of the meet-

78. Mackintosh, Historic Sites Survey, 86 – 88. 79. Rose A. Conway to Ernest Allen Connally, 7 August 1967, Con-Conh folder, General Correspondence file 1953–1972, PPP, Truman Papers, HSTL. 80. Memo from Daniel J. Reed, assistant archivist for presidential libraries, to Zobrist, 30 June 1971, Historic Preservation Data 1968–1972, folder 1, Independence Heritage Commission (IHC) file, Zobrist Papers, HSTL.

114


ing in a memo that was sent to National Archives officials in Washington: “Essentially, the whole project was moved ahead another notch, but no major decisions were made. Mr. Daniel indicated that he would review the whole matter with Mrs. Daniel [Margaret Truman], and they in turn would weigh the advisability of approaching the Trumans on the subject of the Truman home.”81 Director Brooks never thought the National Archives would manage the Truman home. Precedent had been set at the Hoover library in West Branch, Iowa, that the National Archives would manage libraries and the NPS would manage presidential homes. Brooks and Zobrist, who succeeded him, followed this unwritten policy and applied it to the Truman sites in Independence.82 The National Archives would manage the library, and at the appropriate time the National Park Service would manage any historic properties associated with the former president. While Brooks followed this policy, he also wanted to ensure the area around the library and the Truman home would not decline. He believed that the NHL designation would encourage the community to preserve Truman’s neighborhood as a cultural resource, but more important, he believed that the designation would prevent the need for reconstructing the neighborhood at some point in the future. Brooks’s concern about reconstructing the Truman neighborhood derived from what had happened at Abraham Lincoln’s neighborhood in Springfield, Illinois. In 1971 the NPS had designated the home as an NHL; however, at the time of the designation the neighborhood surrounding the landmark had deteriorated so much that the NPS had to acquire, rehabilitate, and in some cases reconstruct large parts of the neighborhood. As the NPS and National Archives personnel engaged in conversation about the proposed Truman NHL, they held the Lincoln home experience at the back of their minds and hoped it would not be repeated in Independence.83 81. Memo from Zobrist to the National Archives, 13 August 1971, folder Daniel, [E.] Clifton, General file, Brooks Papers, HSTL. 82. Memo from Brooks to Dr. Wayne Grover, Chief Archivist of the United States, 14 September 1965, folder Truman Correspondence General, Subject file, Brooks Papers, HSTL. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s home at Hyde Park became a national historic site in 1946 after the Roosevelt library was established in 1939. In August 1962, the Hoover library in West Branch, Iowa, was dedicated, and in 1965, one year after Hoover’s death, his boyhood home, also in West Branch, was designated a national historic site. See www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/mackintosh1. 83. Memo from Brooks, 27 August 1971, Subject: Historic District (continuation), in Historic Preservation Data 1968–1972, folder 1, IHC file, Zobrist Papers. The Lincoln Home NHL included only the home and not the surrounding neighborhood, which was acquired after the NHL became a national historic site. Timothy Townsend, historian, Lincoln Home NHS, telephone conversation with author, 17 July 2003.


115

After the 11 August meeting between the NPS, the National Archives, and E. Clifton Daniel, the effort to create the Truman NHL moved quickly, owing in part to the efforts of the federal officials but also to the Truman family’s reaction to another proposed neighborhood redevelopment plan. The Center Stake branch of the RLDS Church, which had purchased the Watson Memorial Methodist Church in 1966 and later demolished the sanctuary, wanted to buy homes across the street from the Truman home, demolish them, and construct additional parking space for the branch offices. On 20 August 1971, Philip Brooks recorded in another memo for the file a conversation he had with Paul Burns, Secret Service special agent in charge. Burns said he and Bess Truman had discussed the proposed creation of a historic district, and he mentioned to her that the RLDS Church “was interested in purchasing the property across the street from Truman home to use for a parking lot.” According to the Brooks memo, Burns said Mrs. Truman remarked that neither she nor the president would like to see that happen.84 Brooks noted in a memo on 27 August 1971 that he went to see Wallace Smith, RLDS Church president, to discuss the Center Stake’s plan for a parking lot. Smith said that the “[Center] Stake was responsible for its own management of such things as buildings and parking” and referred Brooks to Center Stake officials. In this memo Brooks noted he had confirmed with Ardis Haukenberry, a Truman relative who lived directly across the street from the Truman home, that the RLDS Church had tried to acquire her home. Haukenberry refused to sell and wanted the neighborhood preserved. Brooks was concerned about the impact the proposed Center Stake plan would have on the NHL nomination; however, when he encouraged the NPS to contact Center Stake officials and inquire about their plans, he was rebuffed by Connally who said that it was NPS policy to keep secret the proposed creation of the Truman NHL. Brooks wrote: “This is somewhat contrary to my own feeling that we ought to offset objection by warning the local people. They [NPS] feel that point of view is offset by the fact that if local people know in advance they will rock the boat.”85 By the end of August, Truman had not officially released a public statement on the proposed NHL, and he would not do so because of the NPS 84. For information on the Center Stake offices, see “RLDS Center Stake Approves Purchase of Methodist Church,” Independence Examiner, 7 March 1966. Memo from Brooks, 20 August 1971, Subject: Historic District in Independence, Historic Preservation Data 1968–1972, folder 1, IHC file, Zobrist Papers. 85. Memo from Brooks, 27 August 1971, Subject: Historic District (continuation), Historic Preservation Data 1968–1972, folder 1, IHC file, Zobrist Papers.

116


policy of secrecy. However, he did respond to a letter written by Daniel, his son-in-law, that asked his opinion about the proposed district: Your letter of August 12, has been received and we had had ‘phone conversations about the Park Service designating the 219 North Delaware home and area from Maple Avenue to the Truman Library, that faces Delaware Street, as a National Historic Landmark. We understand that the designation by the Park Service will not have any effect upon our use or disposition of the home. If it is the desire of those who have the authority to so designate the home and the area fronting on Delaware Street, as a National Historic Landmark we have no objections on such action. We trust that this letter will serve to make our views known and that such action as may be desired to be taken will be done by the authorities as they deem proper. Thanks to you and Margaret for your help.86

National Archives and NPS personnel continued to push the nomination along, all the while maintaining secrecy. On 11 November 1971 the NPS created the Harry S Truman NHL; however, the nomination was kept under wraps until 7 February 1972, when Connally sent to Zobrist five advance copies of the press release announcing the creation of the NHL district. The Department of the Interior and Congressman Bill Randall’s office released the official announcement on 11 February. For some reason, the advance press releases did not arrive at the library until 22 February— eleven days after the NPS had already announced the creation of the landmark.87 While library officials had known the designation was coming, they did not know the exact date in advance. Zobrist was supposed to personally hand deliver a copy of the advance release to Colonel Rufus Burrus, the president’s personal attorney, and to Independence mayor Phil Weeks and Wallace Smith. Neither Weeks nor Smith showed any displeasure with the way in which the NPS announced the NHL. Weeks observed in the Independence Examiner that “citizens of Independence have always expected the Truman home area to become a national shrine.” The mayor pledged the city’s support in preserving the seventy-eight structures that made up the district—including all the homes on Delaware Street from Maple Street just south of the Truman 86. Truman to Clifton Daniel, 3 September 1971, Historic Preservation Data 1968– 1972, folder 1, IHC file, Zobrist Papers. 87. Connally to Zobrist, 7 February, Zobrist to Connally, 17 February 1972, Historic Preservation Data 1968–1972, folder 1, IHC file, Zobrist Papers.


117

home to the Truman library, and other structures on streets immediately east and west of Delaware (see Map 2). Zobrist was quoted in the same news article: “I feel that the community will recognize and attempt now to preserve the identification and the continuity of this particular area and that we are now historically conscious and aware of the national importance of the neighborhood.”88 The Truman NHL designation was unique at the time it was made. It was the first designated presidential NHL that contained a district full of buildings associated with a former president. In contrast, the Lincoln, Johnson, and Eisenhower NHLs included only a couple of structures associated with each president. The Truman NHL was unique in another way as well, in that most NHLs that were districts contained historic structures that represented the best examples of a particular architectural style. In contrast, the structures in the Truman NHL were diverse and included architectural styles ranging from Victorian homes built before the turn of the century to 1920s craftsman bungalows and 1960s ranch homes. This was the first architecturally diverse NHL nomination and the first presidential NHL nomination whose significance was not confined to just a few historic structures associated with the former president.89 Residents of the newly created NHL responded favorably to the designation. Polly Compton at 318 N. Delaware and Mrs. Grace L. Carvin at 400 N. Delaware believed the designation would be an asset to the neighborhood. Zobrist also confirmed the positive reaction of the residents to the NHL designation in letters sent to Connally on 17 and 22 February. He wrote: “So far no adverse comment has come forth from the community.”90 Privately, Zobrist and Brooks were concerned about the way the nomination had been announced. Brooks was concerned in particular that the nomination contained scant information on the seventy-eight properties comprising the landmark. Zobrist, in a letter to Brooks, called the NPS announcement of the designation “a bureaucratic fiasco.” On 27 February 1972, Brooks wrote to Jerry Hess, an NPS official, complaining that very little information about the seventy-eight properties was contained in the 88. “Survey on Truman Home Area Discreet, Thorough,” Independence Examiner, 12 February 1972. 89. Telephone conversations with Patti Henry and Susan Eiserich, NPS National Historic Landmark Program, Washington, D.C., 8 November 2001. 90. “Truman Neighbors Happy over Preservation Plans,” Kansas City Times, 12 February 1972; Zobrist to Connally, 17 February (quote), 22 February 1972, Historic Preservation Data 1968–1972, folder 1, IHC file, Zobrist Papers.

118


NPS press release. Brooks explained he was discontented because National Archives officials had “started all of this” when they helped arrange a meeting between the NPS and E. Clifton Daniel, and he thought the NPS could have provided more documentation on the properties in the NHL district.91 The Truman legacy was memorialized in the community through the construction of the Truman library, and the permanent presence of the National Archives brought a dramatic shift in the how the community managed its presidential history. During Truman’s presidential years, the Independence Chamber of Commerce commemorated and promoted Independence as Truman’s hometown. The chamber coordinated the presidential homecoming parades and paid for the signs directing tourists to the Truman home. After 1953, they continued to promote the idea of visiting Truman’s hometown; but in 1957, when the National Archives staff was securely in place, the chamber then had to go through the library staff to promote the city’s presidential history. From 1953 to 1972, the city for the first time took an active role in funding community history. It was under the direction of Mayor Robert Weatherford that the city paid for the land and the acquisition of the homes that stood in the way of library construction. In the 1960s the city, through the LCRA, oversaw the destruction of the Neck neighborhood in order to create a “nice” view to the south of the library grounds. Prior to getting involved in the siting of the library, the city had played no role in promoting the city’s history, relying solely upon the Independence Chamber of Commerce promotion of history through festivals such as the Santa-CaliGon. The creation of the Truman NHL in 1971 extended the Truman history from the library to the neighborhood around it and solidly placed the city’s presidential history alongside the church and trails histories as one of three histories to be promoted by the city. Largely a joint venture between the National Park Service and the National Archives, the Truman NHL designation had the potential to create community tension; however, the designation did not preclude the city, or institutions or individual property owners within the district, from altering either structures or cultural landscapes inside the NHL boundary. The only safeguard the designation brought to the district was that, if a federally funded project proposed to alter the Truman neighborhood, then the federal agency 91. Zobrist to Brooks, 25 February, Brooks to Jerry Hess, 27 February 1972, folder Correspondence 1961–1976, Brooks Papers, HSTL.


119

responsible for the project had to take into account the effect of that project on the landmark. If federal funds were not utilized, then the city, the institutions, or individual homeowners could proceed without federal oversight. The one exception to this would be if the city passed its own local historic district ordinance to protect the landmark. The city in fact passed just such an ordinance in 1974, and the impact of this ordinance and the heritage commission the city would create to oversee the district is discussed in the next two chapters. The federal district brought little contention, but the local district, with regulatory power over property owners, was definitely contentious and pitted the city’s Truman history against Independence neighbors, institutions, and the city’s religious history.

4

Winds of Discontent Historic properties are non-renewable resources. Once they have been lost they cannot be recovered. Unless zealously guarded, they tend to erode away bit by bit until a oncevaluable historic district has lost its integrity.We hope you will guard against such erosion by standing firm,within the limits of reason,against requests for exceptions or exemptions whether for churches or any other institutions or persons. —A. R. Mortensen, Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, National Park Service

Preservation of distinct historic properties can be achieved without including much of the older area of Independence.We believe the costs in loss of property right freedoms are too great to ask of the Church as a property owner and other residents of the area in question. —Thomas H. Bennett, attorney for the RLDS Church, 15 August 1978

On 27 December 1972, President Harry S. Truman died. An elaborate state funeral was held, and as part of the ceremony, the president took one last trip up Delaware past his home and the neighborhood he loved and then on to the library where he was buried inside the courtyard. Little had he known how the landmark designation would impact his city. His widow, Bess, who rarely issued public statements and who preferred to speak through Rufus Burrus, her attorney, would witness the preservation fight

120

Winds of Discontent

121

waged in the neighborhood from 1973 until her death in 1982. And this period was really only a skirmish in the overall battle for the preservation of the Truman neighborhood. The real test for the neighborhood came in 1983 when the Truman landmark would suffer its first demolitions. The Truman NHL designation came at a time when the nation as a whole was focused on preserving the built environment. In October 1966 President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) into law, for the first time establishing a role for the federal government in preservation. The NHPA—passed primarily in response to urban renewal, which had leveled historic structures not only in Independence but across the entire United States—created additional safeguards for NHLs. Those safeguards provided a process that federal agencies, primarily the Department of Transportation, had to go through in order to assess how a potential construction project would impact an NHL. If a project utilized federal money and had the potential to impact the NHL, then the agency whose funds were utilized in the project had to go through a consultation process with the community to assess the impact of the project on the NHL. The NHPA also created the National Register of Historic Places, which recognized historic structures possessing national, state, and local significance, and created also an Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The advisory council administered grant programs carried out by state historic preservation offices, also created under the NHPA.1 It took a while for the NHPA to make an impression on the Kansas City area. The first structure in the area to be nominated to the National Register of Historic Places was the Wornall House—now a historic house museum in Kansas City. The city of Kansas City established a landmarks commission in 1970, which adopted the goal of preserving Kansas City’s built environment. In 1974 the Historic Kansas City Foundation was formed to prevent further loss of Kansas City’s historic structures through the role it took in surveying historic properties, nominating structures to the National Register, and advocating historic preservation. 1. For a fuller history of the national historic landmark program of the National Park Service, see Mackintosh, Historic Sites Survey. For a greater understanding of the historic preservation movement in the United States, see Hosmer, Presence of the Past; Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age; William J. Murtaugh, Keeping Time: The History and Theory of Preservation in America; Stipe, Richer Heritage. For more information about the Historic Preservation Act of 1966, see Barry Mackintosh, The National Historic Preservation Act and the National Park Service: A History.

122


It was several years before the 1966 NHPA had an impact in Independence. In 1970 the local city government recognized the importance of historic preservation to the community when Mayor Donald Slusher created the Advisory Committee on Historical Preservation and named Zobrist, at that time assistant director of the library, to the committee. It was unclear what prompted the mayor to create the committee, and its community purpose was equally unclear. But, it is important to note, the committee was created prior to the 1972 Truman NHL announcement.2 By 1972 Independence city residents had shown their interest in preserving select elements of their built environment. They had preserved individual historic structures such as the old courthouse and the 1859 jail, which were then turned into local museums. Community preservation of the Truman NHL would require a different approach, however, because the Truman NHL district could not be turned into one giant museum. The NPS decision to create the Harry S. Truman district forced the preservation effort in the city to alter the parameters of its thinking, from preserving single buildings to preserving a district containing a number of historic buildings. The community did not rush to lobby city government to create more historic districts. Instead, the city returned to the historichouse-museum model of preservation. In the 1980s it restored and opened the Vaile mansion and the Bingham-Waggoner estate to the public. To date, even though Independence has other areas that do meet National Register criteria, the only historic district would remain that associated with the former president.

The Heritage Commission and the Truman Heritage District After the 1972 Truman NHL announcement, Mayor Phil Weeks stated that the city would do everything possible to preserve its Truman history. The push to create a local historic district to protect the federal district would come from the residents of the Truman NHL, however, and not from the city. A newspaper article in February 1972 noted that thirty-five residents on North Delaware Street and twenty-four members of Neighborhood Council No. 15, which included a large portion of the Truman NHL, held a meeting and created the Harry S. Truman Historic District Committee. Hazel Graham, resident of Delaware Street and JCHS coordi2. See memo from Brooks to Zobrist, 25 May 1970, Historic Preservation Data 1968– 1972, folder 2, IHC file, Zobrist Papers, HSTL.

Winds of Discontent

123

nator, led the committee. Other committee members included Irwin Fender and Mrs. James D. McAfoose, both residents of the Truman NHL. The committee’s goal was to work with the city to draft the proper legislation in order to “protect the historic integrity of the landmark district.”3 The city was slow to respond to the citizens’ request to create a local Truman district. In 1973 Truman NHL residents armed with a citizens’ petition signed by ninety-four people urged the city council to create a local district. Eleanor Sandy, resident on West Farmer, spearheaded the petition drive, which was sparked by a rumor that a developer planned to build an apartment complex across the street from the Truman home. Rufus Burrus, when asked by reporters for a reaction to the proposed construction, stated that Mrs. Truman supported the creation of the commission and would be opposed to any new construction in the NHL area until the commission could draft a city ordinance for a local district.4 The city council finally responded to its citizens when it passed city ordinance number 3183 in June 1973 creating a seven-member heritage commission, to be appointed by the city council to advise the elected body on all matters related to the Truman Heritage District, whose boundaries mirrored the Truman NHL district (see Map 2). Although the commission could make recommendations, the city council retained the final say and could overrule the recommendations of the appointed body, however. The ordinance made the Truman library director a member of the appointed body. On 2 July the city clerk swore in the newly appointed committee members, and on 11 July 1973, the Independence Heritage Commission (IHC) held its first meeting. The first task was to create a locally designated district, with design guidelines to ensure the protection of the federally designated Truman NHL.5 Several of those supporting the creation of the local heritage district served as members of the first commission. Besides Zobrist, appointees included Edgar G. Hinde, Jr., Hazel Graham, Pauline Fowler, Robert S. Everitt, Rev. Thomas G. Melton, and G. Leslie DeLapp. Hinde and Graham were residents of the Truman NHL while Fowler and Everitt were added because of their lifelong interest in Independence history. Rev. 3. “Legislation Sought to Protect Area’s Integrity,” Independence Examiner, 22 March 1972. 4. “City Council Considers Historical Area Group,” Independence Examiner, 10 April 1973, in folder Historic District Proposed Expansion, IHC file, Zobrist Papers. 5. Bruce Lowry, city clerk, to Zobrist, 28 June 1973, folder Correspondence and Memoranda 1973–1985, IHC file, Zobrist Papers. For resident petitions, see Independence Examiner, 9 July 1973, folder Heritage Commission, Vertical file, HSTL.

124


Melton was pastor of the First Presbyterian Church, part of the Truman NHL, and G. Leslie DeLapp represented the RLDS Church. The task before them was filled with uncertainty about how best to proceed. Zobrist, Graham, and Everitt were the members with the most experience in historic preservation. Both Graham and Everitt were JCHS members, and Graham had been with the society since the preservation of the 1859 jail. At the first commission meeting, Zobrist stated that he viewed his role as that of a “reference person,” believing it was not “his nor the federal government’s role to dictate what has to be.” The library director clearly explained that he did not want to see the Truman district area deteriorate as had happened in Springfield, Illinois, in the neighborhood surrounding Abraham Lincoln’s home. The federal government had been forced to purchase a four-block area around the Lincoln home and rehabilitate the structures at a cost of $5.6 million dollars.6 The director had a keen interest in protecting the neighborhood because he did not want to manage a library in the midst of a decaying area. Zobrist also wanted a neighborhood that was presentable to tourists who, upon Truman’s death, were flocking to Independence in increasing numbers. Tourists would visit the library and then pass by the Truman home on their way out for a photo opportunity. IHC chairman Edgar Hinde noted the increased number of tourists to the neighborhood and Truman home, in a letter sent to the city’s congressional representative. He described how the tourists doubleparked on Delaware Street, which made travel down the street difficult. He suggested that a parking lot be constructed to eliminate this problem. But the parking lot never materialized.7 Zobrist’s inclusion on the commission was a significant factor in the process of further integrating the library into the community. For all practical purposes, he was the federal official that city officials, institutions, and individuals turned to for advice about the Truman NHL. He served as an intermediary between the community and the NPS in all matters relating to the Truman district and the creation of the locally designated district.8 Since the NPS had no formal presence in the community beyond the Truman NHL designation, the agency had few contacts with the city and its residents from 1972 to 1983. 6. Commission minutes, 10 July 1973, folder Correspondence and Memoranda, 1973–1985, IHC file, Zobrist Papers. 7. Edgar G. Hinde, Jr., to William Randall, 11 July 1973, in folder Correspondence and Memoranda 1973–1985, ibid. 8. A. R. Mortensen, director, Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, to Zobrist, 18 January, Zobrist to Connally, 8 January 1974, ibid.

Winds of Discontent

125

Zobrist’s activity on the heritage commission was also a new function for a library director. In 1972, at the time the Truman NHL was created, there were four other presidential libraries administered by the National Archives—the Herbert Hoover, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, and John F. Kennedy libraries. None of the other libraries had an NHL district associated with it that required its director to sit on something equivalent to the IHC. While Zobrist took on the new role as historic preservation advocate for the Truman NHL, the city had also taken on a new role in establishing the Independence Heritage Commission, the first step to preserve the city’s presidential history. The IHC created the medium through which the city would conduct historic preservation, and it supplanted the JCHS as the leading proponent of historic preservation. Although the JCHS still maintained close ties to the city’s history and to the Truman library, by 1973 the society had moved its collections out of the basement of the presidential library and had relocated both its collections and its operating headquarters into space acquired in the courthouse on the square. The JCHS did not undertake any further community preservation projects in Independence, though at times it would advocate for preservation of the Truman neighborhood. The Truman NHL was unique for its time. The district contained a number of architecturally diverse structures, and one of the first challenges was to create design guidelines that took this diversity into account. Which architectural features could be altered and what new construction could be permitted? Commission members would have to draft guidelines for a district that was architecturally diverse and for which a period of significance was even harder to define. During the first IHC meeting on 10 July 1973, a developer presented a proposal to construct multi-family dwellings just east of Delaware Street. It was difficult for the council to decide what to do because they had neither established a firm historic district boundary nor drafted a set of design guidelines. On 23 July the city council helped the commission when it passed a moratorium on construction in the Truman NHL. The moratorium lasted ninety days and the developer shelved his plans.9 The commission members struggled to provide direction for the historic resources in the district because they had not drafted a set of guidelines for district properties. Their effort to draft these guidelines was also hampered by the time they had to spend on evaluating another proposed 9. Commission minutes, 10 July 1973, ibid.

126


development project, just outside the Truman NHL boundary, which impacted other historic properties and the Truman library. In August 1973 the commission learned that Center Place Improvement Inc., a nonprofit corporation composed entirely of RLDS Church members, had purchased a lot in the southern portion of the Northwest Parkway project and intended to erect a high-rise retirement center on the land. The proposed project, in direct view of the Truman library, was not compatible with existing neighborhood structures and was located directly north of one of Independence’s oldest historic homes—the McCoy house. For these reasons most of the commissioners believed either that the construction should not go forward or that the construction plan should be modified to mesh with the surrounding neighborhood architecture.10 Commission member Hazel Graham, both an RLDS Church member and an ardent supporter of the locally designated Truman district, encouraged the commission, and Zobrist in particular, to contact church president Wallace Smith about the proposed high-rise. Apparently the contact did not take place, because at the 11 September meeting the commission minutes noted that Chairman Hinde “felt it was probably too late to do anything about the high-rise.” The issue was never discussed after this meeting, and several months later the multi-storied structure emerged to take its place in the cultural landscape of Independence.11 In October 1973 commission members returned their attention to creating and crafting guidelines for a locally designated Truman district. After all, the high-rise building was outside the Truman NHL boundaries. The first item approved was a motion to call the new district the Harry S. Truman Heritage District. Agreeing on the name was the easy part; the commission found it a struggle to manage the district. Members wondered if they could use existing zoning laws to regulate new construction and asked if every structure in the district should be preserved; some believed that not all the buildings were architecturally significant.12 Zobrist was concerned with protecting the area around the Truman library. Zobrist and Hinde did not believe the homes around the presidential library were historically significant but thought they should be preserved, because it was not in the library’s best interest for its neighborhood to deteriorate. Everitt agreed that the library’s surroundings should be preserved; he believed also that the area was historically sig10. Ibid., 28 August 1973. 11. Ibid., 4, 11 September 1973. 12. Ibid., 2 October 1973.

Winds of Discontent

127

nificant and noted that these structures were as “much a historical place as some of the rest of it” because they were present during Truman’s lifetime. Graham was not so much concerned with the deteriorating neighborhood; she was concerned that the area would become commercialized: “This sort of thing has developed in Abilene and around the Roosevelt House and we know what happened in Springfield.” Zobrist observed that at some point the federal government would probably acquire the Truman home and perhaps other properties surrounding the home.13

Churches Challenge the Heritage District Ordinance In November 1973 the IHC sent a draft ordinance to the city council for consideration. The council held a public hearing on 19 November and returned the ordinance for revision. The First Baptist Church, which owned properties in the proposed district, wanted to be excluded from the ordinance. At the meeting, church members and staff said the ordinance violated their free exercise of religion by requiring the religious body to submit proposed architectural changes to church properties for IHC review.14 The commission sent a letter to Mayor Phil Weeks that urged the city council to consider the ordinance “as originally presented.” Edgar Hinde, IHC chairman, voiced the concerns of the appointed body: “We feel there should not be separate paragraphs placed in the ordinance to allow special consideration for certain organizations; to do so would not be fair and equitable to others within the district.”15 One must keep in mind that at the time the First Baptist Church was drafting expansion plans, the RLDS Church had already drafted expansion plans and was actively buying and demolishing property around the proposed temple site. Buying and demolishing property was exactly what the First Baptist Church wanted to do, but unfortunately it was situated in the middle of the proposed Truman Heritage District. The proposed preservation ordinance was the first to place any restrictions on how churches were allowed to expand in the city. The commission, with only an advisory role vis-à-vis the city council, 13. Ibid. 14. “Church Plea Out for HST District,” Independence Examiner, 8 December 1973; “Council Delays Action on HST Heritage District,” Independence Examiner, 11 December 1973. 15. Hinde to Honorable Phil K. Weeks, 5 December 1973, folder Correspondence and Memoranda 1973–1985, IHC file, Zobrist Papers.

128


met on 15 January 1974 to reconsider its objections to the council’s insistence on the exclusion of church properties. The commission had asked Zobrist to get the NPS opinion of the ordinance, and he read the response from A. R. Mortensen, director of the Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, who only had a few comments. Mortensen encouraged the commission not to rank historic properties. They had created three classifications of properties, with the first class being the most important, the second class less important, and the third class the least important to preserve. Mortensen advised the IHC that “the basic quality of the district may well be destroyed” if, over a number of years, “a substantial number of Group III structures are lost.” He encouraged commission members to develop a “safer approach” that would “categorize properties as significant or not significant to the quality of the district as a whole.” Mortensen continued: “Historic properties are non-renewable resources. . . . We hope you will guard against requests for exceptions or exemptions whether for churches or any other institutions or persons.”16 The city council had essentially backed the commission into a corner, making it difficult for the commission to comply with Mortensen’s request. Either the commission would agree to change the ordinance to read as the council wanted, or there would be no ordinance. At the meeting on 15 January 1974, commissioner Everitt made a motion, seconded by Zobrist, that gave the commission’s blessing to the church exemption; but the commission wanted the record to reflect that it agreed to such a change with reservation.17 The commission did not change its ranking of historic structures as suggested in Mortensen’s letter. However, all was not lost in the city’s first historic district ordinance. The ordinance did provide a certain amount of local protection to the federally designated Truman NHL, because the boundaries of the Harry S. Truman Heritage District mirrored those of the Truman NHL (see Map 2). Since the boundaries of the local and federal districts were identical, the commission could review architectural drawings and building plans for proposed changes to historic structures made by private homeowners and others who owned property within the district.

16. A. R. Mortensen to Zobrist, 18 January 1974, ibid. 17. Commission minutes, 15 January 1974, ibid.

Winds of Discontent

129

Preservation and Promotion Plan for the Heritage District With the ordinance for the Truman Heritage District in place, the commission turned its attention to surveying and evaluating the historic structures within the district. The IHC also broadened its focus to include all historic resources within the city limits of Independence, with the aim to produce a book that would make the public aware of the city’s historic resources. Some commissioners such as Rev. Thomas Melton felt the commission should focus on the Truman district and make it a model for the rest of the city. Zobrist did not disagree with Melton and believed the survey would benefit the city.18 In the meeting on 29 July 1975, the IHC approved a contract with a historic preservation firm to conduct a survey of the city’s historic resources. The survey, funded by a federal grant, was to be completed in three phases. The first phase was a general survey of the historic structures in Independence. The preservation firm, like the heritage commission, divided the city’s historic properties into different categories of importance. A property made the list if it was determined eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. In December 1975 the firm released its “A” list of 111 buildings that should be preserved, and in January 1976 the firm’s “B” list of historic structures numbered 300.19 While the survey was under way, the commission once again focused its efforts on the Truman district. In 1976, in conjunction with city planning director William C. Bullard, the city staff member assigned to work with the appointed body, the commission developed a plan to restore the sidewalks and limestone curbing around the Truman home as they had been during Truman’s presidency. The council authorized an expenditure of $4,101 to accomplish the project because increasing numbers of tourists were visiting the Truman library and then coming to see the home, and the city did not want them to see the deteriorated sidewalks.20 Although the IHC cooperated with city officials and the city council, relationships were not always smooth. In January 1976, through the local newspaper, Bullard encouraged the commission to hold its meetings in a location that was more accessible to the public. Most of the meetings were held at the Truman library. When Zobrist learned of Bullard’s concern he remarked, again in the press: “You try to do something for the city and 18. Ibid., 15 January 1974, 11 February 1975. 19. Independence Examiner, 20 October 1975; Commission minutes, 12 December 1975, 13 January 1976, IHC file, Zobrist Papers. 20. Kansas City Star, 19 February 1976.

130


this is the thanks you get.” The meetings were moved to the conference room of Independence city hall.21 Approximately a year later Bullard sent commission members a memo that attempted to put the appointed body in its place: I believe that the Commission inadvertently has assumed another role, that of watch-dog or putter-out of fires. I believe that this has been a serious mistake. In the first place, the Commission has been led into public positions concerning matters in which Commission members have only personal opinions. Second, there has been a tendency to spring these opinions publicly without prior notification to the Council. Third, there has been such a dispersion of effort that the Commission has been inadequately prepared to deal with some of the issues that have come up.22

It is not entirely clear what triggered Bullard’s memo. Some IHC members had been vocal opponents of the city’s decision to tear down a hotel on the square as part of the city’s downtown urban renewal plan. Although the commission did not take a position for or against the preservation of the hotel, some members gathered historical information that supported its preservation, and the state historic preservation office used this material to nominate the structure to the National Register of Historic Places. Unfortunately, the preservation of the hotel received little community support other than that of a few select commission members, and the city demolished the structure.23 At the beginning of 1977, the city hired Pat O’Brien to work directly with the commission. O’Brien’s title of archives technician was deceiving because he spent most of his time working with the commission and the consultants hired by the commission to conduct the historical survey of Independence. By March 1977 the preservation consulting firm of Solomon and Claybaugh completed a draft set of design guidelines for the Truman Heritage District. In the March IHC meeting, representatives from the firm along with NPS officials came to discuss the plan. They agreed that the plan should in some way mark Truman’s walking trail.24 The preservation firm distributed design guidelines to the Independence planning commission and the heritage commission for comment in 21. Kansas City Times, 7 January 1976. 22. Memo from William C. Bullard to Independence Heritage Commission, 21 January 1977, Minutes 1977, IHC file, Zobrist Papers. 23. February 1976 monthly progress report, 2 March 1976, in Minutes 1975–1976, ibid. 24. Commission minutes, 17 March 1977, Minutes 1977, ibid.

Winds of Discontent

131

September 1977. The report stated: “The current Heritage District generally cannot be differentiated in character from that of other adjacent areas of Independence. This lack of District identity diminishes to the tourist the importance of the historic elements that need an appropriate neighborhood setting.” In order to set the neighborhood apart from the surrounding area and create the “appropriate neighborhood setting,” the planners called for a radical alteration of the cultural landscape surrounding the Truman home. They suggested one street be blocked off and planter boxes, park benches, and other amenities be installed to accommodate the anticipated pedestrian traffic around the Truman home. All power lines throughout the district would be buried. “Portals” to the district, to attract tourists and mark the entrance to the presidential neighborhood, would be constructed. A visitor center would also be constructed to accommodate tourists. The preservation firm clearly stated: “the pedestrian experience is the focus of the master preservation plan.” This is why they targeted the overhead lines for removal and devoted much attention to the construction of a Truman walking trail. The overhead lines were described as “the single most obtrusive element in the District”—an element that severely impacted the “pedestrian experience.” The walking trail would imbed a Truman silhouette in the sidewalk in front of structures associated with the former president.25 Robert Everitt, commission member, thought the plan would make the neighborhood “too pretty” and that the neighborhood would lose its “flavor.” The other members, including Zobrist, remained quiet about their reaction to the plan. However, at the meeting on 3 January 1978, Paul Mosiman, in the city planning department, was critical. He believed the plan would “create an artificial environment in the Truman neighborhood,” because it introduced landscape elements that had never been present in the neighborhood. Mosiman rejected out of hand the suggested demolition of structures on the same block as the Truman home to make parking available for visitors who wanted to visit the home. Bullard, the city planning director, even noted that “the project had become a design project rather than a preservation project.”26 Everitt and Mosiman were right. The plan, if enacted, would have radically altered the neighborhood surrounding the Truman home. This was an early preservation plan, and at the time there were few examples in the 25. “Independence Heritage Commission Master Preservation Plan,” Master Preservation Plan 1977, folder 2, IHC file, Zobrist Papers. 26. Commission minutes, 3 January 1978, Minutes 1978–1979, ibid.

132


country of how a district full of historic structures should be preserved and interpreted to the public. Solomon and Claybaugh made the preservation of the Truman home the focus of the plan; they placed little emphasis on the preservation of other significant elements of the cultural landscape such as the telephone lines and the existing paved sidewalks and streets. Melvin Solomon noted that the goal was to make the Truman neighborhood inviting to pedestrians, the Truman neighborhood tourists. Solomon suggested the existing asphalt streets could be replaced with brick-paved streets, not because this was how the streets were when Truman made his famous strolls through the neighborhood but because Solomon had seen them utilized in other preservation projects around the country. He recalled how the brick streets around Benjamin Franklin’s Philadelphia home had made the area pedestrian friendly to tourists, and he hoped similar brick streets would have such a result in Independence.27 The commission rejected the most grandiose elements of the preservation plan, but city staff debated the merits of some of the other recommendations. Two elements of the plan that received substantial discussion were the recommendation to put the utilities underground and the suggestion to create a Truman walking trail in the heritage district. O’Brien, city archivist and IHC advisor, had no qualms about burying the overhead utilities, because their presence had forced the local utility to periodically cut the tops of the trees, which made it difficult to maintain the historic tree-lined streets. O’Brien believed that the tree canopy was more important to preserve than the overhead power system.28 While the plan called for a number of changes, the commission would eventually pursue one major Solomon and Claybaugh recommendation—the expansion of the heritage district itself. The planners argued that in order to implement the “pedestrian experience,” the district needed to be enlarged: “Expansion of the Harry S. Truman [Heritage] District is imperative if the City of Independence is to realize the economic and aesthetic benefits emanating from this area in future years.”29 The com27. Melvin Solomon, telephone conversation with author, 9 August 2003. Solomon acknowledged that, by today’s preservation standards, the plan he and Claybaugh drafted was a little “heavy” in its call for radical changes to the cultural landscape surrounding the Truman home. 28. Pat O’Brien, interview by author, tape recording, Overland Park, Kansas, 19 March 2002. Phone conversation with author, 12 July 2007. 29. “Independence Heritage Commission Master Preservation Plan,” Master Preservation Plan 1977, folder 2, IHC file, Zobrist Papers.

Winds of Discontent

133

mission did not pursue the expansion immediately but instead focused its attention on how best to distribute to the general public the historical data about the city’s built environment that had been collected by the consultants. The commission hoped the printing of a book about the city’s historic places would be “the first step in implementing a broad historic preservation program” for the city, and that it would “encourage even more historic preservation.”30 The book, titled simply Independence, Missouri, was written by Bernd Foerster, dean of the College of Architecture and Design at Kansas State University, along with IHC members, Eric Fowler, and members of the Solomon and Claybaugh research team. Requiring over a year to produce, the book listed approximately four hundred historic structures identified by Solomon and Claybaugh as significant resources in the community. It also explored the history of approximately one hundred of those structures. While it was supposed to focus on the city’s presidential resources, the book also featured the city’s church history and devoted extensive coverage to RLDS, LDS, and other Protestant church sites. It is surprising that the trails history received little attention in the book. After reviewing the initial drafts, some IHC members expressed concern that the text devoted too much attention to the contributions of the RLDS and Mormon churches. When one Baptist commission member expressed such a concern, an RLDS member noted: “other groups had not had the same impact on Independence and the surrounding area.” Despite this disagreement, the IHC approved the draft, and the book was printed by the Herald House, the official publishing arm of the RLDS Church. It was presented to the public in May 1978 at a ceremony held at the Truman library.31 The book’s conclusion featured seven Truman-related historic properties, including the First Presbyterian Church where Harry first met Bess in Sunday school, the Memorial Building where the president voted and held a presidential press conference, and the Missouri-Pacific railroad station utilized by the president and his family on departures to and from Washington, D.C. Dr. Foerster, who penned this section, noted how the “Heritage Commission has chosen the Truman [Heritage] District as the site for its first attempt to encourage private and public effort at neigh30. See Bernd Foerster, Independence, Missouri, 11. Even though the book’s title page stated it was published by the “Independence Press,” in fact it was printed by Herald House, the official publishing arm of the RLDS Church. Commission minutes, 11 April 1978, IHC file, Zobrist Papers. 31. Commission minutes, 26 July 1977, 11 April 1978, Minutes 1978–1979, IHC file, Zobrist Papers.

134


borhood revitalization.” Foerster was optimistic that, if the commission could experience success with the Truman district, then this success would encourage other residents in other parts of the city to preserve their own neighborhoods. He clearly connected the preservation of the president’s community with that of the environment when he wrote: “It is to the great credit of the Heritage commission that it has recognized preservation as an environmental act . . . Environments worth saving means history worth remembering, . . . civilization worth preserving. Healthy conservation efforts today play a significant part in preparing for tomorrow.”32 This was the first time the hope was expressed that preserving structures associated with the former president could be a catalyst for others to preserve the city’s local history. Foerster even argued that Independence residents should preserve not only the community’s presidential history but other historic structures, because doing so would also preserve the environment.

Expanding the Heritage District Boundaries In May 1978 the commission, supported by the recommendation from Solomon and Claybaugh and by the firm’s historical survey data, began to discuss the possibility of expanding the local Truman district. This was no small task. The commission’s effort would lead to another confrontation with two influential church bodies. In June O’Brien drafted a document recommending the expansion of the Harry S. Truman Heritage District, noting that one of the main reasons for expansion was that the IHC wanted to use “historic preservation as an economic anchor to stabilize a historically significant neighborhood.” Another reason was that the area would become a tourist attraction if it remained “identifiable,” “viable,” and “stable.”33 At the meeting on 20 June 1978, commissioner Polly Fowler moved that the appointed body recommend to the city council the expansion of the Harry S. Truman Heritage District and that public hearings be held on the issue. A public meeting was held in July. It was attended by approximately sixty people, including representatives of the RLDS and Baptist churches. Since the churches would still be exempt under the proposed expansion, 32. See Foerster, Independence, Missouri, 224, 225. 33. “Recommendation for Expansion, Harry S. Truman Historic District, 1 June 1978,” folder Harry S. Truman Historic District—Proposed Expansion, IHC file, Zobrist Papers.

Winds of Discontent

135

there was little opposition to the expanded district.34 On 24 July a headline in the Independence Examiner read: “HST Historical District Expansion Not Opposed.” The article beneath the headline quoted O’Brien as saying that representatives of both churches were present at the hearing and they did not oppose the expansion. However, a few days later, the Baptist Church wrote Commissioner Zobrist expressing its opposition to the expansion, and the RLDS Church sent letters to all commission members expressing similar opposition.35 Both churches detailed their concerns about the expanded district at the IHC meeting on 15 August. Thomas A. Bennett, legal counsel for the RLDS Church, delivered the statement of opposition to the expanded local district. He pointed out that the church was not opposed to historic preservation and in fact had actively embraced preservation of churchowned property in Kirtland, Ohio, and Nauvoo, Illinois, as well as Independence. Bennett then cited two examples of how the IHC did not allow residents of the existing historic district to carry out improvement projects, arguing that the commission had too much power and engaged in “restrictive zoning.” He expressed concern that the appointed body would prevent the improvement of the area by trying to freeze the neighborhood at a particular point in history. Bennett continued his argument, saying that Truman himself would not have approved property restrictions: “Mr. Truman was opposed to . . . a bureaucracy that stifles the working person” (that bureaucracy being the IHC). Bennett believed the district’s expansion would mean the further “loss of property right freedoms . . . of the Church as a property owner and [of] other residents of the area.” He ended his concerns by stating that it was a “misunderstanding” that a historic district designation would “double” or “triple” the value of the homes in the district. He encouraged the commission to justify this claim.36 Bob Howard, deacon and Sunday school director for the First Baptist Church, also spoke out against the expansion of the historic district. Howard believed that an expanded district would attempt to “freeze re34. “Expansion—Truman District,” 20 July 1978, transcript of public hearing, ibid. 35. For O’Brien’s newspaper article, see Independence Examiner, 24 July 1978; for the letters, see Martin W. Coleman, chairman, long-range planning committee, First Baptist Church, to Zobrist, 26 July 1978, and F. E. Hanson, office of the presiding bishopric, to Independence Heritage Commission, 27 July 1978, all in ibid. 36. “Statement of position of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints regarding the proposed expansion of the Harry S. Truman Historic District,” ibid.

136


ligion at a level which existed when our city’s most famous citizen Harry S. Truman walked among us.” Unlike Bennett, Howard was concerned that expanding the district was the first step in an attempt to subject churches and their properties to the heritage district ordinance. Commissioners, prior to the public meeting, had already discussed whether the churches should be included in the expanded district. One commissioner suggested that members first support the expansion of the district and then focus their efforts on including the church-owned property in the district. This strategy was dismissed, but Howard, who was aware of it, condemned it in his remarks.37 Unlike Bennett, Howard saw a more sinister plot behind the expansion. O’Brien held out hope that an expanded district would have a better chance to obtain state and federal monies for improvements. Howard, seizing on this hope, argued: “Along with that money will come federal intervention and federal control. The final act of this approach will be some bureaucracy based in Washington making decisions related to many parts of our City. Instead of the citizens or their elected representatives making these decisions.” Like Bennett, Howard concluded his remarks by questioning the ability of a historic district to increase property values, and if in fact this turned out to be the case, then he argued that IHC members living in the proposed expanded district would be guilty of a conflict of interest, because “they would be using the power and the City Commission to feather their own nest.”38 Susan Walter, who had participated in past preservation battles, spoke in support of the expanded district on behalf of the neighborhood residents. To rebut the claim by Bennett that the IHC denied homeowners the opportunity to improve their homes in the existing district, Walter testified that she had applied to the commission for a building permit and had been approved. Walter also mentioned that she had circulated a petition in the district, eventually signed by 110 people, in support of the expanded district. She noted that most of the people in the area did not want “drastic changes.”39 That same summer of 1978, city manager Robert Semple created a task 37. Commission minutes, 15 August 1978, IHC file, Zobrist Papers. 38. Ibid. 39. Ibid. In December 1978, Walter went on to form the group called Old Independence, a preservation group organized to promote public and private partnerships, in the hope that these partnerships would result in the preservation of neighborhoods and Independence historic sites. For information on the genesis of Old Independence, see commission minutes, 5 December 1978, ibid.

Winds of Discontent

137

force to develop a master plan for the area of the city that included the Truman neighborhood and the properties held by the RLDS and Baptist churches. It seems the catalyst for this plan was the RLDS Church, which wanted to move forward with its temple development plan. A newspaper article discussing the plan quoted W. Wallace Smith, RLDS president emeritus, as saying that he hoped the city plan and church plan would mesh. It noted that the church had been working with the city since 1974 on the temple development plan.40 In October the city released a report, authored by city staff who had studied the area surrounding the Truman home and the proposed RLDS Temple site, that encouraged city officials to expand the locally designated Truman Heritage District. The report noted economic reasons: “historic preservation as an economic anchor to stabilize a historically significant neighborhood” and “the tourist and tourist dollar impact in a stable historic district.”41 Clearly, the city believed that an expanded heritage district would bring favorable economic rewards to the city’s economy. The council voted in January 1979 to expand the original district, but it stopped one block short of including all the area recommended by the IHC, in order to accommodate the temple development plans of the RLDS Church (see Map 2). The church wanted to develop a park and fountain complex in the excluded area, which was composed primarily of residential homes. The expanded historic district had little effect on the First Baptist Church, because church properties were already excluded from IHC review. Although the commission was disappointed by the council’s decision not to include the RLDS block, commissioners had no choice but to abide by the decision.42 The council’s decision showed it had seriously considered residents’ pleas to be included in the new expanded heritage district and hoped to attract state and federal monies, because council members believed the state and federal money could be used by individual homeowners to fix up their properties and to erase some of the blight surrounding the Truman home.43 Perhaps the most compelling reason the council supported 40. Mary Ann Bennett, “Independence Core: City’s Problem Area,” Independence Examiner, 28 August 1978. 41. For the city’s report, see “Central Area Study,” IHC file, Zobrist Papers. 42. Mary Ann Bennett, “HST Historical District Expanded,” Independence Examiner, 3 January 1979. 43. Mary Ann Bennett, “Independence Core: City’s Problem Area,” Independence Examiner, 28 August 1978, in folder Harry S. Truman Historic District—Proposed Expansion, IHC file, Zobrist Papers.

138


an expanded district was because it hoped the expansion would create a tourist attraction out of the Truman neighborhood. The city council and the chamber of commerce realized they needed to be more involved with the promotion of the city’s history. From 1973 to 1976 the city council had appropriated money from the city’s general fund to the chamber, which then used the funds to promote local tourism. In 1975 the city council created the Independence Visitors Bureau, essentially a tourism advisory board composed of chamber members and residents of the public, which promoted the city’s historical attractions. Two years later the city created the Department of Tourism and hired a director of tourism.44 In 1978 the city launched an aggressive campaign to acquire its first historic house museum, the Bingham-Waggoner Estate. By the early 1980s, the city’s newly created tourism department would eclipse the chamber of commerce as the leading proponent of promoting Independence as a major tourist center. The chamber’s resolution of support for the acquisition of the Bingham-Waggoner Estate read: “the Board of Directors of the Independence Chamber of Commerce wishes to . . . express support of the acquisition by the City of the Waggoner-Gates property and encourage its development in a manner which will best serve the interests of the people of Independence and the business community.”45 Ironically, two years earlier the chamber and city council had adamantly opposed the preservation of the historic Jones Hotel on the square. Unlike the Bingham-Waggoner Estate, the city council and the chamber did not see the Jones Hotel as historic, and “commercial interests” believed a “new development” would be more economically favorable.46 From 1979 to 1982 the IHC promoted the city’s Truman history through various projects. For the most part commissioners focused their preservation efforts on the Truman Heritage District and developed and distributed interpretive material to the public reminding them of Truman’s relationship with his city, neighbors, and neighborhood. In July 1979 the commission received a grant from the Missouri Committee on the Humanities to produce an audiovisual presentation of the life of Harry S. Truman, from his birth through his senatorial years. The slide show was shown to tourists who visited Truman’s restored county judge courtroom 44. “Expenditures—Historic Preservation and Related Projects—FY 1976 to Present [c. 1982],” folder Tourism Proposal, Potts Papers. Also see city bill no. 77-111, Ordinance No. 4502. 45. Board minutes, 8 November 1978, in bound volume 1970–1982, Independence Chamber of Commerce. 46. Board minutes, 12 March 1978, ibid.

Winds of Discontent

139

in the Jackson County Courthouse. The commission also published a brochure on the heritage district, which detailed Truman’s association with his neighborhood.47 During the 1979 to 1982 period, the commission continued to review changes that district homeowners proposed to make to their properties, and in December 1979, the commission heard an update from Solomon and Claybaugh concerning the heritage district master plan. At the top of the list was the removal and underground burial of power lines on North Delaware. O’Brien clearly supported the efforts of the city to put the lines underground. In a public hearing in July 1978, he stated: “We would like to see all utility lines underground and in the long run all existing lines underground.” Little of this plan was enacted except for the call to expand the district, however, and the commission struggled just to get the city to make repairs to the sidewalk in front of the Truman home.48 The period from 1974 to 1982 was significant in terms of determining who controlled the city’s presidential history—embodied in the Truman NHL designation and protected by the Truman Heritage District. The Independence Heritage Commission, created by the city council and with significant encouragement from residents of the Truman NHL, became the body that controlled the presidential history in the former president’s neighborhood. However, the word “control” suggests that the heritage commission was an all-powerful body that could not easily be influenced. In reality, the commission had only limited control over change in the district because the appointed body’s recommendations could be overruled by the city council. Thus, in 1974 when First Baptist Church officials appealed to the city council to exempt religious bodies from heritage district regulation, the council changed the IHC’s recommendation and granted the exemption. When the commission requested that the boundaries of the heritage district be enlarged, the churches launched an aggressive campaign to ensure that their properties remained exempt from compliance with the city ordinance. Since city officials agreed that subjecting churches to the heritage district ordinance would violate their First Amendment right, the stage was set for confrontation, and the First Baptist Church was the first to offer redevelopment plans that would alter structures in the Truman NHL dis47. Commission minutes, 3 July 1979, IHC file, Zobrist Papers. 48. Commission minutes, 4 December 1979; “Expansion—Truman District,” public hearing, 20 July 1978, in folder Harry S. Truman Historic District—Proposed Expansion; Commission minutes, 17 June 1980, all in ibid.

140


trict. In 1983 when demolitions in the area began, and later when the wrecking ball came to homes situated in the Truman NHL and the heritage districts, battle lines would be drawn between neighbors, churches, and city leaders, and the community would become fully engulfed in a preservation crisis.

5

The Birth of a National Historic Site I was favorably impressed by the fact that the house was still in its old neighborhood.The urban environment . . . was still intact, to the point Mr.Truman could probably still find his way around on his morning walks in that neighborhood. —Thomas Richter, National Park Service, 1985

I absolutely, unequivocally, believe in leaving the churches alone. This is one of our legislative rights, the Constitution. I think that the churches should take care of themselves. And I think most of them will live within the boundaries of the guidelines set down by the Heritage Commission, given a chance to do so. . . .They don’t want to tear up neighborhoods any more—I mean, after all, this is their business, is people. —Bill Carpenter, Independence Planning Commission, 20 October 1983

I would find it hard to live with myself if I had done anything to cause a growing church to wither and die. . . . I really feel I would not know how to answer that Higher Being when that day comes. —Joan Mackey, Independence Planning Commission, 20 October 1983

Bess Truman passed away on 19 October 1982, and as previously arranged by Harry, Bess, and their daughter, Margaret Truman Daniel, the

141

142


home and its contents passed to the United States of America to be administered by the Archivist of the United States. However, the National Archives did not want the responsibility of caring for the home and turned to the National Park Service for assistance. On 8 December 1982, President Reagan signed an emergency proclamation giving the NPS the authority to protect the home until Congress could pass the enabling legislation to create a park.1

The National Park Service Enters the Neighborhood In January 1983 the NPS assigned Tom Richter to represent the agency in Independence and to provide interim direction for the site until a superintendent could be named. Richter and others from the Midwest Region headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska, met with Benedict Zobrist, who welcomed the NPS to Independence and agreed to provide Richter with temporary office space. The residents of the heritage district, Richter recalled, were overjoyed to see a representative of the federal agency within their community. After all, they hoped the NPS would be a strong ally against the desires of both the RLDS and, in particular, the First Baptist Church who wished to tear down historic properties both in and around the city-designated Truman district.2 As Richter recalled, his first impression of the residents and city leaders was that they were “not familiar with the National Park Service.” He noted city leaders were pushing him to set an opening date for the Truman home, because they wanted the opening of the home to be the centerpiece of the 1984 centennial of Truman’s birth. They also wanted to develop other aspects of the city’s history, such as the Bingham-Waggoner Estate, so that when visitors arrived to view the Truman history they would be enticed to visit the city’s other local historical attractions. Visiting these additional local attractions would require an overnight stay, leaders believed, and would create an economic windfall for the city. Richter observed: “My marching orders while I was there by myself were basically not to make any real firm commitments in terms of policy or what direction we were going to take with the home, but at the same time to keep friendships or develop friendships and working relationships 1. Cockrell, The Trumans, appendix E; Thomas Richter, interview by Pam Smoot, transcript, 13. 2. Thomas Richter, interview by Jim Williams, transcript of tape recorded interview, 27 August 1990, 11, 34, Harry S Truman National Historic Site, Independence.

The Birth of a National Historic Site

143

with these different interests.”3 These “different interests” included the Jackson County Historical Society, the city, and the Truman library. While Richter did not make any firm commitments, he did work with the city to develop a shuttle bus system for tourists who wanted to tour the Truman home. The city did not want a shuttle bus operated solely by the NPS, however, because such a bus would bypass the city’s other historical attractions. In a letter to Mayor Barbara Potts, the NPS supported the shuttle bus because it would “reduce considerably automobile traffic congestion in the quiet residential neighborhood around the Truman home.”4 NPS officials recognized that turning the home into a tourist attraction could affect the integrity of the neighborhood. In fact, NPS officials such as Richter had not abandoned the conclusion of previous historian Ernest Connally that the Truman neighborhood was one of the most intact and complete presidential neighborhoods in the country. Richter observed: “I was favorably impressed by the fact that the house was still in its old neighborhood. The urban environment . . . was still intact, to the point Mr. Truman could probably still find his way around on his morning walks in that neighborhood.” F. A. “Andy” Ketterson, chief of cultural resources management for the Omaha regional office, also shared Richter’s view: “We wanted the place to remain as it was when we got it, as part of a neighborhood.”5 While NPS officials were impressed by the integrity of the neighborhood surrounding the home, they were equally amazed at the completeness of the Truman home and its contents. Under the terms of Bess Truman’s deed of gift to the United States of America, the entire contents of the home, with a few exceptions made for Margaret Truman Daniel, were given to the Archivist of the United States. The result was that the NPS received the entire contents of a presidential home—a luxury in comparison to other presidential historic sites where the agency had to reproduce historic furnishings. Ketterson observed: “The house was such a gift because it was so complete . . . we’ve got a house there that looked like people lived in it.”6 The integrity of the home, coupled with the integrity of the neighbor3. Richter, Williams interview, 19–20. 4. Kansas City Star, 31 August 1983. 5. Richter, Smoot interview, 7–8; F. A. “Andy” Ketterson, interview by Jim Williams, transcript of tape recorded interview, 5 August 1991, Harry S Truman NHS, National Park Service, 8. 6. Ketterson interview, 20.

144


hood, clearly made a distinct impression on high-ranking NPS officials. In 1983 Richter escorted Russell Dickenson, NPS director, on a tour of the Truman home, and Richter remembered: “He very quickly realized the importance of the whole neighborhood as adding to the significance of the home itself and was very much taken by that.” Because of the integrity of the home and its setting, Richter easily attracted both regional and Washington support to open the home as soon as possible.7 While Richter was making initial contacts with members and groups in Independence, the preservation battle within the Truman Heritage District was quietly simmering. In December 1982 Dr. John E. Hughes, pastor of the twelve-hundred-member First Baptist Church, sent Bill McDonald, chairman of the Independence Planning Commission, a letter asking the commission to close an alley located near church property because one church member had been hit by a car in the alley while trying to cross it to gain access to a church building. Hughes also argued that the alley needed to be eliminated because the church planned to build a new sanctuary. He told McDonald: “We desire to keep the church in the uptown Independence area. We are planning to build the sanctuary facing Truman Road, just east of our 1895 structure. Closing the alley will make it possible for us to preserve the old historic 1895 sanctuary.” Hughes even offered to share the plans with the heritage commission, though he reminded McDonald that the church was “exempted” from the heritage district regulations.8 In January O’Brien, city historic preservation manager, invited Hughes to come to a commission meeting and explain the church’s expansion plans. Hughes sent O’Brien a letter dated 18 January 1983 stating that the church had retained the architectural firm of Mantel and Teter of Kansas City, noted for their preservation work, to design the new sanctuary, and he believed the church would have plans to share with the commission in May. Hughes’s letter was read at the January commission meeting, and eight neighbors spoke out against closing the alley, stating that the closure would alter access, traffic patterns, and the aesthetics of the area.9 In March the city agreed to Hughes’s request to vacate part of the public access right of way to the alley between Pleasant and Spring streets.10 7. Richter, Williams interview, 60 (quote), 62. 8. Dr. John E. Hughes to Bill McDonald, 30 December 1982, copy in folder First Baptist Church Expansion 1983, IHC file, Zobrist Papers. 9. Hughes to O’Brien, 18 January 1983, copy in folder First Baptist Church Expansion 1983; Commission minutes, 20 January 1983, Minutes 1980–1986, both in ibid. 10. “Couples File Suit to Keep Alley Open,” Kansas City Times, 21 March 1983.


145

First Baptist Church, Independence, Missouri. Courtesy of author.

The First Baptist Church in the early stages of its expansion plan made a good faith effort to keep Independence city staff and the IHC informed of their plans. Their decision to hire the firm of Mantel and Teter was also an attempt to give the expansion plans credibility, since the firm had earned honors for its preservation work. More important, in these letters Hughes linked the church’s plans with historic preservation when he argued that, if the city closed the alley, the action would allow the church to preserve its 1895 sanctuary and to stay within the downtown area. The First Baptist Church was not the only church moving forward with expansion plans in January 1983. At the 4 January IHC meeting, one commissioner expressed concern over demolitions that occurred two blocks from the Truman home on the south side of Maple between River and Union. These structures would have been included in the 1979 expanded district but were removed by the city council to accommodate the RLDS Church. The commission voted to invite Bishop Russell Pearson and RLDS president Wallace Smith to the February meeting in order to discuss the church’s plans for this area. Pearson responded to O’Brien on 21 January stating that the church did not have any new plans at this time and

146


“[we] do not accept your invitation.” The bishop continued: “From time to time, the economy, utility costs, and condition of structures require decisions to reduce losses. . . . Several buildings have been razed outside of the Heritage District recently based on those reasons.”11 These properties, which included the same style of architecture as the homes lining Delaware Street, were viewed by the church as non-historic. They were outside the boundaries of the heritage district, and the church considered them expendable. The demolition of these properties was central to the RLDS commitment to enhance the area around the proposed temple, to provide a parklike setting for the temple. The church was creating this parklike setting at the same time as NPS managers were commenting on the integrity of Truman’s neighborhood! In the midst of two planned church expansion projects, the city and its leaders also began planning for the centennial celebration of Truman’s birth. Independence mayor Barbara Potts, a member of the RLDS Church, spearheaded the celebration and worked closely with the national Truman Centennial Committee led by former Truman advisor Clark Clifford. In late January 1983 Potts hosted a press conference at the Memorial Building to announce the membership of the Independence Truman Centennial Commission. The commission, composed of twenty-eight community leaders, included Benedict K. Zobrist and George Curtis, assistant director of the Truman library. For reasons not clear, there was no NPS representative serving on the committee. This committee would be responsible for planning the city’s Truman centennial events.12 The city received a boost from the federal government to promote the upcoming 1984 Truman centennial when Ronald Reagan signed Public Law 98-32 on 23 May 1983, formally creating the Harry S Truman National Historic Site. The law, known as the park’s enabling legislation, stated that the purpose of the park was to “preserve and interpret for the inspiration and benefit of present and future generations the former home of Harry S. Truman.”13 Yet, while every NPS official, including the NPS director, noted the importance of the neighborhood surrounding the Truman home, the legislation made no mention of any relationship between the home and the surrounding NHL district. Despite this fact, Richter not only prepared the home for its public 11. Commission minutes, 4 January 1983; Russell W. Pearson to O’Brien, 21 January 1983, both in folder 1980–1986, ibid. 12. Potts to Clark Clifford, 25 January 1983, folder Independence Centennial Commission, Truman Centennial Commission Papers, HSTL. 13. Public Law 98-32, 23 May 1983.


147

opening but also attended IHC meetings, which took him outside the park’s boundaries. Apparently he had attended his first meeting on 19 April 1983 when commission members welcomed him, voted to make him an ex-officio member, and agreed to send him copies of all meeting minutes. Also at this meeting, Dr. John Hughes presented the proposed First Baptist Church expansion plans, which included building a sanctuary to seat 1,158 people. The sanctuary’s larger seating capacity meant that city code required the church to increase its parking capacity around the building. The plans illustrated the additional parking lots required. At the conclusion of his presentation, Hughes pledged to work with the NPS and provide parking places for Truman home visitors every day of the week except Sunday, thus encouraging open communication between his church and the commission.14

Community Debate over the First Baptist Church Expansion Plan It is difficult to measure how the neighbors surrounding the church viewed Hughes’s presentation. Only one neighbor, Ed Chandler (who had been one of eight people objecting to the church’s request to close the alley), was present in the audience. By July, however, some neighbors organized in opposition to the proposed expansion, and at the 19 July IHC meeting they submitted a petition signed by forty-two residents and property owners asking the IHC to help them oppose the church expansion. The commissioners replied that they had no authority in the situation, because churches were exempt from the Truman Heritage District ordinance. They encouraged the group members to take their concerns to the city council. Apparently some of the neighbors did not believe the council would respond positively to their petition, so the Reynolds family filed suit against the city for allowing the church to close the alley. Their suit argued that the closure was unlawful, because it did not meet a valid public purpose. In October the judge dismissed the case and ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to file suit in a timely manner.15 By August 1983 the neighborhood was actively engaged in lively debate about the merits of the proposed First Baptist Church expansion. Much of the dialogue was waged in letters to the editor of the Independence 14. Commission minutes, 19 April 1983, IHC file, Zobrist Papers. 15. Sarah F. Schwenk, “What’s Happening in Truman’s Neighborhood?” Jackson County Historical Society Journal 26, no. 2 (1984): 19.

148


Examiner. Mabel Schulenberg made a strong argument that the proposed church addition would be a community asset, for it would boost a sagging downtown area that had suffered since urban renewal: “Independence has had problems keeping the downtown intact; surely the city leaders would not want the churches to leave, too. Without them, the downtown area would truly be a ghost town.” Susan Walter, neighborhood activist and one of the founding members of the group Old Independence, responded to Schulenberg’s letter, arguing that the “friends and neighbors of the Truman Historic District” were not trying to stop the new sanctuary, but that they were concerned with how the “demolitions and asphalt parking lots” would impact the Truman NHL.16 In September the preservation battle heated up when Old Independence and neighbors Jan and Gary Fields, with the help of neighborhood attorney Thomas Hankins, filed suit against the city of Independence. The suit was filed in federal court. It directly challenged the idea that churches could be legally exempt from the oversight of the heritage district ordinance. Churches were no different from any other landowner in the district and were not entitled to any special exemption. This suit was a landmark case. It was among the first to challenge churches’ use of the First Amendment to justify noncompliance with a historic district ordinance. The suit was later dismissed, because the Fields sold their property to the church.17 In September 1983 the city council voted to request that the NPS expand the Truman NHL to mirror the expanded 1979 boundary of the Harry S. Truman Heritage District. On the surface this might appear to be a step in the direction of preservation, but the council’s true intent was to repeal the local heritage district designation and disband the IHC. Repealing the local city heritage district ordinance would effectively stave off potential suits such as the one leveled by Old Independence and the Fields. No one could argue that the city was treating some landowners in the district differently from others if no historic district existed. The council later rescinded its vote, but the situation illustrates its commitment to avoiding this preservation controversy.18 16. Letters to the editor, Independence Examiner, from Mabel Schulenberg, 2 August, and from Susan Walter, 5 August 1983. 17. Thomas Hankins, telephone conversation with author, 5 September 2003. For the genesis of Old Independence and more information on the suit, see commission minutes, 5 December 1978, IHC file, Zobrist Papers. 18. Sally Schwenk, “What’s Happening in Truman’s Neighborhood?” 18. Schwenk argued that some city leaders hoped to avoid lawsuits by abolishing the heritage district. Schwenk, telephone conversation with author, 19 February 2003.


149

In October the First Baptist Church secured a statement of support from the Blue River Kansas City Baptist Association, an organization representing 126 Kansas City metropolitan Baptist churches. The statement read, in part: “Religious liberty should always take precedence over the preservation of manmade structures.”19 This was a stunning endorsement of utilizing the First Amendment to justify the destruction of the built environment. While Hughes was happy to have the support of the Baptist association, he was frustrated at the double standard the community seemed to employ regarding the First Baptist Church expansion plan and its request to demolish a few structures. Hughes was disappointed that the RLDS Church had been able to demolish a whole block of structures so close to the Truman home in late 1982 and early January, without community outrage (see Map 3), and now his church faced community pressure about the proposed demolition of a handful of structures. He expressed his frustration to Mayor Potts in a letter dated 7 October 1983: Your church tears down house after house on Maple Street and elsewhere, some of which are as close to the Truman home as our property on Spring Street. Nothing is said or done. We talk about tearing two or three houses down to build the first sanctuary we’ve built for 100 years and people holler “bloody murder.” We are forced to hire lawyers to defend ourselves and doubtlessly will spend thousands of dollars that could have gone to better purposes. Why, why, why?20

Rumors began to circulate that the city planning commission and city council wanted to abolish both the heritage commission and the heritage district. A meeting on 18 October was scheduled to discuss these issues, and the day before the meeting, residents of the heritage district organized a vigil in front of the Truman home. Approximately seventy people, holding candles, stood outside the Truman home in what the Independence Examiner described as a “symbolic protest of the possible abolishment of the Truman Heritage district and the commission that oversees it.” Two women, both First Baptist Church members, stood across the street and offered the protestors hot coffee. The Reverend Robert Brennan, also representing the First Baptist Church, remarked, “This is our olive branch.”21 19. Lisa Gutierrez, “Baptist Group Calls for End to Truman Historical District,” Independence Examiner, 6 October 1983. 20. Hughes to Potts, 7 October 1983, [Truman Heritage District] 1st Baptist Church vs. Historical District [1983 and undated] [folder 2], ser. 14, Subject file 1967–1997, Potts Papers. 21. “Candles Shone Out a Message,” Independence Examiner, 18 October 1983, notebook “Heritage District,” Harry S Truman NHS.

150


The Independence Planning Commission went ahead with the scheduled meeting to discuss the boundaries and restrictions of the Truman Heritage District as well as the proposed expansion of the First Baptist Church. Individuals had submitted letters to the city planning director about the expansion, and at the meeting several individuals testified about the proposed plan. Approximately seventy-five letters were read into the record, and thirty-five people testified. Letters and testimony came both from supporters of the First Baptist Church expansion and from those who opposed the plan, including many neighbors who lived around the church. Members of the First Baptist Church who lived both in and outside the district launched a letter-writing campaign to the city planning department to vent their frustration at the IHC. They charged the commission with preventing the church from fulfilling its mission of saving souls. Many of the church members who wrote to Larry Mlnarik, city planning director, believed the commission possessed too much power and threatened religious liberty.22 At the planning commission meeting Bob Buckley, member of the First Baptist Church and resident of 640 N. Union, a heritage district address, delivered the church’s official statement. He stated that during the construction phase of the new sanctuary one house would be removed and quite possibly two more homes would be removed in later phases. Buckley stated that a representative from the Office of Historic Preservation in the Missouri DNR had visited the area and examined the church-owned homes and determined that none of them, except for one, possessed “historical significance” because they could not “be characterized by any reasonable person as closely resembling a ‘mansion.’”23 The concept that craftsman bungalows and other 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s homes were historic was hard for residents to understand. Ron Finke, a resident of the heritage district, commented: “Many of the homes are not historically significant but in fact are not even old. There are many homes within this district which were built within the last 20 years.” Clearly, some individuals within the district did not understand how homes that were not “mansions” nor built before the turn of the century 22. Terrence Thompson, “No Decision Made on Retaining Truman District,” Kansas City Star, 19 October 1983. For the letter-writing campaign, see Juanita Maddocks to Larry Mlnarik, 16 October, Nancy L. Robinson to Mlnarik, 17 October 1983, Reba Sisk to Mlnarik, 17 October 1983, in Truman Heritage District [1983], folder 1, ser. 14, Subject file 1967–1997, Potts Papers. 23. Independence Planning Commission meeting, 18 October 1983, transcript, ibid., folder 2, 65–66.


151

could be important to both the Truman Historic District NHL and the Truman Heritage District. Claiming these resources lacked historical significance was yet another justification why the church could remove them from the built environment. However, justifying the demolition of these properties because residents believed they were not historic was really a side issue. Buckley believed the most important issue was “First Amendment rights”— the same issue cited by the church when it opposed being subject to the heritage commission ordinance in 1974. Buckley concluded his remarks by stating: “The Constitution prohibits the government from prohibiting the free exercise of one’s religion. Inherent in the free exercise of one’s religion is the right of a congregation to grow and to reach more people.”24 Most of those who supported the church expansion were church members and others of the Baptist faith. Their voices did not go unopposed by residents of the Truman NHL and Heritage districts who disagreed with the church’s plan and its attack on the heritage commission. Most of the neighbors within the boundary of the heritage district were not members of the First Baptist Church, and they opposed the church expansion. This group included individuals who were distantly related to the Truman family, longtime Truman friends, and people who had moved to the historic district because they wanted to live in a historic district. Mrs. Albert M. Ott, district resident and distant relative of the Truman family by marriage, wrote: “I am proud to be in this district and think other citizens and residents of Independence should be proud also.” Grace Minor, a longtime friend of the Truman family on Spring Street, hoped the city would continue to preserve the Truman Heritage District as well as the heritage commission. Terry V. Morris, who had just purchased a home in the historic district, said he had done so after “studying the Truman Historic District for a number of years. My wife and I felt that an area such as this, with proper guidance from a city level governing body, was destined to become . . . nationally significant.” Pauline Fowler, a member of the original heritage commission but at the time of her comments living outside the district, believed the heritage commission was needed to ensure that Independence would preserve its history. She argued that the community had an obligation to preserve the neighborhood environment of the former president for future generations. She stated: “It seems to me that the City of Independence has inherited historical responsibilities to our country, as well as to our local citizens.”25 24. Ibid., 82, 67– 68. 25. See Mrs. Albert M. Ott, Jr., to Mlnarik, undated, Grace Minor to Planning Com-

152


The National Park Service also weighed in at this meeting. Thomas Richter delivered the NPS position on behalf of the newly appointed superintendent, Norman Reigle. Richter read a statement drafted by Reigle, which read in part: “Maintaining [the] historical integrity of the Truman Home and its neighborhood is without question a critical priority for the National Park Service.” The NPS attempted to downplay the role of the federal government in this decision by noting that it was the “collective responsibility of the community” to make the decision, but Reigle expressed hope the community would be interested in soliciting and hearing the NPS opinion. Reigle’s statement urged the city to maintain the heritage district and the heritage commission because “without an advisory group with some oversight responsibility the cumulative impact of individual decisions could have an adverse effect on the District.”26 The meeting continued into the early hours of the morning and was continued to 20 October. At this session, the planning commission members voiced their thoughts on the heritage commission and the right of the First Baptist Church to expand. Joan Mackey, commission member and a self-described Baptist but not a member of the First Baptist Church, seemed to support the planned expansion when she noted that other churches had been allowed to demolish homes in previous expansion projects. She did not identify the RLDS Church by name, but she clearly implied this was one of the churches when she noted that a church had cleared homes “just west of the Truman home, on Maple, . . . last summer.” She noted that other changes had taken place in the past to alter Truman’s neighborhood, such as urban renewal and the construction of the Truman library, and concluded: “We cannot make time stand still. Buildings, as people, grow old and they die.”27 Commissioner Carpenter also seemed to side with the First Baptist Church, but his concern was that government was trying to “legislate or force people into situations that they don’t care to be in.” He continued: “I absolutely, unequivocally, believe in leaving the churches alone. This is one of our legislative rights, the Constitution. I think that the churches should take care of themselves.” Commissioner Barnett disagreed with his fellow commissioners and “was impressed by their [district residents’]

mission, 14 October 1983, Terry V. Morris to Mayor and City Council, 13 October 1983, Pauline Fowler to Planning Commission, 18 October 1983, in ibid., folder 1. 26. Independence Planning Commission meeting, 18 October 1983, transcript, ibid., folder 2, 117–118. 27. Ibid., 20 October 1983, 18–20.


153

sincere desire to protect their own property as well as upholding the entire district as a tribute to the memory of former President Truman and his family.” Barnett concluded: “It has been established that adequate parking is already available in the vicinity of the church, and no more destruction of property needs to take place.”28 The planning commission, by a vote of 5–2, agreed to retain the heritage commission as well as the current expanded boundaries of the Truman Heritage District. It recommended that the city council pursue NHL status for the expanded locally designated Truman Heritage District. To appease commissioners Mackey and Carpenter, the recommendation also included a clause that committed the city “to preserve the religious heritage of the community that allows churches to grow and to exercise their religious freedoms.”29 When Tom Richter read Superintendent Reigle’s prepared statement at the 18 October meeting of the planning commission, it was the first public statement NPS officials had made on the project. The new superintendent, in his first superintendency, came from Ozark National Scenic Riverways in Van Buren, Missouri, where he had been chief ranger. He was no stranger to handling conflict between a community and a park. At Ozark, he had gained firsthand experience of managing a park in the midst of antigovernment sentiment from area landowners who believed the federal government had unfairly taken their lands to create an outdoor recreation area.30 Working with others to preserve the Truman neighborhood would be challenge enough, but he would also face an equal challenge in preparing the Truman home for its first visitors. Like Tom Richter, Reigle was impressed with the integrity of the Truman home and neighborhood. Reigle believed, as did John Kawamoto when he first visited the Truman NHL in the 1970s, that the site possessed the highest degree of integrity among presidential sites in the national park system.31 His chief concern centered on preservation of the house, 28. Ibid., 25. 29. Schwenk, “What’s Happening in the Truman Neighborhood?” 19. 30. David Goldstein, “Federal Official Says Truman Area Is Independence’s Responsibility,” Kansas City Times, 12 October 1983; Norman Reigle, interview by Sharon Siron, draft typescript of oral history interview, 20 November 1989, Harry S Truman NHS, National Park Service, 45. For the federal government’s relationship with the local population in the area around Ozark National Scenic Riverways, see Will Sarvis, “A Difficult Legacy: Creation of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways,” Public Historian 24, no. 1 (Winter 2002): 31–52. 31. Norman Reigle, interview by Michael Shaver, draft typescript of oral history interview, 22 December 1989, Harry S Truman NHS, National Park Service, 43.

154


which needed its roof and its electrical wiring system both replaced. Since the house contained virtually every artifact owned by the Trumans, his second major concern focused on the preservation of the numerous objects inside the home. These were challenges enough for a first-time superintendent, and he had the added pressure of dealing with the neighborhood preservation crisis, but it was a crisis that had not yet placed the NPS at the center of controversy. As evidenced by the planning commission transcript, those who favored the church expansion targeted their protest at the IHC, not the NPS. However, with its entrance to the community, the federal agency would become an easy target for those opposed to neighborhood preservation. Reigle also faced a tough deadline to get the house open in time for the city’s May 1984 centennial celebration of Truman’s birth. The Midwest regional office was very supportive of the park, funding both repairs to the Truman home and personnel positions to run the park. The regional office also detailed historian Ron Cockrell to the site to compile information on the architectural history of the home and begin work on the site’s historic resource study, which would provide the park a baseline history of how the Trumans lived at 219 N. Delaware.32 In November 1983 two hundred people gathered around the fence at 219 N. Delaware for the official kickoff of the Truman centennial celebration. While the city prepared to commemorate its most famous resident, the First Baptist Church prepared to lobby the city council to approve its expansion plans. It is not exactly clear what triggered this lobby effort, which took the form of a letter-writing campaign by members of the First Baptist Church to their city council representatives. It appears, however, that a letter sent by the National Trust for Historic Preservation to Mayor Barbara Potts stoked the preservation crisis once again. The letter, written by the National Trust’s Tim Turner, regional director of the Midwest region, noted that churches should not be treated any differently than any other landowner in the district: “By establishing a special class of buildings, we are concerned that if they can do it for churches, they can do it for schools and others, and it just erodes the whole foundation of local control.” A week later Hughes, pastor of the First Baptist Church, met with a group of fellow Baptist pastors and organized a letter-writing campaign to the Independence City Council. The letters encouraged the coun32. Ibid., 44; Ron Cockrell, draft article titled “CRM’s Mobilize to Activate Harry S Truman NHS,” in H22 (MWR-PC), Harry S Truman NHS files.


155

cil to reduce the size of the heritage district to exclude the church-owned properties from the district.33 At about the same time, council member John Carnes offered what he thought was a compromise between the church and those in the neighborhood who did not want to see the church expand. Carnes proposed that the heritage district be reduced to just the Delaware Street corridor, which included the section of Delaware Street from the Truman home to the Truman library, and that the church exemption be abolished. On the surface, this looked like an acceptable compromise. However, the Delaware Street corridor did not contain any church property and the proposal was designed to keep the city and the church out of litigation. If the First Baptist Church properties were no longer in the heritage district, then those who challenged the church exemption would no longer have legal grounds for a suit.34 Not all council members agreed with the Carnes plan. Councilwoman Marilyn Wright, who was opposed to any boundary changes in the heritage district, believed Carnes came forward with a compromise because at the time he was contemplating a run for Missouri secretary of state and he wanted the Baptist support. Wright noted in a newspaper interview: “It’s apparent to me that there’s some kind of orchestrated campaign for him to have the support of the Baptist church in exchange for us [city council] supporting his resolution.” Council members Bill Snyder and Mayor Barbara Potts opposed the boundary changes and did not support the Carnes plan.35 Mayor Potts received several letters from Independence residents, mostly from those affiliated with the Baptist Church, who urged her to support the Carnes plan—even after her opposition to the plan was made public. Ardis Haukenberry, member of the First Baptist Church, resident of the Truman NHL and Heritage districts, and a Truman relative, sent Potts a letter in which she argued that the Baptist Church was not being treated fairly because other churches in the area had been allowed to ex33. Charles Burke, “Ceremony Takes Note of History,” Independence Examiner, 2 November 1983; David Goldstein, “Preserve Truman District, Group Advises,” Kansas City Times, 23 November 1983 (Turner letter); David Goldstein, “Baptists Lobbying Council,” Kansas City Times, 7 December 1983; “Letters Urge Potts to Back Reduced Heritage Area,” Independence Examiner, 9 December 1983. 34. “Letters Urge Potts to Back Reduced Heritage Area,” Independence Examiner, 9 December 1983; Sally Schwenk, telephone conversation with author, 19 February 2003. 35. David Goldstein, “Baptists Lobbying Council,” Kansas City Times, 7 December 1983.

156


pand their parking facilities by demolishing homes without city interference. She noted how the First Christian Church, the First Presbyterian Church, St. Mary’s Catholic Church, and others had demolished homes to create additional parking spaces, without controversy. Others, such as Leo and Juanita Maddocks, reminded the mayor that when she was a council member she had led the charge to exclude RLDS property from the 1979 expanded Truman Heritage District while at the same time she had supported the church exemption for properties in the expanded district. The Maddockses concluded: “They told us Baptist[s] the exemption was good enough for us. Then why wasn’t it good enough for the RLDS church?” Robert A. Brennan was more blunt in his appeal to the mayor: “Your involvement with the District in 1978 and supporting decision and needs of your denomination is fine but you need to be consistent and follow through by supporting First Baptist Church.”36 Clearly, these letter writers believed that since Potts was a member of the RLDS Church, which had supported past church historic district exemptions, she was obligated to support the Baptist effort to reduce the size of the heritage district. Potts responded to some of the letters with a form letter, which explained that some people opposed the church expansion because they believed the end result would be unneeded parking lots. She concluded: “I feel we can preserve this valuable Truman Historic District and still protect the rights of the churches to grow by maintaining our existing regulations.” While the city council continued to debate the role of the heritage commission and the boundaries of the heritage district, the planning commission on 14 December 1983 issued a demolition permit to the First Baptist Church to remove one home to make way for their new sanctuary (see Map 3).37 At the advent of 1984, the city still found itself in the middle of a preservation crisis. The council had not made a decision about the fate of the district, and the federal government, in the form of the NPS, was about to become more deeply involved in the debate. At the city council meeting on 14 January, Councilman Carnes introduced his ordinance, which reduced the size of the heritage district to just the Delaware corridor and removed the church exemption. The day before the meeting, Reigle had commented on the proposed plan in a Kansas City Times interview: “To preserve the 36. Ardis Haukenberry to Potts, undated, Leo W. Maddocks to Potts, 11 December 1983, Robert A. Brennan to Potts, 14 December 1983, all in [Truman Heritage District] First Baptist letters [1983–1984] [folder 2], ser. 14, Subject file 1967–1997, Potts Papers. 37. Potts to Dear Citizen, 16 December 1983, ibid.; “House in Historic Area to Be Razed,” Independence Examiner, 15 December 1983.


157

integrity of the neighborhood we have to preserve the entire neighborhood, and not by carving it up in bits and pieces. Once you lose the area and its surroundings, you lose the flavor of the man and his family.” Margaret Truman Daniel was also interviewed in the Kansas City Times. Contrary to those church members who claimed the new addition would add to the neighborhood, Daniel observed: “It would be a shame to tear down houses to put that [new auditorium] up.” She said she had spoken recently with Carnes about his campaign for secretary of state, but he had not mentioned the plan to downsize the heritage district.38 Toward the end of January, council member Millie Nesbitt wrote to Russell E. Dickenson, NPS director, objecting to how the federal government had “interjected themselves into a local decision” by pressuring the city council to act responsibly. None of the evidence suggested that either Reigle or other NPS officials had pressured the city council to preserve the Truman Heritage District and commission. Reigle had clearly tried to avoid this accusation in his statement read at the October 1983 meeting of the planning commission, but his January response to the council’s proposed ordinance to reduce the heritage district must have irked the majority on the council who favored it. Dickenson responded to Nesbitt’s concern about federal interference in local matters by reiterating just how important the Truman neighborhood was to interpreting the Truman home: “More than any other area, the National Historic Landmark District recalls the life and career of President Truman, because the district remains much as it was when he was alive and was the nucleus for both his personal and his long and influential political life. Without the National Historic Landmark District, visitors to the Harry S Truman NHS will not be able to fully understand and appreciate the environment in which President and Mrs. Truman lived.”39 Only a minority of the city council favored keeping the existing heritage district boundaries, and this minority, which included Mayor Barbara Potts, became the target of another letter-writing campaign initiated by members of the First Baptist Church. These letters, similar to those Potts received in December, implied that since she was a member of the RLDS Church she should support the Carnes plan, because in the past the 38. David Goldstein, “Smaller Truman Area Could Hurt National Status, Park Service Says,” Kansas City Times, 13 January 1984; David Goldstein, “Truman Daughter Favors Leaving District As Is,” Kansas City Times, 18 January 1984. 39. Millie Nesbitt to Russell E. Dickenson, 30 January 1984, and copy of Dickenson to Nesbitt, undated, Truman Heritage District [1984] [folder 3], ser. 14, Subject file 1967–1997, Potts Papers.

158


church had supported the efforts of the First Baptist Church to limit the heritage commission’s jurisdiction over church properties. Ann Dillon asked the mayor: “Why was the RLDS property excluded from the expansion? Why were only the Baptist churches included? Why are certain people trying to prevent the growth of First Baptist Church? Is it really from concern for ‘heritage’ or do they have other reasons?”40 While many First Baptist Church members targeted Mayor Potts with their letters, the NPS was also being drawn into the debate. NPS director Dickenson’s letter made it clear that Reigle had the support of NPS officials in Washington, but his support also meant the NPS would be looked upon with suspicion because local officials were beginning to view the agency as meddling in local affairs. The city council scheduled a vote on the Carnes plan for 6 February 1984. The Kansas City Times, prior to the vote, interviewed Reigle who, when asked what would happen if the plan was adopted, said the “park service might strip the Truman district of its National Historic Landmark status.” When Councilman Carnes was informed of Reigle’s comments, he noted: “The park service has no business involving itself in a local issue. Somebody needs to tell Mr. Reigle to put his foot in his big mouth.”41

A Decision Is Made and the Community Reacts Charles Odegaard, Midwest regional director of the NPS, encouraged the city council to put off a decision to reduce the district’s boundaries until the NPS could distribute a draft version of the park’s general management plan (GMP). The GMP would guide park management for the next ten or fifteen years. Despite NPS encouragement to delay the decision, and in the presence of more than 250 residents, the city council voted 5–2 to reduce the size of the heritage district, leaving exposed to development for the first time a portion of the Truman NHL (see Map 2 for the reduced boundary). The new ordinance (7917) also removed the clause exempting church property from compliance with the previous ordinance. While this sounds like an important step forward for historic preservation, the reduced district size had actually eliminated most church-owned property from within the boundary, including the proper40. Ann Dillon to Potts, undated, [Truman Heritage District] 1st Baptist letters from 2-1-84 folder, ibid. 41. David Goldstein, “Battle over Truman District May Be Ended Tonight,” Kansas City Times, 6 February 1984.


159

ty of the First Baptist Church, which meant the church would not be bound by the new ordinance anyway. The NPS did not strip the unprotected portion of the Truman NHL of its landmark status, but in May 1984 the agency, in its annual report to Congress and as required by law, recommended that the Truman NHL be listed as a “threatened” landmark. It did so because of the council’s decision to reduce the size of the heritage district and because of the actions and proposed actions of the First Baptist Church.42 While the NPS did all it could in response to the council’s decision and the proposed expansion of the church, homeowners in the district also reacted. The reaction ranged from outrage to action to legal action. June Rhoads was disappointed with the council and wrote a letter to the editor: “It seems they no longer care for the people of Independence outside the Baptist church. I do know this: Once a thing is destroyed, it is gone forever.” Eleanor Sandy, who had led the petition drive to the council to create the heritage district in 1974, led another petition effort to put to a public vote the ordinance that had reduced the district. Sandy collected 2,050 out of the required 3,089 signatures to put the issue to a public vote, but she did not collect the required number of signatures before the 8 March deadline when the ordinance went into effect. Kenneth Thornton persuaded forty homeowners who had been excluded from the district by the council’s action to join the Truman Neighborhood Homes Association whose members placed restrictive covenants on their deeds to prevent demolition. A few weeks after the council’s decision, Barbara and Billy Ray Earley, Deborah and Robert Stewart, Barbara and Kenneth Thornton, and Susan and Doug Walter filed suit in Jackson County Circuit Court against the city, claiming the council’s decision to reduce the boundaries of the heritage district violated state and federal constitutions. These suits went nowhere because the church no longer had property in the district.43 The protection of the church’s First Amendment right to practice reli42. Brent Schondelmeyer, “Delay Urged on Truman Decision,” Kansas City Star, 6 February 1984; David Goldstein, “Independence Shrinks Truman District,” Kansas City Times, 7 February 1984; “Park Service Focuses on Truman District,” Independence Examiner, 21 May 1984; Brent Schondelmeyer, “Listing of Truman District as ‘Threatened’ Is Urged,” Kansas City Star, 20 May 1984. 43. June Rhoads, “Don’t They Care?” letter to the editor, Independence Examiner, 1 March 1984; “Heritage Petition Drive Falls Short in Two Ways,” Independence Examiner, 8 March 1984; “Filling a Historic Void in Independence,” editorial, Kansas City Star, 18 December 1984; Debbie Coleman, “Truman District Covenant Drafted,” Kansas City Star, 11 December 1984; “Couples Sue over District Boundaries,” Independence Examiner, 7 March 1984.

160


gion uninhibited was a compelling argument to reduce the size of the heritage district. However, it was rejected by most of the neighbors in the expanded Truman Heritage District because many wanted to see the Truman history preserved. Ultimately, the will of the 1,200 members of the First Baptist Church prevailed over the 420 individuals in the Truman neighborhood. The First Amendment argument was the most cited justification for allowing the First Baptist and RLDS churches to expand their church facilities, but their position was bolstered by two important sub-arguments. In the past the community and city government had allowed churches to demolish buildings and expand their building and parking facilities without regard to the effect on the surrounding environment. In the 1940s and 1950s, the RLDS Church had constructed the auditorium and the parking lots that supported the facility in the middle of a residential area. During the 1960s and 1970s, the RLDS Church continued to purchase residential property around the auditorium in order to construct the temple envisioned by Joseph Smith in the 1830s. The Truman Heritage District ordinance was the first city ordinance that attempted to place some control over how churches could expand their facilities, and both the First Baptist and RLDS churches vigorously opposed any change in how the community had previously allowed churches to expand their facilities. The second underlying justification for the First Baptist Church expansion and the removal of historic properties was that the properties slated for removal were considered not historic. According to First Baptist Church representatives, the State Historic Preservation Office claimed that all but one of the church-owned properties was historic. Individuals who testified at the October 1983 planning commission meeting also made this argument. The building that the planning commission granted a demolition permit for in December 1983 was a craftsman bungalow and a structure one Truman relative in the neighborhood believed to be nonhistoric.44 Clearly, the community struggled to define how old a structure could be or what it should look like to be considered an integral part of the historic district. Even the Solomon and Claybaugh studies in the 1970s had divided the historic structures into “A” and “B” list properties, which implied that the B list properties were less significant than those on the A list. One resident of the heritage district believed the buildings the First Bap44. See Ardis Haukenberry to Potts, undated, [Truman Heritage District] First Baptist letters [1983–1984] [folder 2], ser. 14, Subject file 1967–1997, Potts Papers.


161

tist Church wanted to take down were not old, arguing that they had to be “mansions” to have historic value. Some residents who did not favor the church expansion even agreed with these comments, and one noted: “They are not the most historically significant homes.” But she still believed the church, in its proposal, was not being a “good neighbor” by demolishing homes to create parking lots.45 The council’s decision to reduce the size of the heritage district severely was a significant decision, not only because the council based the decision on the First Amendment but also because the decision reversed the city’s previous commitment to the preservation of the Truman neighborhood. In 1979 when the council members voted to expand the heritage district, they did so because they hoped to promote the area as a future tourist attraction and because the commission, and the firm it hired to survey the heritage district, also recommended the expansion. In 1984 the preservation battle in the Truman neighborhood pitted those who placed a primacy on the First Amendment against the Truman neighborhood’s ability to generate an economic return for the city in the form of tourist dollars. By invoking the First Amendment to justify a reduced heritage district, the city council also passed judgment on those historic resources that were no longer included in the 1979 expanded heritage district. In effect, in the mind of the council, these structures were no longer “historic” and formed no integral part of the Truman story. This was an ominous designation in Independence. Previously, when structures were viewed as possessing no history, like the properties in the Neck area, it was easy to justify their removal from the city’s landscape. Again in 1976, the city council lobbied state officials not to declare the Jones Hotel historic, even though it was the last structure on the square with significant ties to the city’s trails history. The state declined to deem it “historic,” and council members decided to bring it down because they believed the building replacing it would be more valuable economically. James Horn, local resident, summed up the situation nicely when he wrote: “It was a very wise move by the city to reduce the size of the Truman Heritage District, just recently—this too, removed sites that are not of historical value in any way or related to the Trumans.”46

45. Molly Hankins testimony, 18 October 1983, transcript of the Independence Planning Commission meeting, 112–113, Truman Heritage District [1983] [folder 2], ibid. 46. Horn’s comments were a response to the 1984 NPS General Management Plan. See folder D18 (May 9, 1984) Alt Responses, HSTR Central files, Harry S Truman NHS files.

162


Truman History as Tourist Attraction The city leaders who believed churches could expand at will under the protection of the First Amendment were the same elected officials who supported the push to make Independence a major tourist destination. At the center of this tourism plan was the promotion of the city’s Truman history through the 1984 Truman centennial. The city had planned for the Truman centennial since February 1983 when the Truman Centennial Commission was first appointed. The centennial’s first public event was held at the Truman home on 2 November 1983. Mayor Barbara Potts presented the city council–drafted Truman centennial proclamation, which read in part: “Harry S. Truman is the only president in modern times to have returned to his hometown to build his presidential library and live out his life.”47 The statement is significant because it demonstrated that city leaders were aware of the unique relationship Truman shared with Independence. Their actions also demonstrated, however, that they set limits on how far they were willing to go to preserve the environment surrounding the Truman home. The Independence Examiner got the centennial celebration off to a start in January 1984, when it published “A Personal History of Harry S. Truman by the Town That Grew a President.” The sixty-four-page newspaper insert featured many articles recalling Truman’s interaction with various family, friends, and neighbors over the sixty-four years he spent in Independence. Other articles recalled how excited city residents had become when Truman first visited his hometown as president in June 1945. George Dodsworth, chamber of commerce president during Truman’s tenure as president, recalled how the chamber organized welcome-home celebrations for the president and took care of the visiting press who accompanied him on these hometown visits. An article even recounted the February 1953 homecoming celebration speech Truman delivered in the auditorium of the RLDS Church, where he described the personal history he remembered on his morning strolls around the neighborhood. The publication was important because it clearly demonstrated the community was aware of the role Independence played in the life of Harry S. Truman.48 47. Zobrist to Clark Clifford, 7 February 1983, Potts and Roger T. Sermon, Jr., to Zobrist, 21 October 1983, Independence Truman Centennial Commission, folder F-TC 1984, Files of Bryson Rash, Truman Centennial Committee Papers. For the complete mayoral proclamation, see Independence Examiner, 19 January 1984. 48. “A Personal History of Harry S. Truman,” Independence Examiner, 19 January 1984.


163

While city leaders were aware of Truman’s sixty-four-year association with Independence, they also remained optimistic that the centennial would bring much needed tourist revenue to the city and expose tourists to the community’s other histories. The Truman library had been a tourist attraction since it opened in 1957, but city leaders felt they had never received a sufficient economic impact from the tourists who visited the library. The city planning director realized the library provided “good tourism business, but a negligible input into the local economy.” Mayor Potts also noted that the city had not capitalized on the tourists coming to the library. She hoped that developing other historical attractions would inspire tourists to spend a day or more in the city instead of just a few hours at the Truman library. She noted: “We really, until this year [1984], have not thought to keep them in town longer.”49 City leaders believed the opening of the Truman home for public tours would provide the centerpiece for this new tourism effort. However, they felt that, in order to experience the full economic impact of tourist revenue, the city needed to develop other historical attractions and these attractions needed to be open and linked together. Those attractions included the 1859 jail operated by the Jackson County Historical Society, the 1827 log courthouse, two city-operated historic house museums, the Truman courtroom in the courthouse on the Independence Square, the Truman depot, and sites related to the city’s Mormon history. In order to encourage tourists to visit these sites, the city believed it needed to provide free shuttle bus service for tourists. The Independence Chamber of Commerce issued a draft statement on tourism calling the “tourism shuttle system important to achieving the goal of lengthening the time visitors stay in Independence.”50 Millie Nesbitt, a councilwoman who supported the reduction of the heritage district boundaries and chairperson of the Independence Tourism Advisory Board created in 1975, was the city’s chief supporter of the shuttle bus. In 1983 the NPS expressed its support for the shuttle as a way to get tourists to and from the Truman home with minimal impact on the neighborhood. Above all, Nesbitt wanted the city to control the shuttle. She expressed “great fear” that an NPS-operated shuttle would exclude the city’s local sites from the tour route. Sarah Hancock, city tourism director, seconded 49. Kansas City Star, 22 September 1984, folder Independence, Missouri—Tourism, Vertical file, HSTL. 50. “Tourism Program for Independence, MO Positions of the Independence Chamber of Commerce, draft 3,” minutes, 8 May 1984, bound volume 1984, Independence Chamber of Commerce.

164


Nesbitt’s concerns when she noted: “If we don’t do something, the people are going to go to the two federal facilities (the library and the home) and leave.” The chamber of commerce also endorsed local control of the shuttle: “If the Park Department took over the shuttle, we would be out of control completely.” The city council approved Nesbitt’s call for the shuttle bus and awarded a contract to provide the service, coinciding with the public opening of the Truman home on 15 May.51 NPS superintendent Reigle was keenly aware of the city council’s support for tourism and worked the situation to the park’s advantage. One of Reigle’s main challenges in 1984 was to find a facility to serve the dual purpose of park headquarters and visitor contact area. In April, just days before the park staff were scheduled to move from their temporary office at the Truman library to an old funeral home, the site of the park’s new headquarters, the building burned. With the opening of the park less than a month away, Reigle immediately went to the mayor’s office to see if another location could be found. He knew the city was trying to establish a tourism program. He proposed that the park utilize volunteers from the city’s volunteer program to staff a visitor center and that the visitor center could promote all of the city’s historical attractions. In exchange the city would provide the NPS a rent-free and utility-free visitor center. Of the meeting Reigle recalled: “A political strategy was developed to implement this, and through working with the mayor and several other council people at that time, we were able to sway the political opinion of the city council and get the job done.”52 Reigle recognized how the Truman history had catalyzed the city’s interest in its other history, just as the 1957 opening of the Truman library had fostered renewed interest in the JCHS and the preservation of the 1859 jail. Remarkably, yet somewhat contradictorily, the council’s decision to support the NPS by funding the shuttle bus and providing a visitor contact facility seems out of place when compared to the council’s decision to reduce the size of the heritage district. However, city officials believed that preserving a few inconsequential buildings in the heritage district brought no economic reward for the city, whereas providing a shuttle bus 51. For creation of City Director of Tourism, see bill no. 77-111, ordinance no. 4502, City Tourism Office, Independence. Nesbitt from Independence Examiner, 12 April 1983, Hancock from Kansas City Star, undated, both in folder Home—219 N. Delaware Independence, MO (2 of 2) folder, Vertical file, HSTL; Minutes, 9 May 1984, in bound volume 1984, Independence Chamber of Commerce. 52. Norman Reigle, interview by Pam Smoot, draft transcript of oral history interview, 13 December 1985, Harry S Truman NHS, National Park Service, 10.


165

and a visitor center for the city’s historical attractions had an obvious economic reward in the form of spent tourist dollars. Reigle read the situation well: “I think most people that are in politics here realize the importance of tourism to the overall economy of this city, and that gives us a strong bargaining chip, too.”53 The dedication of the Harry S Truman National Historic Site was held on the front steps of the Harry S. Truman Library on 12 May. Approximately four hundred people, including Margaret Truman Daniel and the state’s congressional leaders, were present for the ceremony. Russell Dickenson, NPS director, delivered the dedication address. Tom Richter was a little disappointed that more local residents did not attend the dedication, but Superintendent Reigle was happy to have the park dedicated and open to the public. After the dedication, a ribbon-cutting ceremony was held at the home and private tours were given to dignitaries.54 The opening of the historic site officially signaled the presence of two federal agencies in Independence charged with managing the city’s presidential history. Library director Zobrist was glad to see the NPS in the neighborhood, especially during the debate over the heritage district, because for the first time he was able to share his support for the preservation of the Truman neighborhood with another federal agency. Zobrist was supportive of NPS efforts to encourage the city council to act responsibly with the heritage district, but he was glad not to be in the main firing line of any local criticism for doing so. Tom Richter commented: “Dr. Zobrist . . . felt he’d been in the trenches for quite a while . . . and was looking forward to us [NPS] taking our turn there as the leading advocate.”55 It appeared the city’s strategy for economic success through tourism was working. Hap Graff, community president of Commerce Bank located on the Independence Square, noted in a letter to Zobrist shortly after the dedication: “Everyone that I’ve talked with has mentioned the increased business activity the past two weeks and I’m sure that’s because of the Truman Centennial events.” Apparently, the community tension over the Truman historic districts did not prevent the public from coming to Independence to take part in the Truman Centennial.56 53. Reigle, Siron interview, 10–11. 54. Richter, Williams interview, 71. For dedication details, see Charles Burke, “Here’s Program for Truman Home Dedication,” Independence Examiner, 5 May 1984; Charles Burke, “Home Becomes Museum,” Independence Examiner, 14 May 1984. 55. Benedict K. Zobrist, interview by author, tape recording, Lake Lotawana, Missouri, December 2001; Richter, Williams interview, 39. 56. Hap Graff to Zobrist, 16 May 1984, folder Independence Truman Centennial, F-TC 1984, files of Bryson Rash, Truman Centennial Committee Papers.

166


Harry S Truman National Historic Site. Courtesy of author.

The Heritage Commission Shifts Focus After the 1984 preservation crisis, most city leaders promoted tourism solely for the economic benefits they hoped to reap. They showed their willingness to ignore historic preservation as a community planning tool, and the voice of the National Park Service. In the December 1984 budget hearings, the city eliminated funding for the position of historic preservation officer. In 1986 the IHC requested that Reigle be appointed an ex-officio voting member of the commission, the same status the Truman library director had held since 1974, but the council refused. Zobrist supported Reigle’s inclusion as an ex-officio member. He understood the council’s decision was out of its “desire to retain local control,” but Reigle should be added because “Mr. Reigle has attended meetings because of his interest.” Reigle attended a number of meetings in 1985 but attended only infrequently after the council’s decision in 1986. The commission’s work had changed since 1984, because the city council increasingly appointed commissioners who supported the right of churches to be excluded from the heritage district ordinance. Josephine Choplin, resident of the Truman Heritage and Truman NHL districts, noted in a letter to Rei-


167

gle: “The composition of the Heritage Commission is over-weighted with members from the First Baptist Church. This is unfair and they should not perpetuate themselves in that group.”57 The change in composition of the IHC went hand in hand with a change in its objectives. Prior to 1984 Pat O’Brien and the commission had worked tirelessly to promote and preserve the heritage district by drafting design guidelines and interpretive historical materials about the district. The new commissioners devoted more of their time to creating other locally designated districts and supporting the city’s efforts to build a trails museum. One commissioner indicated in 1985 that it was the commission’s responsibility to become involved in the “preservation of other areas,” not just the Truman district.58 The city council declined to appoint Reigle to the IHC, but they did appoint him an ex-officio position on the Tourism Advisory Board, and this appointment was significant. It demonstrated how the city viewed the Truman history and the Truman NHS, as just another historic home like the Vaile mansion or the Bingham-Waggoner estate that tourists came to visit. In effect the implications were that the Truman home was a tourist attraction the city was allowing the federal government to manage, but when it came to preserving the area surrounding the home, then those decisions would be made by local officials without NPS consultation.59

The First General Management Plan As the city became inattentive to the preservation of the Truman NHL, the NPS was poised to become the leading advocate for preserving the 57. Zobrist quoted from Commission minutes, 9 September 1986, binder January 1985–October 1986, Office of Historic Preservation Manager Papers, City of Independence (hereafter OHPM Papers); Josephine Choplin to Reigle, 21 October 1986, folder D18 Comments no. 3 (10-86), Central files, Harry S Truman NHS. In addition to the change in composition of the IHC, O’Brien’s position as historic preservation manager to the Heritage Commission had been eliminated due to a “lack of funds,” leaving the commission and city without an expert in historic preservation. 58. Commission minutes, 4 December 1984, binder January 1985–October 1986, OHPM Papers. A preservation officer was appointed again in July 1986; see memo from Frank Davis to commission members, 1 July 1986, ibid. For commission work on the trails center, see minutes, 8 January (quote), 5 February, 2 April, 7 May, 6 August 1985, 8 July, 4 November 1986, ibid. For work on the South Main historic district, see minutes, 2 December 1986, in ibid., November 1986–December 1987. 59. For Reigle’s 1983 appointment to the Independence Tourism Advisory Board, see Independence city ordinance 83-445, ordinance no. 7629, passed 1 August 1983.

168


Truman neighborhood. However, before Superintendent Reigle could craft a credible neighborhood preservation plan, he first had to debate internally with NPS officials on how best to preserve the Truman home. Most of the debate concerned the number of people who could tour the home in any one day. Reigle favored fixing the total number of people to 256, in order to limit the wear and tear on the house. Using as his guide the Lincoln Home NHS, which did not limit the number of people and consequently had to undergo a major rehabilitation effort, Reigle opted to be very conservative: “I guess if there was one overlying philosophy I had when I set this park up, . . . was that I decided I was going to be as tough as I possibly could get away with. . . . I was going to say no to everything, limit as much as I could to start out with, and then loosen up later on.” Those in the NPS who disagreed with him believed the park and the regional office would have to respond to numerous complaints from the public, who would write to their congressional representatives that they could not gain access to the home. A few complaints were lodged, but there was never the deluge of letters Midwest regional officials had imagined.60 The NPS would receive many more complaints from area residents when the park drafted its first general management plan (GMP)—the document designed to guide park management for the next ten or fifteen years. The two biggest issues facing the park were how to interpret and preserve the thousands of artifacts contained in the house and how to preserve the environment surrounding the Truman home, now threatened by the actions of the city council when it reduced the size of the heritage district. Instead of listing the NHL as endangered, Reigle and Charles Odegaard, Midwest regional director, wanted to draft a GMP to ensure the preservation of the neighborhood. This would certainly be a challenge because the park held no property within the district other than the Truman home. They assembled a GMP team of experts in history, architecture, and interpretation from the Denver service center, which at the time was responsible for major park-planning projects. In April 1984 the team published a document titled “Alternatives Document for Public Response.” The NPS presented four alternative concepts on how it could actively participate in the preservation of the Truman neighborhood. The first alternative proposed to limit the NPS involvement in the community to simply providing public tours of the Truman home. No tours of the neighborhood would be offered and no additional property in the Truman NHL 60. Reigle, Siron interview, 12–13.


169

would be acquired for park use. The second alternative, requiring additional legislation, called for the NPS to acquire a couple of properties directly related to the Truman story in the NHL and to interpret those buildings to the public and use them to provide visitor services. If those properties could not be acquired by government purchase, the NPS would attempt to acquire preservation easements on them that would allow the current owners to remain in their homes. However, if the properties were sold, the new owners would be required to maintain the existing exteriors and grounds. The third alternative called for the use of preservation easements on a greater scale to protect a larger part of the neighborhood, and for the neighborhood to be interpreted to the public by an audio tour conducted on the shuttle bus. The fourth alternative called for the acquisition of additional property, including two large institutional buildings located within the district. If implemented, the planners noted: “This alternative would result in the largest area of protection by expanding the boundary of the National Historic Site to coincide with the boundary of the Harry S Truman National Historic Landmark District.”61 Having just waged a preservation war with the IHC and the city council, members of the First Baptist Church were not happy to see these proposed alternatives, and they responded. This time their target was not the heritage commission and its local control but the NPS and its potential ability to exert federal control over local resources. Hughes was one of the first to respond. He believed the first alternative was appropriate, because “this alternative does not entangle the government with church property in a coercive fashion as alternatives 2, 3, & 4 seem to suggest.” Hughes praised the shuttle bus and did not disagree with the plan’s suggestion to acquire additional property for visitor services.62 Of the approximately 360 responses received by the NPS, 99 agreed that the first alternative was the best option because of church and homeowner rights. Although Hughes seemed still to cite the First Amendment as justification for churches to develop their properties as they saw fit, other respondents increasingly voiced concern about the federal regulation of private property and the ability of a federal agency to “control” part of 61. Alternatives Document for Public Response: General Management Planning for Harry S Truman National Historic Site, Independence, Missouri. 62. Some individuals responded to the alternatives on the form provided by the NPS. Others sent in their own letters. Hughes commented on the form. See folder D18 (May 9, 1984) Alt. Responses, Central files, Harry S Truman NHS. The responses cited in the next few paragraphs are all from these files.

170


their city. These concerns were heard often in the letters and testimony to the planning commission and city council regarding the fate of the heritage district. Betty Murphy, Independence resident but not a heritage district resident, favored the first alternative because “This allows the city of Independence to control its city rather than having outside persons do. . . . Independence is Truman’s home town. It is their responsibility to preserve its history relating to him. Having responsibility for his home is enough or more than enough for the federal government to assume.” Jannelle A. Gatchel, another resident outside the Truman NHL, supported the first alternative: “Because I, a taxpayer, feel this alternative best serves the interest of the citizens of Indep. & First Baptist Church.” Ms. Dorsie Lou Warr, resident of 720 W. Waldo, an address formerly included in the expanded heritage district, noted: “As a homeowner in this area I feel that we wish to be able to do as we please with our home. The other alternative threatens our personal freedom and violates our privacy. We knew Mr. Truman and think he would be horrified that his neighbors were to be inconvenienced.” There were other residents in the neighborhood who had also known Mr. Truman but who did not share Ms. Warr’s sentiments. In fact, 66 respondents favored the fourth alternative, the alternative with the most potential to bring federal presence into the community. Why? The fourth alternative, for many, was the neighborhood’s only hope at preservation. The council’s decision to reduce the size of the heritage district severely limited the ability of the heritage commission to preserve the city’s Truman history. The majority of Independence residents who expressed concern about federal control of property in their community did not live in the heritage district; those who favored the fourth alternative lived either in the former expanded heritage district or in the reduced heritage district. Josephine Choplin, an acquaintance of Margaret Truman Daniel, stated: “There is no need for them [First Baptist Church] to destroy further the original Dist[rict] by acquiring more properties, tearing these down, and replacing some with more parking lots.” Luke and Maxine Choplin at 304 N. Delaware, also longtime Truman friends, wrote that they supported the fourth alternative: “Because it is the Truman Landmark District and this area is where Harry Truman had his morning walks and visits with his friends and neighbors.” An anonymous supporter encouraged the NPS to move forward with the fourth alternative, because the “city [is] unable and unwilling to preserve Harry’s neighborhood. . . . I hope in future years that there still is a neighborhood to preserve. Stand tall against the anti-preservation foes.” Other residents such as Mrs.


171

Robert DeTray at 308 North Spring supported the fourth alternative and encouraged the NPS, as did several other respondents, to expand the boundaries of the Truman NHL. The support for the fourth alternative was centered in the Truman neighborhood, but the NPS did receive support for this alternative from other institutions in the community as well. Zobrist, Truman library director, favored it, and so did William C. Bullard, planning director: “In order that the integrity of this national historic and cultural resource can be protected and preserved for future citizens of Independence, the state of Missouri and the nation as a whole.” Bullard also supported the NPS acquisition of key neighborhood properties to allow the agency to provide visitor contact facilities for tourists. He also noted the park’s “administrative offices and ticket distribution should be kept in the Independence Square area to avoid congestion in the Truman Home area.” Bullard’s comments supported the preservation of the Truman neighborhood, and they also supported the promotion of the site as a tourist attraction because the city had made the opening of the presidential home central to its effort to develop the city as an important tourist destination. If the Truman home and neighborhood were not preserved, then the area would not serve as a gateway to the city’s other historical tourist attractions. Bullard believed the NPS visitor center on Independence Square aided the economic growth of the square, because visitors to the Truman home had to travel to the square to obtain tickets to the Truman home. He hoped tourists would patronize the Independence Square shops after receiving their tickets. The chamber of commerce recognized the tourism potential of the site when it endorsed parts of the NPS plan. Like Bullard, the president of the chamber, David May, encouraged the NPS to retain its visitor center on the Independence Square and to continue to participate in the “City operated shuttle system that meets the needs of both the National Park Service and other local sites.” The chamber stopped short of endorsing the alternative that increased the presence of the NPS in the neighborhood by acquiring preservation easements, but it did support the NPS acquisition of properties that were crucial to visitor services and increased interpretation of the neighborhood through “either guided or self-guiding walking tours.”63 Reigle and the GMP planning team assessed the public reaction to the plan. They assessed the comments also in light of the current political sit63. David May to Reigle, 9 May 1984, ibid.

172


uation in Washington, which at the time expressed a heightened commitment to limit federal involvement in local community affairs. In Reigle’s view, the Washington Department of Interior (DOI) officials believed the plan was “the most land-grabbing, empire-building plan they’d ever seen.”64 Given this reaction among Washington DOI officials, coupled with the concerns of local officials and the First Baptist Church, the NPS continued to rework the alternatives.

Truman Neighborhood Trust: NPS Preservation Strategy The NPS continued to rework the alternatives for management from November 1984 until September 1986, when the agency released another draft GMP. This draft incorporated the 1984 comments from the community. It also included a management plan for the Truman NHL—the work of Charles Odegaard, regional director, who favored a more limited NPS neighborhood role than Reigle. Odegaard proposed the creation of the Truman Neighborhood Trust.65 The trust, as outlined in this September 1986 draft, would be led by an executive director and guided by a board of directors composed of individuals from “local preservation, business, and civic groups, the Truman Library, the state historic preservation office, and the Department of Interior.” The trust would work closely with the historic site to “acquire lands and interests in lands, monitor easements and neighborhood change, enter into maintenance and other cooperative preservation agreements,” provide information about preservation tax incentives to neighbors, raise funds, oversee a revolving loan fund to finance neighborhood preservation projects, and provide legal support for properties in the Truman NHL threatened by demolition. The trust would receive a onetime federal appropriation of $460,000, which was supposed to “cover three years of operating expenses and provide a start-up property acquisition and investment fund.” 66 The 1986 draft GMP, in addition to calling for the creation of the Truman trust, also reduced the number of alternatives from four to three. The first alternative was described as the “no action” alternative, but it did not mean NPS inaction. Under this alternative the NPS would continue to provide guided tours of the Truman home but would not attempt to play 64. Reigle, Shaver interview, 7. 65. Ibid. 66. General Management Plan and Environmental Assessment: Harry S Truman National Historic Site, draft, September 1986, 30, 28 (two quotes).


173

an active role in the Truman NHL by either acquiring additional properties for visitor services or acquiring preservation easements on structures in the Truman NHL. The second alternative, identified as the “minimum requirements alternative,” called for the acquisition of three additional properties, which the NPS would preserve and utilize as office space and visitor service facilities in the Truman neighborhood. This alternative would make the park an “active participant in the national historic landmark district by providing federally supported technical assistance to organizations and individuals involved in historic preservation.” The third alternative, “the neighborhood emphasis alternative,” provided the most federal involvement when it advocated the expansion of the park’s boundary to include thirty-six properties within direct view of the Truman home. These properties included the three that the NPS would acquire in the second alternative. The remaining thirty-two would be added to the park through preservation easements, which would protect the facades of the buildings in perpetuity but would allow for private ownership of the homes. Since this alternative called for the park to have expertise in property acquisition and historical research, it outlined the need for the park to hire a historical architect and a historian.67 These three alternatives in the most part differed only slightly from the four presented in 1984. There was one important difference in that not one of the 1986 alternatives included the option of expanding the boundary of the historic site to encompass the entire Truman NHL boundary. The 1986 draft noted: “This option was dropped from further consideration by the National Park Service because the additional protection provided would not justify the high cost.” The 1986 draft made it clear that the NPS was interested in preserving the Truman NHL structures located within direct view of the Truman home. The agency was interested also in preserving those structures in the landmark not within direct view of the home, however. It hoped the NPS technical assistance and the programs of the neighborhood trust would encourage the preservation of those structures too.68 The 1986 draft alternatives received much public comment, and once more neighborhood residents and members of the First Baptist Church voiced strong opinions about the proposal. Hughes submitted a cover letter with an enclosed letter from a law firm outlining the church’s opinion of the draft GMP. In the final paragraph of Hughes’s cover letter, the pastor encouraged the NPS to “revise” the plan and “be content now and for67. Ibid., 73 (first alternative), 79 (second alternative), 89, 92. 68. Ibid., 103.

174


ever with overseeing the Truman home and the George Wallace Homes and the Noland/Haukenberry home [the three homes the NPS wanted to acquire]. . . . There is, in my judgment, no other role the Park Service needs to play in Independence.”69 The attached attorney’s response, drafted by Philip N. Krause of Watson, Ess, Marshall & Enggas, reiterated many of the same arguments the church had employed since 1974 regarding governmental oversight of church property. Above all, however, the church was concerned about the Truman Preservation Trust and the possible implementation of the third draft alternative, which called for a major park boundary change. The church, through Krause’s letter, outlined five major objections to the proposal. First, Krause argued, the adoption of the third alternative would “be an improper and unwarranted, if not unconstitutional, exercise of powers by the federal government infringing upon matters appropriately within the prerogative of local government,” because the expanded park boundary required the NPS to provide protection to a section of the Truman NHL that was still protected by the city’s heritage district and heritage commission. This situation, Krause argued, would usurp local control. Second, the third alternative was based on the “false precept” that “all structures visible from the Truman home” needed to be preserved. If this approach were adopted, Krause wrote, it would stifle the “vitality” of the neighborhood because it would “freeze its development as of a bygone date.” Third, the plan was not fiscally attainable “in a decade of huge federal budget deficits,” because the local government was “already utilizing its own resources to protect the quality of the Historic District.” Therefore, any federal money spent on a historical district already protected by a local historic district ordinance was not fiscally prudent. In his fourth objection, Krause argued the proposed Truman trust could utilize condemnation powers to control church-owned properties in the district. The last concern once again argued that the third alternative would violate the church’s First Amendment right to practice their religion as they saw fit. Krause concluded: “The proposal represents a fully unwarranted and expansive intrusion into local, private and religious affairs by the federal government (through the Park Service) . . . and end[s] with the federal government dominating an otherwise dynamic and viable community.”70 69. Hughes to Reigle, 20 October 1986, folder D18 Comments no. 2 (10-86), Central files, Harry S Truman NHS. 70. Philip N. Krause to Reigle, 18 October 1986, ibid.


175

Not everyone within the community believed the proposed trust and the third alternative would generate a federal takeover of Truman’s neighborhood. Mayor Potts favored the creation of the nonprofit trust but suggested that a majority of the trust’s board be composed of members from the local community. She recognized how difficult the planning process had been for the park and its superintendent when she observed: “I am very aware there are strong feelings in the community surrounding this subject. It appears to me you have tried to be sensitive to as many of these issues as possible and still adequately protect the environment that shaped President Truman.”71 Although Mayor Potts supported the concept of the trust, it received a cool reception from the heritage commission. C. Leonard Schaefer, commission chairperson but not a resident of the heritage district, argued that his principal concern with the plan was that it attempted to protect an area of the Truman NHL whose “residents” had already stated they did not want protection. He noted: “I suppose my summary comment is that the people of Independence have arrived at a decision as to what the majority preferred as boundaries. The NPS is responding by insisting that the boundary issue be revived . . . [which] will be further complicated with the possibility of the establishment of [a] Neighborhood Trust that could have condemnation powers.” Vernon Case, another IHC member and nonresident of the heritage district, embraced the second alternative because it would be “least disruptive” to area residents and would maintain the “local control” of the area. James R. Barbour, another commissioner and nonresident of the heritage district, opposed the trust because the “city has adequate resources to preserve the historic and architectural integrity of the district and the neighborhood setting the Trumans enjoyed.”72 It was clear the city council and heritage commission would not support any increased federal involvement in the Truman neighborhood, but neighborhood residents expressed strong support for the increased federal presence outlined in the third alternative. William C. Hankins, area resident, was very direct in his support for more federal involvement: “Local control, for whatever reason, seems ineffective.” Pauline Fowler, city resident, urged the “NPS to take over as much of the historic district 71. Potts to Reigle, 21 October 1986, ibid. 72. C. Leonard Schaefer to Reigle, 18 October 1986, folder D18 GMP Comments, Vernon Case to Reigle, 19 October, and James R. Barbour to Reigle, 20 October 1986, folder D18 Comments no. 3 (10-86), ibid.

176


it can manage considering both budgetary and management requirements,” because the “political situation” was “unsatisfactory.” Eleanor Sandy, resident of the Truman NHL and the person who submitted the initial petition of neighborhood signatures to the city council to create the heritage district, favored the third alternative: “The local government and Heritage Commission provide little or no protection to the area.”73 There were other area and neighborhood residents who embraced the third alternative. They believed that in order to understand Harry Truman fully one had to experience the neighborhood as he had—by walking through it. The Fullerton family, who had operated a bed and breakfast in the Truman district, supported the third alternative: “because local protection did not allow for a stable neighborhood.” However, the Fullertons were more prescient in their reasoning for federal involvement because they believed that as time passed the “neighborhood [would] become more and more special and important in interpreting the nation’s history.” They argued that the Truman story could not be told “by touring just the home itself,” that it “is the home and its setting that provides the context to understanding Truman.” Robert R. and Judith Tyson, homeowners at 604 West Farmer for twenty-four years, noted: “If the neighborhood milieu is preserved; those who come in the future will see it much the same as it was when Mr. Truman lived and took his daily walks on the neighborhood sidewalks. If not, this will only be our memory that lives and dies with us.” Teri Chandler, resident of the Truman NHL at 418 N. Pleasant (an address formerly located in the expanded Truman Heritage District), enthusiastically endorsed the third alternative, based on her personal neighborhood experience: Harry S. Truman was in the Presidential office when I was born. When he retired from office and moved his family back into their home on North Delaware, I was a toddler learning to walk. As I grew in the Truman neighborhood I used to watch President Truman take his walks—in time I’d be tagging along. On my way to school I’d meet him in the mornings on the corner to answer his questions about what I learned in history class the day before. It made me a part of the history I was learning about. . . . The relevancy to this, is that I was inspired by the historical atmosphere, the man himself, the neighborhood with its peace and serenity—and I was stimulated to become an individual of integrity like my parents, our neighbors, and our special neighbor Mr. Truman. I became a Teacher, a member of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Jackson County Historical Society. . . . I never had to leave the area to find success, importance, or treasure. For thirty five years I 73. William C. Hankins to Reigle, 4 October, Pauline Fowler to Reigle, 8 October, Eleanor Sandy to Reigle, 7 October 1986, folder D18 GMP Comments HSTR, ibid.


177

have valued the treasure in my own “backyard.” The Alternative number three . . . makes my treasure glow as it once did when I was a child.

Florence Mueller, city resident, summed up the sentiments expressed by the Fullertons, the Tysons, and Chandler about the significance of the neighborhood: “For purposes of teaching visitors about Mr. Truman, preserving the neighborhood is every bit as important as preserving the home itself.” Above all, city residents and members of the neighborhood held out hopes that the NPS plan could accomplish what the city council and the city-designated Truman Heritage District could not—the preservation of a presidential neighborhood.74 Members of the First Baptist Church did not see the same “treasure” Chandler saw in preserving the Truman neighborhood. As in the past, church members launched another letter-writing campaign to oppose the alternative that proposed the most NPS neighborhood involvement. Most of the letters reiterated the same concerns: the risk of restrictions on religious liberty, the fiscal irresponsibility of the third alternative, and fear of the perceived condemnation power of the Truman neighborhood trust.75 Doris Giles, community resident, wrote to Senator Ernest Hollings, chair of the Senate subcommittee on the DOI, to protest the proposed neighborhood trust. Giles encouraged Hollings to “vote against this proposal” and threatened the protest of “other churches and areas in the United States” if the proposal was approved. Denis Galvin, NPS employee, prepared a response to both Giles and Hollings on behalf of NPS director William Penn Mott. In a letter of response to Senator Hollings, Galvin clearly stated the Truman Preservation Trust had agency support: We believe the preservation of the Truman neighborhood is important to the interpretation of President Truman’s career because his values were molded in the Independence area, particularly in the neighborhood where he lived for so many years. The private trust would be a nonprofit entity established by Congress to ensure preservation of the historic integrity of the neighborhood.

Galvin dismissed Giles’s concern over the all-powerful trust: “We are not proposing that the trust have condemnation powers to acquire façade 74. Mrs. H. R. Fullerton, Harvey Reed Fullerton, and Margaret Tacy Fullerton to Reigle, 18 October, Teri Lea Chandler to Reigle, 19 October, Florence Mueller to Reigle, 4 October 1986, ibid. 75. See Deborah Mattke to Reigle, 19 October 1986, folder D18 Comments no. 2 (1086); John and Ruth Frantz to Reigle, 2 October, Margorie Gillum to Reigle, 16 October 1986, folder D18 GMP Comments, ibid.

178


easements. This is an important point frequently misunderstood by critics of the plan and something we are trying to correct.”76 Nonetheless, it seems the NPS and Reigle had a difficult time persuading city residents and leaders, with the exception of Mayor Potts, that the trust was not as menacing as they believed. On 20 October 1986, the Independence City Council passed resolution no. 2733, which favored the NPS acquisition of the two Wallace homes and the Noland home for use as future visitor contact and park office facilities. However, the resolution opposed “the United States Park Service or any trusts or commissions established by the Park service having the right of condemnation of private property and the right to purchase easements within the residential community surrounding the Truman home.”77 The council remained convinced the trust had the power of condemnation. While the creation of an NPS-funded trust was out of the question with members of the First Baptist Church and a majority of city leaders with the exception of the mayor, most supported the acquisition of three additional properties for the historic site. Why? These acquisitions were integral to promoting the city as a tourist attraction, and the structures, which the NPS wanted for visitor contact areas and additional staff offices, complemented that goal. The Independence City Council resolution that supported the NPS acquisition of the three properties acknowledged the “City has actively been involved in efforts to preserve the rich historic heritage of our community.” John and Ruth Frantz, who opposed “the national take over” of Truman’s hometown by the proposed third alternative, did believe it was acceptable for the NPS to acquire the additional properties and hoped “the Truman Home and Library will be the big attractions to visitors in our fair city.”78 The resolution issued by the city council in response to the draft GMP was important because, for the first time, city leaders did not invoke the First Amendment argument to justify the reduced size of the Truman Heritage District. The resolution said nothing about how the NPS plan would prevent churches from exercising religious liberty but instead argued, as had some residents and IHC members opposing the plan, that if the third 76. Doris S. Giles to Ernest Hollings, 20 October, Denis P. Galvin for William Penn Mott to Ernest F. Hollings, 20 November 1986, folder D18 no. 1, ibid. 77. Independence City Council resolution no. 2733, 20 October 1986, folder D18 Comments no. 3 (10-86), ibid. 78. General Management Plan: Harry S Truman National Historic Site, 35; John and Ruth Frantz to Reigle, 2 October 1986, folder D18 GMP Comments, Central files, Harry S Truman NHS.


179

alternative were adopted it would seriously curtail city government from retaining “local control over our community for our residents.” The council firmly believed that allowing the NPS to manage three additional properties was a fair tradeoff in light of the more intrusive third alternative. Council members agreed to allow the NPS to seek the acquisition of the three additional properties, but they also stipulated in their resolution that they would oppose “any other direct ownership of additional property within this neighborhood by the federal government.”79 In May 1987, after a thorough review from Washington, Don Castleberry, Midwest regional director, approved the final version of the GMP, which adopted the third alternative as the preferred alternative and laid out plans to establish the Truman Neighborhood Trust. The finished GMP noted that about one-half of the 160 respondents to the draft GMP “supported expanding the [historic site] boundary beyond the four Trumanrelated structures” while the other half of respondents objected to the expansion outlined under the third alternative. The completed GMP, like Galvin’s letter to Senator Hollings, once again refuted the idea that the trust would utilize condemnation power to wrest properties in the district away from their owners. The final plan concluded: “The National Park Service still believes that a preservation trust, rather than local regulation alone, is a more adequate method for protecting the Truman home’s setting.”80 The approved GMP also recommended that the park pursue two other management goals. The first was to lease an off-site storage facility where artifacts not on display on the first floor of the Truman home could be housed in a more stable and controlled environment. The second major management objective was to acquire the three additional Trumanrelated historic properties and add them to the NHS boundary. The latter management action required congressional approval and funding.

Implementation of the 1987 General Management Plan Superintendent Reigle was pleased to have an approved GMP in place finally, and he immediately worked to implement the plan. The off-site storage facility was leased, and park staff, who had already catalogued a number of artifacts inside the home and temporarily housed them at 79. General Management Plan: Harry S Truman National Historic Site, 36. 80. See ibid., iv–v.

180


The preferred alternative adopted by the National Park Service in the 1987 GMP. The NPS never acquired the preservation easements outlined in the plan. Courtesy National Park Service.


181

182


the Truman library, transported them to the new facility in February 1988. Since the third alternative had been approved, Reigle immediately arranged to have uniformed park rangers give summer walking tours of the Truman NHL. The tours began in May and lasted through September 1987.81 Acquiring leased space for the site’s museum collection and establishing neighborhood walking tours were relatively easy objectives to achieve. The most difficult tasks would be acquiring the three additional properties and establishing the neighborhood trust. Both of these required an act of Congress. Although Reigle was optimistic about acquiring the three additional properties, he was not optimistic the trust would be implemented. The reason was simple: “The acquisition of the historic homes has current political support, the trust portion does not.” In his oral history interview, Reigle clarified what he meant by “current political support”: “There is absolutely no support among the city council, and consequently, there’ll be no congressional support because Congress does not generally go against the wishes of the local government.”82 Reigle worked on the acquisition of the three additional properties. In October 1988 Alan Wheat and Ike Skelton, Missouri congressional representatives, issued a press release announcing they had jointly sponsored a bill to expand the NHS boundary. Margaret Truman Daniel, who had a financial interest in two of the properties, supported the NPS property acquisition. Reigle noted: “I had quite a bit of input from her on that, and that would have never passed Congress without her support.” Reigle also had the support of the city council and Mayor Potts, who engineered a unanimous city council resolution supporting the boundary expansion.83 The NPS park boundaries were not the only boundaries that were expanding at the close of 1988. In January 1989 the RLDS Church came before the heritage commission to announce plans for its proposed temple site. Although technically all construction was scheduled to occur outside the Truman Heritage District, church leaders presented their plans to the commission anyway. The first phase of the plan called for the demolition of structures around the auditorium to provide additional auditorium parking. The second phase of the plan called for the construction of the 81. Memo to all employees, 10 December 1987, NPS squaff minutes, 7 April, 1 October 1987, Blues file, Harry S Truman NHS. 82. Reigle to Laura Loomis, National Parks and Conservation Association, 29 July 1988, ibid.; Reigle, Shaver interview, 6. 83. NPS squaff minutes, 13, 26 October 1988, Blues file, Harry S Truman NHS; Reigle, Siron interview, 40 (quote), 35–36.


183

temple on the current auditorium parking lot and involved properties located immediately south and west of the Truman NHL. The commission agreed to recommend these proposals, saying they would not have “an adverse impact on the Harry S Truman National Landmark District.”84 The motion passed unanimously without any further public comment, and the temple construction was under way by 1990. While the RLDS Church was quickly working to develop its global headquarters, the NPS expanded the number of structures that comprised the Harry S Truman NHS. In October 1989 President George H. W. Bush signed into law the legislation that allowed the NPS to purchase the three additional properties outlined in the 1987 GMP for no more than $250,000 in federal funds.85 The property acquisitions were not immediate, but by 1992 the park’s boundaries included the three historic properties outlined in the 1987 GMP. With the passage of the legislation to expand the park’s boundaries, Reigle felt he had achieved everything he could as superintendent at the site. He did not seek congressional sponsorship for legislation that would create and fund the trust because he knew the concept did not have local political support. If he stayed on longer, he said, he wanted to put “some real emphasis” on adding the Truman farm home in Grandview to the NHS. He placed this priority ahead of securing “better protection” for the Truman neighborhood because he was not optimistic the Truman neighborhood could be protected, observing: “It may be someday, but I’m not sure it’s going to be . . . It’s not now. It’s not at all. It may be some day, but I doubt it.”86 When Reigle reflected back on why the community had a difficult time preserving its presidential history, he said that “rightly or wrongly,” the city council feels “there is such a strong political influence from the Baptist voting bloc that they will not do anything to anger that voting bloc or offend that voting bloc.” Reigle did not interpret the actions taken by the city council and some members of the local community who opposed a greater federal role in the preservation of the Truman neighborhood as being part of an antifederal government crusade. In fact, when he compared his experiences at Harry S Truman NHS with those at other parks where he had served, he concluded: “With some of the other parks that I’ve been in, this [HSTR] has been by far, by quantums, the least negative area 84. Commission minutes, 19 January 1989, in binder January 1988–June 1989, OHPM Papers. 85. NPS squaff minutes, 12 October 1989, Blues file, Harry S Truman NHS. 86. Reigle, Siron interview, 36.

184


I’ve ever worked in.” He believed his experiences with the First Baptist Church, while challenging, did not compare to the “negative community feeling” toward the NPS that he had experienced while working at Ozark National Scenic Riverways. Having a majority of the neighbors within the Truman NHL boundaries support the NPS was rare, and it made the park easier to manage because “we weren’t fighting a lot of anti-park service community feelings.”87 Despite Reigle’s belief that there were not “a lot of anti-park service community feelings” in Independence, the comments submitted by those responding to the draft GMPs suggest there was a segment of the population that opposed both local and federal control in their community. Individuals who opposed the trust did so because they believed it violated the church’s First Amendment right to practice religion freely. However, they often coupled the religious freedom argument with the belief that a federal plan like the trust would usurp local control and exert an undue burden on local property owners. By 1989, when Reigle left Harry S Truman NHS, it was clear who controlled the city’s presidential history and how that history resonated within the city’s historical consciousness. The city council’s decision not to support the Truman Preservation Trust coupled with their decision to deny Reigle a seat on the heritage commission and their willingness to appoint commission members favorable to church interests all demonstrated that the council, not the NPS, would control the preservation of the city’s presidential history. Furthermore, the council members’ actions demonstrated that they viewed the Truman history as an economic commodity to be sold to tourists visiting the city. This was clearly apparent when the council promoted the opening of the Truman home as the centerpiece of the city’s effort to turn Independence into a major tourist attraction. The view of history as purely a commodity is clearly apparent once again in the council’s decision to allow Reigle a seat only on the Independence Tourism Advisory Board, signaling that the NPS would be considered nothing more or less than just another local tourist attraction. The 1984 preservation battle and the 1987 battle over the NPS-proposed Truman Preservation Trust demonstrate how other members of the community viewed the significance of the Truman neighborhood, and more important, how they viewed the environment Truman had experienced on his morning walks. A majority of the neighborhood residents wanted the area preserved, and others articulated exactly why. For many, such as 87. Reigle, Shaver interview, 6, 44.


185

Teri Chandler and Robert and Judith Tyson, Truman’s neighborhood preservation resonated deeply within their historical consciousness, because they had interacted personally with the former president as a neighbor. However, not everyone who urged city leaders and church officials to preserve the Truman neighborhood was inspired by personal interaction with the former president. The Morris family had never known the Truman family personally but had moved to the historic district because they wanted to be in a nationally significant area. They also encouraged city leaders and church officials to preserve the neighborhood. They understood the importance of preserving the environment that had influenced a former president. When the city council rejected the concept of the NPS Truman Preservation Trust as a mechanism for preserving the structures in and around the Truman home, there was no other credible plan in place to protect the resources of Truman’s neighborhood. A plan to encourage the preservation of the structures was necessary, because by 1989, many of the buildings in the area that dated to the early twentieth century were beginning to show signs of decay. How the city addressed this situation linked inextricably the city’s Mormon and Truman histories.

6

Redevelopment in the Truman Neighborhood We want the historic area to have a different feeling.We want to make sure the Truman Historic area is set apart. —Mary Ottman, city planner, 27 June 1997

The neighbors in the Truman NHL remained optimistic that the NPS neighborhood trust would eventually be implemented, but this optimism was short-lived because the superintendents who replaced Norman Reigle neither sought congressional funding for the trust nor actively pursued the acquisition of preservation easements on properties within direct sight of the Truman home. Instead, they focused on preserving the Truman home and its artifacts and the three additional properties added to the site in 1992. In late 1993 the NHS added the Truman farm to its holdings, and additional staff time and money were appropriated to manage this site, located fifteen miles from Independence. The result was that NPS managers turned their management efforts increasingly inward, to their own properties, and did little beyond advocating—through public comment and an occasional neighborhood walking tour—the preservation of the Truman neighborhood. City officials and members of the heritage commission from 1985 to 1995 also lost interest in preserving the Truman NHL. The council and the commission members it appointed during this period all favored the right of churches to develop their own properties as they saw fit. The IHC invested its energies in trying to create new historic districts and became in-

186

Redevelopment in the Truman Neighborhood

187

volved in the promotion of the National Frontier Trails Center (see Chapter 2). In addition to the distracted focus of the heritage commission during this ten-year period, the city also lacked an experienced preservation manager. O’Brien’s position was eliminated in 1984 because of a “budget shortfall.” The city eventually reestablished the position, but the individual who filled the position had little urban preservation experience and did not effectively develop a preservation agenda for the heritage district. The year 1995 marked a turning point in the city’s preservation efforts, however. A new preservation manager was appointed who had extensive preservation experience, and under his leadership, and now with IHC members who believed that all properties within the heritage district should be treated equally, the city began to preserve the Truman Heritage and NHL districts more effectively. This year, however, also marked the beginning of a major redevelopment project around the Truman home, funded initially by the RLDS Church and overseen by a local redevelopment corporation to which the city had given exclusive redevelopment rights. While the city made strides in preserving the individual structures of the Truman neighborhood in the last decade of the twentieth century, it made little progress in fostering appreciation for Truman’s larger neighborhood environment. Since 1983, when city leaders rejected the Truman Neighborhood Trust advocated by the NPS, the city had lacked a preservation strategy for the larger Truman neighborhood. This lack of an overall preservation strategy suggests that the city leaders did not believe the preservation of Truman’s neighborhood was important.

More Truman Neighborhood Deterioration Ron Mack replaced Norman Reigle as superintendent in 1989. He continued Reigle’s policy and did not pursue the creation of the Truman Preservation Trust, but the NPS still advocated for resources outside park boundaries. Mack faced his first public preservation battle when Uptown Independence, a group formed to redevelop the Independence Square and backed by Barbara Potts and Benedict Zobrist, proposed a walking trail to link the Truman sites on the square with those in the neighborhood. Uptown Independence retained the planning firm of Ochsner Hare & Hare to draft a walking trail proposal featuring the city’s Truman history. The plan called for changes to the cultural landscape on the square and throughout the Truman NHL, including the addition of sculptures, new

188


lighting, and interpretive plaques to sections of the Truman heritage and NHL districts. At a meeting about the new walking trail in April 1991, Mack delivered a fifteen-minute presentation in which he argued that “maintaining the integrity of the cultural landscape is a priority of the National Park Service and city of Independence, and that maintaining the historic character and integrity of [the] National Historic Landmark District has equal importance and priority to that of maintaining the historic character of Harry S Truman National Historic Site.” The superintendent clearly considered the Truman NHL structures just as significant as the properties managed by the NPS. The GMP drafted under Reigle had certainly conveyed a similar commitment, but Reigle had never stated in public that the structures outside the park’s boundaries were as important as the Truman home. Mack encouraged Uptown Independence to present its draft plans to the NPS, the city, and the heritage commission before they were made public.1 In November 1992 Mack faced his greatest challenge as superintendent when the First Baptist Church reopened a miniature preservation crisis after it demolished the former home of E. P. Gates, a prominent Independence resident and relative of Bess Truman. The incident, while perceived as negative to those who supported neighborhood preservation, reinvigorated a preservation ethic among the neighbors who had weathered the earlier preservation storms, and it prompted a change in the way city hall handled demolitions. Neighborhood resident Brian Snyder stood out in the freezing weather holding a sign that read: “Is this your Ministry to our neighborhood?” The house was outside the Truman Heritage District and Truman NHL boundary, but it had once been included in the 1979 expanded local district. Mack, who had been successful in getting the heritage commission to allow the park superintendent to be a permanent nonvoting ex-officio member of the commission, told the city council that the church’s actions were a “disgrace.” On the evening of the demolition Snyder addressed the city council about the issue, and the council responded by unanimously imposing an immediate moratorium on demolition, not only in the Truman Heritage District but in the area that for-

1. Memo from Superintendent, Harry S Truman NHS, to Regional Director, Midwest Region, dated April 1991, Blues file, Harry S Truman NHS. Uptown submitted preliminary design plans to the city in June 1992, but they were never implemented due to the budgetary constraints of the drafted plan. See Ronald Mack to Zobrist, 12 June 1992, ibid. Uptown Independence was defunct by 1993.


189

merly made up the enlarged 1979 Heritage district. Councilman Bill Baker said the situation made him “very sad that we have let the city get into the condition that it is. . . . I am going to put the feet to the fire to see some action taken on these things.”2 Mack, Zobrist, Mayor Bill Carpenter (who had succeeded Potts), and Beverly Fleming, historic preservation coordinator from the Missouri DNR, met to discuss the demolition. Both Mack and Fleming encouraged the mayor to draft an ordinance that would permanently ban demolition in the city. However, Mayor Carpenter said the city government would not interfere “with private land-owners’ rights.” Despite the mayor’s objection to a citywide moratorium usurping property rights, the city council decided to impose a smaller, yet well-defined, demolition moratorium, which was an important step forward for historic preservation in Independence. The heritage commission would oversee the nonpermanent demolition moratorium, which stipulated that anyone applying for a demolition permit within the moratorium zone, which included a larger area around the heritage district, would have to present their demolition case before the heritage commission. In short, the destruction of the E. P. Gates house and the resulting demolition moratorium expanded the power of the commission to comment on the potential loss of historic structures outside the Truman Heritage District boundaries.3 The demolition of the Gates house angered many neighborhood residents. Approximately seventy-five people attended a meeting to develop a strategy to prevent more demolitions. Irwin Fender, Truman NHL resident, believed they needed to form a neighborhood association. Councilman Ron Stewart, representing the residents in the Truman neighborhood, agreed with Fender. Others like Jo Reimal wanted to see the heritage district expanded back to the old enlarged boundary. When the group of seventy-five was asked whether they would sign a petition asking the city council to restore the old expanded boundaries, about half the members of the group raised their hands. Not everyone agreed that the

2. Kate Beem, “Neighbors Protest Losing an Old House,” Independence Examiner, 23 November 1992. For NPS nonvoting ex-officio status, see commission minutes, 2 October 1990, in binder July 1990–June 1991, OHPM Papers. Memo from Mack to Regional Director, Midwest Region, 30 November 1992, Blues file, Harry S Truman NHS; Matt Beam, “Council Puts the Brake on House Razings,” Independence Examiner, 24 November 1992 (quote). 3. Memo from Mack to Regional Director, Midwest Region, 30 November 1992, Blues file, Harry S Truman NHS. For the moratorium boundary, see commission minutes, 8 December 1992, in binder July 1992–June 1993, OHPM Papers.

190


boundaries should be expanded, however, and Stewart noted he had received twelve letters opposed to reestablishing the expanded heritage district. Superintendent Mack reiterated that the historic district “tells the story of the Truman legacy” and encouraged the group to preserve the neighborhood.4 Hughes weighed in on the debate in an article appearing in the Examiner. He argued: “The best approach to preserving historic properties is maintaining the current Heritage District and considering the establishment of new heritage districts in other parts of town.” He defended the demolition of the home: “Our church has stabilized the historic district by guaranteeing the streetscape on the north side of Truman Road . . . at a significant cost to the church.”5 The commission seemed to be following the advice outlined by Hughes in the Examiner article. Several commission members favored creating another historic district on South Main Street. That designation never got off the ground, but it did take the commission’s attention away from the needs of the Truman district. The heritage commission’s lack of focus on the Truman district from 1985 to 1994 was coupled also with a deficiency in city staff understanding of the historical significance of the Truman NHL designation. In 1993 Frank Davis, the city’s preservation officer, asked Mack what historic structures in the Truman NHL were still significant: “As you know, not all of the properties listed in the Park Service Plan are National Register caliber, and some have deteriorated since the Environmental Assessment was conducted.” Davis wanted Mack to rate the properties in order of importance. Mack responded: “The National Park Service considers all of the historic structures and properties which comprise the Harry S Truman National Historic Landmark District and those within the Harry S. Truman Heritage District to be of primary significance and worthy of protection. . . . Therefore protection and preservation of the properties within those boundaries should receive the highest priority of the city of Independence.” In light of the demolition of the Gates house and a demolition near miss of the Truman depot, Mack pushed the city to preserve those Truman-related structures outside the NHL boundaries, boldly asserting that these properties should “also receive the same degree of protection and preservation.” Clearly, the city’s preservation officer did 4. Matt Beem, “Some People Want Enlarged Truman District,” Independence Examiner, 1 December 1992. 5. Matt Beem, “Council Puts Six-Month Ban on Demolition,” Independence Examiner, 8 December 1992.


191

not adequately understand the historical significance of the properties within the Truman NHL or the Truman-related properties outside those boundaries.6 While these preservation issues occupied much of Mack’s time, he also spent some time working on the NPS acquisition of the Truman farm in Grandview. The push to add the farm to the NHS had begun before Reigle left in 1989. In May of that year the Jackson County legislature passed a resolution authorizing the county executive to write to senators John Danforth and Christopher Bond and congressman Alan Wheat requesting that the National Park Service assume ownership of the Truman farm home. In response, the NPS drafted “Alternatives for the Management of the Truman Family Farm, Grandview, Missouri,” a draft document released by the Midwest regional office in May 1990 that included several alternatives, including one calling for the addition of the farm home to the NHS in Independence.7 At first, NPS officials fought the addition of the farm home to the historic site because it lacked “integrity.” Of the 600 acres Truman had farmed between 1906 and 1917, only 5.2 acres remained, and as NPS assistant director of planning James Stewart put it: “It was the plowing of soil, sowing of seed and milking of cows that were important to Truman’s development. That cannot be recaptured on a 5.2 acre parcel of land.” Despite NPS opposition, however, the plan had congressional support as well as local political support in Grandview. In 1991 senators Bond and Danforth introduced a bill that would add the farm to the Independence historic site, but the bill did not make it out of the Senate National Parks subcommittee. Bond introduced the bill again and held hearings on the proposal in the following Congress. Historians David McCullough, Robert Donovan, and Robert H. Ferrell submitted written testimony supporting the addition of the farm. At the same hearing, Jerry L. Rogers, NPS associate director, stated that the NPS now supported acquisition of the site. Robert Eller and Betty Dawson—speaking on behalf of the Truman Farm Home Foundation and the Friends of the Truman Farm Home, two 6. Frank C. Davis to Mack, 19 August 1993, Central files, Mack to Davis, 27 August 1993, Blues file, Harry S Truman NHS. The Truman depot, located just south of the temple complex, was the train station utilized by Truman and his family during his presidential and post-presidential years. The Union Pacific company wanted to demolish the structure in 1993. See memo from Mack to Regional Director, Midwest Region, 7 May 1993, ibid. 7. “Draft: Alternatives for the Management of the Truman Family Farm, Grandview, Missouri,” NPS, Midwest Region, May 1990, in possession of author.

192


organizations supporting the preservation and interpretation of the farmstead—also advocated NPS acquisition of the property. In 1994 President Bill Clinton signed into law the bill that accepted the farm home as a donation to the U.S. government from Jackson County and authorized the NPS to manage the site.8 While additional properties were being added for the NPS to manage, the neighborhood surrounding the Truman home continued to deteriorate. The Jackson County Historical Society sponsored a forum in February 1994 on historic preservation in Independence, and panelists discussed how to preserve the area around the home. Brent Schondelmeyer, JCHS board member and forum panelist, stated that Independence was just “too wild about Harry. . . . It [the wildness] clearly has affected the preservation debate. Because Harry’s shadow crossed this porch, should the structure be saved? If he filled his car at this gas station, what should we do? . . . We should be interested in historic preservation—and with that our neighborhoods—not because Harry Truman lived there but because we live here.” While the newspaper did not report any direct response to Schondelmeyer’s statements, one Independence resident, Dorace Wilson, was not so sure the community was “wild” about its past, including its Truman history: I have heard of a sign in Kansas that invites travelers to stop and see the deepest hole in the ground. Another area has an invitation to tourists to view the biggest ball of string. And here we are, in a rich historical area that we seem to be unable to appreciate. Without a doubt, the town with the deepest hole and the town with the biggest ball of string would welcome the opportunity to be burdened with the historical heritage that we seem to take for granted.9

Concern about the structures in and around the Truman home continued in the spring of 1994. During a torrential downpour, the front façade of the home located immediately to the north and west of the Truman home collapsed. The Choplin home, as it was known historically, had ties to the Truman story. The city talked about demolishing the building because it posed a safety hazard; however, neighborhood residents came together and formed the Truman Preservation Trust to oversee the rehabilitation of the structure. The trust applied for and received a temporary loan from the state historic preservation revolving loan fund to restore the 8. Gail E. H. Evans-Hatch and Michael Evans-Hatch, Farm Roots and Family Ties: Historic Resource Study, 108–9 (108). 9. Forrest Martin, “City Too Wild about Harry, Says Speaker,” Independence Examiner, 11 February 1994.


193

exterior of the building. Demolition was halted and the building was later rehabilitated for single-family occupancy. Although the Truman Preservation Trust focused on the preservation of the Choplin home, Brian Snyder, the trust’s president, hoped the organization could operate similarly to the NPS-proposed trust described in the 1987 GMP by purchasing properties in the area, rehabilitating them, and putting them back on the market for sale. Unfortunately, the trust did not have the necessary capital to carry out such a plan, and once again the neighborhood surrounding the Truman home was left without a credible preservation plan to preserve the properties located in the Truman Heritage and NHL districts.10 It is ironic that the heritage commission offered no public reaction to the façade collapse of the Choplin home. Instead, the commission focused its efforts on revising the Harry S. Truman Heritage District ordinance that described what property types should be subject to the ordinance. In April 1994 an IHC subcommittee released a draft revised ordinance for the city’s heritage district. This ordinance, if enacted, would exclude all religious and commercial property in the district from heritage commission review. The subcommittee’s draft ordinance revision clearly demonstrated that a majority of the commission members still sided with those interests in the city who wished to give religious and commercial interests special consideration in the city’s historic preservation program.11 The subcommittee sent its draft ordinance for comment to the State Historic Preservation Office, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the National Park Service, and the Jackson County Historical Society. All four agencies rejected the ordinance’s provision to exempt churches and businesses from heritage commission oversight. The JCHS and the NPS suggested a change in the voting status of the superintendent of the presidential NHS from ex-officio nonvoting member to an ex-officio voting member of the commission.12 The revised ordinance was never acted upon; the commission granted Mack voting privileges for the first time at the IHC meeting on 7 February 1995.

10. Terry Young, “Old House Gets Thirty-Day Reprieve,” Independence Examiner, 19 July 1994; Terry Young, “Group Working to Give House Second Chance,” Independence Examiner, 9 August 1994. For the lack of capital, see Kenneth Apschnikat to Bruce Craig, 28 February 1997, Blues file, Harry S Truman NHS. 11. Commission minutes, 5 April 1994, in binder January 1994–June 1994; commission minutes, 6 February 1996, folder HC 21 February 1996, both in OHPM Papers. 12. Claire Blackwell to Frank Davis, 22 June, Frank Gilbert to Davis, 31 May, Potts to Davis, 17 May, Mack to Davis, 6 May 1994, folder HC meeting 9 April 1996, OHPM Papers.

194


The Midtown Truman Road Corridor (M/TRC) Redevelopment Plan Neither the NPS nor the city’s heritage commission had any effective plan to address the issue of deteriorating structures within or immediately adjacent to the Truman Heritage and NHL districts. In 1993 the city of Independence took action to address the substandard housing in the city and hired the planning firm Ochsner Hare & Hare to complete a comprehensive housing survey. The report noted a large number of substandard homes in and around the Truman home and the RLDS temple complex. The RLDS Church subsequently contracted with the same planning firm to study the area around the temple complex and to craft a plan to address the housing issue. The planning firm studied an area of seventytwo blocks around the temple complex, including approximately twelve hundred structures, and drafted what came to be known as the Midtown/Truman Road Corridor Redevelopment (M/TRC) plan. Since the church still owned the hospital, the study area included the land occupied by Independence Regional Health Center and Resthaven, the churchowned nursing home. It also included the Truman home and part of the Truman NHL; but only the west side of Pleasant Street was included, which excluded the First Baptist Church and a portion of the Truman NHL from study. The northern boundary of the study area also excluded a small portion of the Truman NHL.13 The study determined that the project area had the highest concentration of rental property in the city. One of the reasons for this was that the Central Development Association, the real estate–holding arm of the RLDS Church, owned a number of rental properties in the area. Depending on the temple development plan, as well as other church institutional plans, these structures would be demolished at the appropriate time to create a visual entryway to the temple complex. The study clearly showed that most of the multi-family housing was located in and around the newly built temple. The Truman NHL also had some multi-family housing within its borders, but most was outside the Truman NHL, just west of the Truman home along Truman Road.14 13. Sally Schwenk, M/TRC Redevelopment board member, telephone conversation with author, 19 February 2003; Ochsner Hare & Hare, Midtown/Truman Road Corridor Revitalization Plan, 1. 14. Ochsner Hare & Hare, Midtown/Truman Road Corridor Revitalization Plan, 3. There is a complete list of properties and their owners in appendix A, “Current Property Owners,” of the study “Mid-town Truman Road Corridor Redevelopment Agreement,” by Freilich, Leitner, and Carlisle (M/TRC offices, Independence).


195

Within the seventy-two-block area the plan called for the rehabilitation of several hundred homes, the demolition of approximately two hundred structures, the creation of a new park, the construction of an RLDS Church nursing school, and construction of fifty single-family homes and fortyfive townhomes. The majority of the demolitions were to occur on the western border of the Truman NHL. They were to be carried out to accommodate the church’s desire to construct the nursing school. The plan outlined additional infrastructure improvements that included new curbs and gutters, streetlights, and the burial of utilities underground.15 It is important to note, this plan was not a preservation plan designed to preserve the Truman neighborhood or the neighborhoods surrounding the RLDS world headquarters. It was designed to protect and enhance the interests of the RLDS Church. In a brief section titled “Historic Character,” the plan noted the “significant national historic value” of the city’s presidential, trails, and Mormon histories, but it made no commitment to rehabilitating structures or evaluating the historic character of structures according to the secretary of the interior’s standards.16 Furthermore, if the plan had been designed to preserve and protect the Truman neighborhood, all of the Truman NHL would have been included inside the boundaries of the initial M/TRC project area. In contrast to the master preservation plan the city put forth in 1977 to promote the heritage district as a tourist attraction, the M/TRC plan was designed to bring affordable housing to the area surrounding the temple complex and hospital and to reduce the number of multi-family homes in the project area. There were similarities in how both plans treated the cultural landscape surrounding the historic structures. Both plans called for the burial of utilities, for example, but the reasoning was different. In 1977 it was to enhance the Truman Heritage and NHL districts as tourist destinations and to set the districts apart from the surrounding residential area. In 1994 the purpose was to enhance property values. The report noted: “Older neighborhoods often cannot compete with new neighborhoods because new neighborhoods are almost exclusively constructed with underground utilities.”17 The M/TRC plan was similar to the 1977 plan also in proposing a historic walking trail to feature the city’s presidential and religious history. 15. American Planning Association: Planning, June 1995, in folder Newspaper Clippings 1995, M/TRC Papers; Ochsner Hare & Hare, Midtown/ Truman Road Corridor Revitalization Plan, 31– 37. 16. Ochsner Hare & Hare, Midtown/Truman Road Corridor Revitalization Plan, 13–15. 17. Ibid., 37.

The boundaries of the M/TRC plan. Courtesy of the Independence community development office.

198


The plan in 1994 called for the erection of benches, special lighting, historic markers, and drinking fountains for visitors throughout the Truman Heritage and NHL districts. Providing amenities for tourists was not the focus of the M/TRC plan, and this was the only section in the proposal that attempted to promote the city’s presidential history for economic gain and was the only plan since 1977 that promoted the Truman Heritage District as a tourist attraction.18 Although the heritage commission had developed a walking tour of the Truman neighborhood, neither city tourism nor the chamber of commerce had seriously promoted the Truman Heritage and NHL districts as legitimate tourist attractions alongside the Truman library and the city’s historic or religious sites. Ochsner Hare & Hare recommended that the redevelopment and infrastructure improvements be funded through a for-profit corporation that would submit a redevelopment plan to the city council for approval. The council would in turn award sole redevelopment rights to the corporation. The planning firm also recommended that the corporation be created under Missouri Chapter 353 Redevelopment Corporation Law so that it could offer and oversee individual homeowner tax abatement for work completed on homes. In addition to Chapter 353, which allowed the corporation to oversee the tax abatement, Ochsner Hare & Hare proposed that a tax increment financing (TIF) district be created within the Chapter 353 redevelopment plan. Normally, a TIF district collected taxes from a major industry in the redevelopment area and the tax money was then used to fund infrastructure improvements in the district. However, in this case, the M/TRC corporation would use TIF funds to pay the planning fees Ochsner Hare & Hare charged for their work in the project area. The infrastructure improvements would be paid for by the city of Independence.19 Three key events had to occur before the M/TRC plan could reach the city council for approval. First, a for-profit company with significant tax obligations had to exist within the seventy-two-block area in order for the corporation to tap these funds for redevelopment planning. In February 1994 the RLDS Church sold its not-for-profit hospital to a for-profit company, Columbia Health Care. The projected annual TIF from the forprofit hospital to the proposed corporation was approximately $200,000. In order for a Chapter 353 redevelopment corporation to be created, the seventy-two-block area had to meet the statutory definition of blight. In 18. Ibid., see appendix C, “Historic Walking Trails Plan.” 19. Patrick Steele, telephone conversation with author, 14 February 2003.


199

November 1994 the city found the area to be blighted, based on the study released by Ochsner Hare & Hare.20 With the TIF donor identified and with the city’s recognition of the area as blighted under the Missouri 353 statute, the M/ TRC corporation had the green light to officially incorporate. In December 1994 the M/TRC board—composed of members of the RLDS Church, residents of the area, and preservation experts—met for the first time and hired Ochsner Hare & Hare to oversee the redevelopment in the area. The RLDS Church initially loaned the corporation the money to secure the planners until the city council approved the 353 M/ TRC plan. After the TIF monies were received, the M/TRC reimbursed the church for its loan.21 Prior to the M/TRC board’s December incorporation and first meeting, Ochsner Hare & Hare promoted the redevelopment plan and held workshops in the neighborhoods affected by it. The firm did not involve the NPS in the initial planning phase, however. The NPS became aware of the M/TRC plan as early as October 1994, but Superintendent Mack did not leave any public record of NPS reaction to the plan.22 The planning firm established a working group of representatives from Independence Power and Light, Southwestern Bell Telephone, and the local cable provider to discuss how the utilities would be buried as well as the financial commitments from each entity entailed in putting the utilities underground. In a meeting in December 1994 the M/TRC discussed the creation of an advisory council composed of neighbors and other stakeholders in the project area. The council’s responsibility would be to advise the board throughout the planning and implementation of the plan. In a subsequent memo drafted by the planning firm and sent to board members outlining potential advisory council members, the NPS was not listed as either a neighbor or a stakeholder in the project area.23 In March 1995 representatives from Ochsner Hare & Hare met with Missouri Department of Transportation officials to discuss the proposed 20. See Ochsner Hare & Hare, Blight Study: Exhibit A, revised, 23 May 1995 (M/TRC Papers), 1. 21. See Saints’ Herald 141, no. 11 (November 1994): 483. Kansas City Business Journal, 23–29 February 1996, and “M/TRC Revitalization Project Missouri Chapter APA 2001 Excellence in Planning Awards Program Application,” M/TRC Papers. Sally Schwenk, telephone conversation with author, 19 February 2003. 22. Memo from Mack to Regional Director, Midwest Region, 6 October 1994, Blues file, Harry S Truman NHS. 23. M/TRC board minutes, 1 December 1994, and memo from Ralph Ochsner to M/ TRC board, 5 January 1995, both in Notebook I, M/TRC Incorporation Papers and Board Meeting Minutes, M/TRC Papers.

200


improvements to Truman Road, which included substantial changes to the cultural landscape as well as the proposed burial of the public utilities.24 The NPS was not involved in these meetings. It seems the planning firm assumed there would be no objection to either buried utilities throughout the project area or other cultural landscape changes along Truman Road. The M/TRC draft plan was released by April 1995 and received public comment from the NPS as well as city officials and M/TRC board members. Kenneth Apschnikat, who had succeeded Mack as superintendent of Harry S Truman NHS in March 1995, drafted a letter to the city manager indicating his concerns about the plan. He was cautious yet frank when he noted: “From initial cursory review of the 353 plan, National Park Service–owned, Truman-related structures and the two surrounding historic districts may be negatively impacted if the historic neighborhood setting is significantly altered by implementation of the plan.” He concluded his remarks by noting that the neighborhood “provides approximately 60,000 visitors annually, with an understanding and appreciation of the relationships the Trumans shared with the residents and institutions in the surrounding neighborhood.” Clearly, the new superintendent, like his predecessors, recognized the significance of the Truman neighborhood and also understood that the plan could alter that neighborhood environment.25 Concern about how the plan would alter the Truman neighborhood was shared by Patrick Steele, the city’s newly appointed historic preservation manager, and Sally Schwenk, local preservationist and newly appointed M/TRC board member. Both Steele and Schwenk were concerned that the plan did not reference the secretary of the interior’s standards as a guide for completing rehabilitation projects on individual residences in the project area. They made sure that these standards were added to the M/TRC redevelopment plan prior to its submittal to the city council in June 1995. After the city council heard the draft plan for the first time in June, two members of that body expressed concern about the high number of demolitions and the possible construction of townhomes close to the Truman home. After the number of demolitions was reduced, the city council members who expressed concern about the plan voted for it.26 24. M/TRC board minutes, 1 March 1995, “RE: Truman Streetscape Meeting,” ibid. 25. Apschnikat to Larry Blick, 26 April 1995, Blues file, Harry S Truman NHS. 26. For Schwenk’s efforts, see “Special Board Meeting Minutes,” 30 April 1995, M/ TRC Papers. For Steele’s comments, see heritage commission minutes, 2 May 1995, folder HC 16 May 1995, OHPM Papers. “Council Backs Off Earlier Criticism of Midtown Plan,” Independence Examiner, 16 May 1995.


201

A small yet vocal minority of Independence residents, calling themselves the Freedom Fighters, launched a petition drive to put the newly adopted ordinance to a public vote. Dean Ferguson, spokesperson for the organization, believed that citizens, not the city council, should decide how to spend the tax money generated from the Independence Regional Hospital. Community residents and prominent RLDS Church members and leaders responded to the Freedom Fighters’ petition effort by placing a full-page ad in the Examiner encouraging local residents not to sign the petition. The ad, signed by 347 people and area businesses, read in part: “We believe a public vote is unnecessary because there has been extensive public involvement in over 50 community meetings in the past year. We believe the public has already spoken. We believe this is democracy.” The appeal to citizens not to sign the petition apparently worked because the Freedom Fighters failed to collect the required number of signatures to put the city council’s decision to a public vote. Ferguson threatened to take his battle against the M/TRC into court, but he never did, and the redevelopment plan moved forward.27 The M/TRC board immediately drafted guidelines that explained how individual property owners would receive tax abatement for property repairs. Under the plan, the tax abatement was based on the assessed value of the property and required a minimum of $5,000 of work to be completed in order to qualify for 100 percent tax abatement for ten years and a 50 percent abatement for the following fifteen years. The M/TRC used tax abatement as an incentive to encourage residents to improve their homes.28 After April 1995, when the superintendent of the Harry S Truman NHS issued the park’s initial comments on the M/TRC plan, the park made no further public comment until February 1996. In the meantime the new superintendent focused his attention on opening the newly acquired Truman farm home, while he faced increasing neighborhood pressure to take care of the Noland home, a park property acquired in 1993.29 The Noland home—located directly across the street from the Truman home and the home of the president’s aunt Ella and cousins Nellie and Ethel Noland— badly needed a coat of paint. Unfortunately, the NPS could not paint the 27. “Petition Won’t Stop Midtown Project Work,” Independence Examiner, 6 July 1995; ad, Independence Examiner, 8–9 July 1995; undated Independence Examiner article, M/ TRC Newspaper Clipping file, M/TRC Papers. 28. Aron Okerstrom, M/TRC coordinator, telephone conversation with author, 12 September 2002. 29. For the urgency, see NPS squad minutes, 22 March 1995, Blues file, Harry S Truman NHS; memo from Apschnikat to Regional Director, 27 April 1995, ibid.

202


structure without removing the home’s lead paint, a project that would cost several hundred thousand dollars, money not in the park’s budget. In a May 1995 meeting of the park’s division chiefs, the superintendent told them of several complaints and noted that taking care of the Noland home was the park’s “highest priority.” In June the park received a congressional inquiry about the condition of the home, and the superintendent’s response to the congresswoman committed the park to begin painting that summer.30 The lead abatement and painting of the home was completed in 1997, but the superintendent’s attention to this issue took a great deal of his time away from closely examining the actions of the M/ TRC. In August 1995 the superintendent attended an M/TRC board meeting, not to comment on the appropriateness of the redevelopment plan but, rather, to get the board’s reaction to the possibility of utilizing an old gas station, located just outside the Truman NHL boundary as a maintenance shop for the park. This request, coupled with the emphasis placed by the superintendent on opening the farm home to the public and the work that went into painting the Noland home, demonstrated that the NPS management focus was on the park’s resources, not on the resources of the Truman NHL. Later, the M/TRC board and the RLDS Church, which owned the property, decided to rehabilitate the gas station, and it became the M/ TRC neighborhood center where the M/TRC board and the advisory committee held meetings.31 The August 1995 M/TRC board meeting was the only one that the written record shows the superintendent attending during his tenure from 1995 to 2000. The board meetings were open to the public, and it was at these meetings that the board decided to purchase property, hired developers to rehabilitate properties, and discussed and approved design guidelines for the M/TRC project area. In many cases the plans discussed by the board directly impacted both the Truman Heritage and NHL districts, and yet there was no NPS representation at these meetings.32 This is not to say the superintendent was unaware of M/TRC board decisions. As superintendent he served as a voting member of the heritage commission, which reviewed all proposed demolitions approved by the 30. NPS squad minutes, 8 May, 5 June 1995, ibid. 31. M/TRC board minutes, 23 August 1995, M/TRC Papers; NPS squad minutes, 5 September 1995, Blues file, Harry S Truman NHS. The M/TRC Neighborhood Revitalization Center opened in September 1996. See “New Resource Center Has Historic Roots,” Independence Examiner, 4 September 1996. 32. Review of M/TRC board minutes from 1994 to 2001, M/TRC Papers.


203

M/TRC board. This demolition review authority, first granted to the commission in 1992 in the aftermath of the E. P. Gates house demolition, was permanently granted to the commission by city council ordinance in 1997. The review authority greatly strengthened the role of the commission to comment on pending demolitions both inside and outside the Truman Heritage District.33

A Renewed Commitment to Truman Neighborhood Preservation After 1995, the heritage commission made great strides in moving forward with the preservation of the Truman Heritage District, compared with the previous ten years. One of the reasons for this change had to do with the presence of a new city historic preservation manager. In March 1995 the city hired Patrick Steele who, unlike his predecessor, had considerable experience in implementing a historic preservation program in an urban setting such as Independence. Steele focused preservation efforts on the Truman district, and he helped focus the efforts of the heritage commission, whose membership (appointed by the city council) now mostly favored preservation.34 The makeup of the commission also reflected a change in city political leadership. In 1992 Rondell (Ron) Stewart replaced Mayor Bill Carpenter, the mayor who was reluctant to impose a permanent moratorium on demolition in the Truman neighborhood because he did not want to usurp private property rights. As mayor, Stewart served as a voting member of the city council on city heritage commission appointments, and he was more inclined to support applicants to the heritage commission who favored preservation. A knowledgeable historic preservation manager, a heritage commission favorable to preservation, and a mayor who supported historic preservation efforts marked a definite shift in how Independence would preserve its history into the twenty-first century. The new leadership at the political, city staff, and heritage commission levels was not the only factor that fostered a renewed commitment to his33. This conclusion is based on an examination of the minutes of IHC meetings from 1985 and 1992, where the commissioners spent most of their time discussing their role in promoting other aspects of the city’s history. 34. At the meeting on 9 April 1996, IHC commissioners for the first time since 1985 elected a chairman who favored the preservation of all structures in the district, regardless of whether they were religious or commercial properties. See commission minutes, 9 April 1996, in binder 9 April 1996–4 February 1997, OHPM Papers.

204


toric preservation in the city. There were also new sources of federal money delegated from the state level, which funded many of these preservation and redevelopment projects. City officials, including the preservation manager, tapped into a federal program called the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (better known as ISTEA) for several important projects. When ISTEA became law in 1991, it authorized the expenditure of $3 billion dollars over six years to fund transportation enhancement projects such as bicycle and pedestrian trails, historic preservation projects on train depots, and roadway enhancements including the burial of utilities. As the president of the National Trust, Richard Moe, explained, the federal program was designed to foster partnerships between state and local governments and to “facilitate citizen involvement in making transportation decisions that affect their daily lives.” Both the city and the M/TRC utilized ISTEA funding on projects in and around the Truman home between 1995 and 2000.35 In 1995 the city secured ISTEA grant funds for a Truman walking trail and the rehabilitation of the Chicago and Alton depot, a historic train station in the city. In 1997 the city secured another ISTEA grant for restoration work on the Truman depot, which the Union Pacific company had wanted to demolish in 1992. Other ISTEA grant funds were secured for projects along Truman Road, which were executed in conjunction with the M/TRC plan.36 While the ISTEA funds were instrumental in allowing the city to preserve its Truman history, the most important redevelopment plan to affect the Truman neighborhood was the M/TRC plan. In 1996 Superintendent Apschnikat wrote a letter of support to the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC), the agency that decided which cities in Jackson County would receive ISTEA funding. He asked the organization to support an M/TRC ISTEA grant application to fund improvements along Truman Road. Apschnikat noted how the area had deteriorated in the past twenty years, with a “negative impact on visitors to the Truman Home,” and he encouraged MARC to “look favorably on this worthwhile project.” Apschnikat’s letter, unlike the previous letter he sent to the M/TRC expressing concern about the redevelopment plan, seemed wholeheartedly to endorse the M/TRC. Shortly after that, however, he encouraged NPS 35. Independence was not the only city to utilize ISTEA funds for historic preservation. See Historic Preservation Forum 11, no. 1 (fall 1996): 4–44 (5). The entire issue was devoted to the role played by ISTEA in historic preservation. 36. Patrick H. Steele, Sr., “Economic Impact of Historic Preservation in Independence,” briefing paper, OHPM Papers.


205

staff to provide him with feedback about the plan that included “undergrounding power lines [and] adding trees and signage” to the area.37 It is unclear if any staff members responded, but what Apschnikat’s letter demonstrated was how the M/TRC had linked the Truman history with the redevelopment plan, hoping the protection and enhancement of the city’s presidential history would boost their chances of receiving the grant. It is difficult to know just how much the enhancement of the city’s Truman history played in MARC’s decision, but the commission granted M/TRC the funds for the Truman Road project in 1996. In the midst of much preservation and redevelopment work in and on the outskirts of the Truman neighborhood, the city and its leaders received a shock when the National Trust for Historic Preservation named the Harry S. Truman Heritage District one of the “Nation’s Eleven Most Endangered Places” in 1996. The annual National Trust designation was made at the suggestion of the JCHS and its director, former mayor Barbara Potts. An Independence Examiner article noted that the JCHS had nominated the district as endangered because it had faced inappropriate demolition and new construction in the past and could possibly face more demolition and new construction in the future. A Kansas City Star article noted the JCHS had mentioned the impact of the M/TRC on the area in its recommendation but was concerned the plan “could either enhance the Truman landmark district or ‘seriously impact’ the neighborhood’s ‘appearance and character.’”38 It is difficult to understand why the JCHS led by Barbara Potts, a member of the RLDS Church, would seek this designation at a time when it looked like things were beginning to turn around in the Truman neighborhood. When Steele was approached about the JCHS designation, he commented that “it couldn’t hurt” the preservation effort in Independence. The designation would certainly focus attention to help the city and the M/TRC secure additional funding for neighborhood revitalization.39 There were JCHS members and residents of the Truman neighborhood who were concerned about the M/TRC plan and its connection with the RLDS Church. Brian Snyder, JCHS member and resident of the Truman 37. Apschnikat to Selection Committee, 15 February 1996, memo from Superintendent to all employees, 27 February 1996, both in Blues file, Harry S Truman NHS. 38. “Truman District on Endangered List: One of Nation’s Eleven Worst Areas,” Independence Examiner, 17 June 1996; “Boundaries Are Blamed for Blight,” Kansas City Star, 23 June 1996. 39. Steele, telephone conversation with author, 20 September 2002.

206


neighborhood, supported and encouraged Potts to submit the Truman neighborhood to the National Trust for consideration as one of the nation’s endangered landmarks.40 He and others felt that the national exposure resulting from such a designation might encourage the redevelopment to be carried out with respect for the city’s presidential history and perhaps bring more preservation funding to Independence. Evan Lafer, the National Trust’s advisor for the Midwest region, aptly noted: “Our involvement leverages the dollars.” The trust dispatched Frank Gilbert, one of its noted legal advisors, to Independence in order to assist the heritage commission revise the heritage district–enabling ordinance. The revision had been in the works since 1994 but had stalled, until Steele revived the effort and placed it at the top of the commission’s list of things to accomplish. The 1994 revision had exempted all religious and commercial structures from complying with the ordinance. In fact, Gilbert had commented on the 1994 revision: “It is both legal and wise to review proposed changes to all the buildings within a Historic district.”41 By 1996 the commission, whose composition now favored preservation and whose members favored treating all structures in the district on equal footing, drafted an ordinance that reflected this equality. The commission held public meetings where the revised ordinance was explained to residents and institutions, including the churches located within the district boundaries. In spite of some opposition from the First Baptist Church, the city council approved the ordinance in October 1997.42 This revised ordinance treated all property equally within the historic district and was a step forward for the preservation of the city’s historic structures. In the 1984 preservation battle, the heritage commission did not even approve or disapprove of the First Baptist Church’s decision to demolish structures within the Truman Heritage District because those structures were exempt from review under the ordinance then in place. Under the revised ordinance, all changes to properties within the district, no matter what type of building, would be considered by the commission.

40. Brian Snyder, telephone conversation with author, May 2003. 41. “Truman Citation May Not Be Bad,” Independence Examiner, 18 June 1996 (Lafer); Frank Gilbert to Davis, 31 May 1994, folder HC 9 April 1996, OHPM Papers. 42. Steele, staff report to Heritage Commission members, 16 June 1997, folder HC 3 June 1997, and commission minutes, 20 August 1997, folder HC 2 Sept 1997, both in OHPM Papers. For the First Baptist Church reservations, see commission minutes, 5 November 1996, binder 9 April 1996–4 February 1997, OHPM Papers.


207

Implementation of the M/TRC Plan While the heritage commission was drafting its revised Truman Heritage District ordinance, the M/TRC moved forward with its redevelopment plan. A demonstration block of homes was selected, near the temple complex, to undergo extensive infrastructure improvements, including new curbs and gutters and underground utilities.43 One of the major goals of the redevelopment was to convert former single-family homes, which had been converted to multi-family housing, back to singlefamily homes again. Much improvement was realized on this block, in part because of the efforts put forth by local homeowners to improve their properties. In another section of the redevelopment area much like the demonstration block, however, the RLDS Church pressed the M/TRC and the heritage commission to approve the demolition of approximately forty-nine church-owned structures. In August 1996 the RLDS Church announced they would invest $8 million dollars in the M/TRC redevelopment area to construct a nursing school immediately east of the hospital they had sold to a for-profit company in 1995. The construction of the nursing school had been outlined in the 1995 city council–approved M/TRC plan. In the press release the church offered the homes at no cost to anyone willing to move them from the project area. The church stated: “None of the houses are on the city’s list of historically significant buildings.”44 In December the Independence historic preservation officer identified the area as a “potential historic district based on its association with an English enclave of RLDS immigrants.” The preservation officer noted that the RLDS Church had developed the area from 1910 to 1930, no doubt as part of its gathering to Independence campaign encouraged by church president F. M. Smith. The minutes noted the neighborhood represented the “evolution of working class housing from the late 19th century into the early 20th century.”45 There seemed to be some confusion, however, over whether the RLDS Church had to obtain IHC approval for demolition, since the 1995 M/TRC redevelopment plan, with these demolitions, had already been approved by the city council. Nevertheless, the RLDS Church approached the commission in December 1996 seeking support for its proposed demolitions. 43. See “Short Street Revival,” Independence Examiner, 7 July 1997. 44. “RLDS Plans Nursing Education Center,” Independence Examiner, 7 August 1996. 45. The report is in commission minutes, 21 January 1997, binder 9 April 1996–4 February 1997, OHPM Papers.

208


In December the commission voted to have the CDA, the real estate– holding arm of the RLDS Church, pursue preservation alternatives for these properties. Of the forty-nine buildings in the nursing school project area, six were deemed individually eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, forty were listed as contributing structures to a potential historic district, and the remaining three structures were judged noncontributing. Steele, the preservation manager, recommended the six individually eligible structures be moved to other locations within the city and the remaining structures be architecturally salvaged, allowing the materials to be utilized by others carrying out preservation projects.46 Then, in January 1997, the heritage commission revisited its December decision. At the meeting, Commissioner Apschnikat questioned whether federal money was going to be used in the project area. If so, the project would have to undergo a review process as outlined in Section 106 of the NHPA, which required federal agencies to assess how federally funded projects affected cultural resources in the project area. Apschnikat was informed that no federal monies would be utilized, but he and other commissioners were still concerned how the project would impact the streetscape in the area and the Harry S Truman NHL district. Accordingly, Apschnikat moved the commission amend its December resolution to encourage the developers of the nursing school not only to pursue preservation alternatives but to incorporate as many of the neighborhood buildings as possible into their final site plans. The motion carried unanimously.47 This case demonstrated an important step forward in the city’s preservation effort. For the first time a city official (the historic preservation manager, Steele) acknowledged that a structure did not have to date from before the turn of century to be historic. Steele noted that several craftsman bungalows in the project area were historic and contributed to a potential neighborhood historic district.48 However, there was debate whether the structures in the nursing school project area were historic. The RLDS spokesman said the structures were not historic because they did not appear on any of the city’s historic lists, even though these lists, created in the 1970s, were not utilized by the city’s preservation staff in the 1990s to determine which structures might be eligible for the National Register and which structures might contribute to a historic district. 46. For the December vote, see commission minutes, 3 December 1996; for specifics on the Graceland project, see commission minutes, 21 January 1997, both ibid. 47. Commission minutes, 21 January 1997, ibid. 48. Ibid.


209

The city preservation manager made a determination that the structures scheduled for demolition were historic, and the heritage commission agreed. This was another step forward. In the past, when historic structures were deemed “nonhistoric,” it was easier to justify their removal from the cultural landscape. Now, for the first time, the structures designated for removal were indeed considered historic, but how would the community mitigate their loss from the cultural landscape? Since the demolitions for the nursing school construction had been approved in the 1995 M/TRC plan, the city preservation manager and the commission had their hands tied. The situation was further complicated by the fact that, in August 1996, the community development division of the city and the mayor had already publicly endorsed the project. Bruce Hahl, community development director, acknowledged that the nursing school was a “positive thing” and the mayor commented: “Graceland is making a major investment in the older part of Independence and its education center will be a tremendous facility for this city. The construction project supports the forward movement of the Midtown-Truman Road Corridor Redevelopment plan.”49 With comments like these on record, it seemed once again that the preservation of the city’s historic structures would be sacrificed for a different goal, in this case the perceived higher economic value of the nursing school over the lower value of a restored historic neighborhood. Sadly, many of the homes the CDA had rented in this area were to single families. Their removal from the neighborhood did not sit well with several. While not on a par with the removal of lower-class blacks and whites from the Neck area, the relocation of families in the M/TRC project area, and from the nursing school project area in particular, was the largest relocation of families the city had seen since the Northwest Parkway project of the 1960s. The announcement by Graceland College that they were going to construct a nursing facility in the middle of a neighborhood caught many CDA renters by surprise. The RLDS spokesman stated that the families in these homes rented from month to month and would be provided relocation assistance. Susan Gurney and her husband, Darrell, had been renters at 1329 Kensington for six years and were given less than a month to find other accommodations. Doddie Morris, a one-year renter at 1303 W. Truman Road, complained she would not be able to enjoy the improvements recently made to her property. Michelle Straub, renter at 1413 Kensington 49. “RLDS Plans Nursing Education Center,” Independence Examiner, 7 August 1996.

210


Avenue, suggested in a newspaper report that the CDA assisted only a select few in their relocation efforts. By 8 August, CDA announced that “four families” had been relocated.50 It is interesting that most of those who relocated were families. One of the goals of the M/TRC project area was to return once single-family residences that had been converted to multi-family units back to singlefamily units. It is surprising that the homes to be demolished in the neighborhood were primarily occupied by single families. Even the Delaware Street corridor had for the most part retained single families as owners— and ownership was the one difference between the properties on Delaware and those located in the nursing school demolition zone. CDA utilized the month-to-month renting as a way to maintain control of property and to control development in and around the temple complex. While Ochsner Hare & Hare, planners for the M/TRC, used the argument that single-family homeownership was a major goal of the redevelopment plan, this apparently did not apply to the neighborhood the RLDS Church planned to demolish in order to construct the nursing school.51 In 1997 thirty-one buildings were demolished and three buildings were moved from the nursing school demolition zone. While the destruction of the built environment was great, moving historic buildings to vacant city lots was, in a small way, a preservation success. Prior to 1997 the city would not have seriously considered moving historic structures in order to preserve them. In 2000 CDA would again approach the heritage commission to approve six more demolitions in the area surrounding the nursing school and the request would be approved.52 The thirty-nine properties at issue in 1997 were not the only ones owned by the RLDS Church in the redevelopment area. In August 1997 RLDS members of the M/TRC met with Mayor Ron Stewart and the Presiding Bishopric of the RLDS Church to discuss the disposition of approximately twenty-five other properties owned by the church, specifically the CDA, in the project area. In an undated letter drafted by Byron Constance, M/TRC president and RLDS Church member, to Larry R. Norris, the pre50. “Some Renters Call Evictions Overly Abrupt,” Independence Examiner, 8 August 1996. 51. For the private homeowners along the Delaware Street corridor, see Midtown/ Truman Road Corridor Revitalization Plan, Existing Land Use Map, M/TRC Papers. For the Ochsner Hare & Hare emphasis on converting multi-family property to singlefamily residences, see M/TRC Revitalization Project, Missouri Chapter APA, 2001 Excellence in Planning Awards Program Application, M/TRC Papers. 52. Commission minutes, 12 July 2000, OHPM Papers.


211

siding bishop of the RLDS Church, Constance noted these properties had been rated as “substandard” in recent city housing surveys. More important, Constance acknowledged what many local residents had been saying about RLDS property in the area: “The church has long been criticized for the condition of its properties and now has the opportunity to set a positive example, and add substantially to the revitalization effort.” Constance proposed three redevelopment alternatives for the church-owned properties.53 One of Constance’s alternatives proposed that the M/TRC acquire and redevelop the CDA properties. In March 1998 the M/TRC announced it had purchased the twenty-five properties from CDA. Eleven of the properties were located only two blocks west of the Truman home along Truman Road. Initially, the church members had acquired these properties because they wanted to construct a parkway to the temple from the north. Pat Spillman, CDA director, noted: “The church’s intention . . . was to raze the houses and build a park to improve the neighborhood around the headquarters, to create a better view of the church.” However, Spillman was quoted in the newspaper article as saying that, after “input from the city,” the “church was convinced it would be better to save the houses for historical purposes.”54 No doubt the city’s Truman history, through the efforts of the mayor, forced the church to reassess its commitment to razing structures so close to the Truman Heritage and NHL districts. The eleven homes were spared the wrecking ball, but it was then several years before any of them received adequate preservation treatment.

The Cultural Landscape of the Truman Neighborhood While city leaders allowed the destruction of the neighborhood surrounding the proposed nursing school site in 1997 and halted the razing of part of a neighborhood much closer to the Truman home in 1997–1998, they actively supported the preservation of the city’s Truman-related structures. The restoration of the old Union Pacific train station—located south of the temple complex and renamed the Truman Depot because Truman and his family used it during his presidency—was funded by approximately $150,000 in ISTEA grant money, which was then matched 53. M/TRC board minutes, 11 September 1997, Minutes Book II, M/TRC Papers; Byron Constance to Larry R. Norris, undated, in binder Minutes 1994–1997, ibid. 54. “Corporation Buys RLDS Properties,” Kansas City Star, 19 March 1998.

212


One of the signs the city erected at the Independence depot to honor Truman. The sign, now weathered, looks somewhat out of place in this 2005 photo. Courtesy of author.

with an equivalent $150,000 in private donations. The community put so much time and money into preserving this structure because, Mayor Ron Stewart explained, “This depot will add to our tourism package.”55 Once again, the reason for the preservation was clear—if the building had the potential to draw tourists and their dollars, then it would be preserved. Otherwise it would suffer the same fate as the structures in the nursing school demolition zone. While the Truman Depot remodeling was under way in 1997, the M/ TRC and the city were also busy drafting their own ISTEA grants. In 1995, several months prior to the National Trust’s 1996 “eleven most endangered” announcement, the M/TRC submitted an ISTEA grant to the MidAmerica Regional Council seeking funds for streetscape improvements along Truman Road. The grant was approved. In 1997 the city of Independence submitted an ISTEA application to MARC requesting funds for 55. Stewart quoted in Mike Rice, “Boosters to Salute Station,” Kansas City Star, 5 October 1997. See also “Service League Gives Money for Depot Work,” Independence Examiner, 1 June 1995.


213

a Truman walking trail, and this was also approved. These two projects, completed in phases over the course of the next six years, would dramatically alter the cultural landscape surrounding the Truman home.56 Not only did the city want to improve the streetscape throughout the M/TRC project area, but city leaders and RLDS Church officials also wanted these projects to create an attractive western gateway to the city and its historical resources. In their view, the best way to improve the western entryway to Independence was to bury all the power lines along Truman Road. John Powell, director of public works, observed: “Truman Road and the Truman District often is the first impression of visitors to Independence. The city wants a good first impression.” In 1995 the city Power and Light director announced that the city-owned utility, Independence Power and Light, would allocate 2 percent of its revenues to placing overhead lines underground. The first time the city-owned utility buried overhead lines was for the M/TRC project. However, what was most important about the city’s commitment to the burial of utilities is that the cost was offered as the matching fund source for the Truman Road ISTEA grant. If Independence Power and Light had not offered the cost of the utilities burial as a funding match, the project would not have received federal ISTEA monies.57 The Truman walking trail, which received matching funds from a community fund-raising effort, also received ISTEA funding. City planners who drafted the initial trail design proposed altering the cultural landscape in the Truman Heritage and NHL districts by introducing park benches and streetlight poles that had not been present when Truman walked those streets. Mary Ottman, city planner, noted in the Examiner: “We want the historic area to have a different feeling. We want to make sure the Truman Historic area is set apart.” Ottman’s words were oddly reminiscent of the 1977 plan that city-hired consultants drafted to promote the Truman Heritage District as a tourist attraction. John Powell, director of public works, commented: “We’re trying to make it an attraction, rather than look like a highway.”58 56. Patrick Steele, Sr., “Economic Impact of Historic Preservation in Independence, 1995–1999,” OHPM Papers. 57. Robert Hite, “Historical Area on Truman Road to Be Modified,” Independence Examiner, 27 June 1997 (quote); “City’s Power Lines Headed Underground,” Independence Examiner, 26 July 1995; Patrick Steele, Sr., “Economic Impact of Historic Preservation in Independence, 1995–1999,” OHPM Papers. 58. Robert Hite, “Historical Area on Truman Road to Be Modified,” Independence Examiner, 27 June 1997.

214


These city officials were commenting publicly on plans they had drafted without public comment, but since the ISTEA funds were federal, plans would have to go through Section 106 review as required under the NHPA. Section 106 review required federal agencies to take into account how the proposed project would affect local historic resources. Since ISTEA funds were administered by the Federal Highway Administration, this was the agency responsible for overseeing the Section 106 review. However, because Independence was a certified local government (which meant the city preservation manager could carry out the Section 106 review on behalf of the federal agency), the city took the lead in this case.59 In July 1997 the superintendent of Harry S Truman NHS commented on the Truman Road streetscape project. He noted the NPS “is supportive of the need to bury utility lines for health and safety reasons” but also stated it was the position of the NPS that once the utility lines were buried within the Truman NHL, the “city retain the existing utility lines after the utility lines are buried.” The NPS had placed the power to the Truman home underground in the 1980s but retained the existing electrical wire and distribution poles, as they were part of the Truman era historic scene. The superintendent concluded: “Retention and future maintenance of these ‘false lines’ will help preserve and enhance the historic qualities which are such unique characteristics of the Truman neighborhood.”60 However, retaining the existing power poles was a hard sell both to residents of the Truman neighborhood and to Independence Power and Light officials. At a heritage commission meeting in October 1997, when the burial issue was discussed, one commissioner noted: “residents along Delaware were going to be very upset if their utilities were not undergrounded.” At a subsequent commission meeting, Steele informed the commission that Independence Power and Light was not willing to incur the additional cost of installing nonfunctioning power poles and lines throughout the Truman NHL district.61 The Truman Road streetscape project received $305,000 in federal 59. For additional information on the Section 106 process, see Thomas F. King, Federal Planning and Historic Places: The Section 106 Process. The Certified Local Government (CLG) program began in 1980 and provided a way for State Historic Preservation Offices to share responsibility for carrying out the federal preservation program with cities, which included Section 106 compliance. For more information on the CLG program, see Elizabeth A. Lyon and David L. S. Brook, “The States: The Backbone of Preservation,” in Stipe, Richer Heritage, 83 – 86. 60. Apschnikat to Danna Widmar, Ochsner Hare & Hare LLC, 16 July 1997, Blues file, Harry S Truman NHS. 61. Commission minutes, 7 October 1997, 6 January 1998, OHPM Papers.


215

ISTEA funding, combined with $533,245 pledged by Independence Power and Light to cover the cost of placing the utilities underground along that stretch of Truman Road. As part of the Section 106 compliance process with the NHPA, Steele held several meetings with representatives from the NPS, the Missouri DNR, the M/TRC, Power and Light, and the city’s community development division to discuss the proposed utility burial. The meetings resulted in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), which was signed in May 1998 by the parties affected by the utility burial project. The MOA called for Steele to prepare a Truman neighborhood report, which, it is interesting to note, defined the Truman neighborhood by the old 1979 expanded heritage district boundary. For the first time since 1984, the city (at least in this report) recognized that the value of the city’s Truman history extended beyond the boundaries of the 1984 reduced heritage district. The report even went a step further. It not only defined the structures in this expanded boundary as being of historic significance but also noted that other cultural landscape elements—such as the neighborhood’s sidewalks, curbs, retaining walls, and wooden power poles and streetlights—were also historically significant.62 The city seemed to take a step forward when it recognized the importance of Truman history outside the existing heritage district boundary. The MOA, however, proposed different treatments for different parts of the neighborhood, stating that the burial of the city’s utilities would cease at the boundary of the Truman NHL.63 This seemed an acceptable compromise, but it resulted in a false sense of history in one area of the Truman neighborhood, which the city had clearly noted was just as important as the Truman NHL—along Truman Road, beginning at River and stretching one block to Union Street, where the Truman NHL boundary began. The utilities would be placed underground from River to Union because the RLDS Church owned twenty-four properties along this block, having acquired them in hopes of incorporating the area into an entryway for the temple. In March 1998 the M/TRC purchased the properties from the CDA. Pat Spillman, CDA spokesperson, said the church intended to raze the homes and “build a park to improve the neighborhood around the headquarters, [and] to create a better view of the church.”64 Since the M/TRC and Independence Power and Light were committed to putting utilities underground in the M/TRC project area and half of the proper62. “Truman Neighborhood Report,” July 1998, OHPM Papers. 63. Commission minutes, 4 November 1997, ibid. 64. Robert Hite, “Developers Plan to Revive Neighborhood,” Independence Examiner, 10 April 1998.

216


ties between Union and River were now owned by the M/TRC, the utilities were placed underground. The Section 106 process had spared the utilities in the Truman NHL along Truman Road. It is most important, however, to remember how the project planning was executed. The NPS, the only agency advocating the preservation of the overhead utility system, was one of the last agencies to be consulted about the utilities burial. If NPS input had been solicited when the initial grant was proposed, perhaps the city could have asked for grant monies either to erect and maintain a dummy electrical system throughout the entire Truman neighborhood or to bring back the treelined streets (the trees had been a part of the neighborhood but had been reduced in number by Dutch Elm disease). Power and Light maintained they could not afford this kind of commitment. If the preservation of the Truman NHL had been persuasively argued in the grant application, it is conceivable that a portion of the federal monies could have assisted with the preservation of the overhead utility system or monies secured to restore the historic tree pattern. Instead of working for a preservation solution, Power and Light decided the utilities would cease to be underground at the doorstep of the Truman NHL. While the section of the Truman NHL along Truman Road was spared the removal of its overhead utility system, Independence Power and Light would bury the overhead utility system in another section of the Truman NHL in 2001. Citing the original M/TRC plan approved by the city council and the heritage commission in 1995 as justification for their action, Power and Light placed the electric utility system underground along Maple Avenue between Union and Pleasant. Since this project did not use ISTEA funds, the project was not subject to Section 106 review. The cityowned utility’s decision to place the electrical power underground demonstrated in dramatic fashion that the city controlled the fate of its Truman historic resources. Sadly, the decision also showed a lack of respect for the considerable discussion that had taken place since 1997 concerning the Truman Road underground utilities project and the findings of the 1998 Truman neighborhood report, which recognized the poles and existing streetlights as contributing features to the Truman neighborhood. Now, the false sense of history present just outside the Truman NHL crept into the NHL district. The decision to underground the power throughout the Truman neighborhood demonstrates that the city was willing to preserve neighborhood structures but unwilling to extend that preservation ethic to the cultural landscapes surrounding the historic structures. By the mid 1990s, historic preservation had moved beyond the preser-


217

vation of historic structures to the preservation of historic landscapes such as the Truman neighborhood. Landscapes included sidewalks, driveways, and overhead electrical utility systems. However, persuading residents of the Truman neighborhood, M/TRC developers, and city leaders that it was in their best interest to preserve the presidential neighborhood’s distinctive twentieth-century cultural landscape features was difficult, because, as the 1980s preservation crisis demonstrates, the city could not agree to preserve all the structures in the Truman NHL. By the mid 1990s, even though Steele had discussed the cultural landscape in his Truman neighborhood report, the community was not prepared to preserve both the structures and the cultural landscape surrounding them.65

Harry S Truman NHS Revises Its 1987 Management Plan While the Harry S Truman NHS superintendent was involved with the debate over the Section 106 review of the Truman Road streetscape project in 1998, he was also revising the park’s general management plan. The 1987 GMP had crafted a strategy to preserve the Truman NHL, but parts of it were never implemented because of local political opposition, and also because superintendents after Reigle had to manage a park that had grown in size. The 1994 addition of the Truman farm served as the catalyst for the GMP revision.66 A GMP team composed of subject matter experts from the park and from throughout the Midwest region met for the first time in March 1998. In September they released a public draft outlining five planning issues.67 The first issue was how to present a variety of interpretive programs for visitors to experience. Since 1984 the interpretive program had consisted 65. For more information on the emerging study of cultural landscapes, and the progression from preserving buildings associated with famous people to preserving historic districts (and now more broadly, to seeing historic structures as parts of larger cultural landscapes), see Alanen and Melnick, Preserving Cultural Landscapes. In 1996 the NPS released The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. This document was cited in the 1998 MOA concerning the Section 106 review of the Truman Road streetscape ISTEA project. 66. Memo from Superintendent, Harry S. Truman to General Management Plan Team, 9 April 1997, Blues file, Harry S Truman NHS. The memo noted: “The Farm will be one of the major challenges for the GMP Team as we plan for the future of this new unit of the park.” 67. NPS squad minutes, 23 February, 28 September 1998, NPS blues, Harry S Truman NHS.

218


of a ten-minute slide show about the home and then a fifteen-minute tour. The only other interpretive tours were walking tours of the neighborhood, given during the summer. The second issue was to improve the signage directing visitors to park facilities. The third asked the park to define its relationship with the Truman NHL. The fourth focused on how the Truman farm in Grandview should be managed. The last issue was for the park to work more closely with the public and private sectors in order to enhance the visitor experience. While all the issues were important, the one most critical to this study was the third. The first and the fifth are also important, because they identified a need for the park to work outside its physical boundary, which included work with the resources of the Truman NHL. With the exception of the fifth, the GMP team drafted four alternatives for each issue, ranging from the most NPS action to the least, with the fourth alternative in each case being no change. When asked to evaluate the park’s interpretive program, respondents overwhelmingly urged the NPS to interpret not just their own sites but to include also Truman-related non-NPS sites. One neighborhood resident observed: “I feel more self-guided tours are needed to enhance a visitor’s understanding of the neighborhood where Truman lived and walked.” Another individual commented: “Only using NPS sites won’t give a complete picture!”68 The third issue directly addressed the park’s relationship with the Truman NHL. When the team sat down to construct alternatives for how the NPS should preserve Truman-related structures outside park boundaries, however, the decision was made to scrap the concept of the Truman Preservation Trust because, it was agreed, obtaining congressional funding for the trust would be an impossibility.69 The first draft option required the site to be a “proactive advocate for the historic resources associated with Harry S. Truman by developing educational opportunities” that would utilize the Truman NHL as a resource. The NPS could do that by providing tours of the district, for example, or a school curriculum featuring the NHL, or historical information about the NHL provided for community institutions such as the chamber of commerce. The second option was for the NPS to provide technical assistance to homeowners in the Truman NHL district, to “partner with both public and private individuals” in order to preserve the NHL, and to conduct more research on the 68. For the GMP issues and comments, see D18 [amended GMP 1997–99] folder, Central files, Harry S Truman NHS. 69. Recollection of the author, who was a member of the GMP planning team.


219

properties within the NHL. The third alternative encouraged the NPS to “partner with others to facilitate preservation of properties” in the Truman NHL and other Truman-related resources outside the NHL boundary. Some examples of partnering included NPS participation in the creation of a rehabilitation revolving fund for properties in the Truman neighborhood, accepting easements or restrictive covenants on property, and providing technical assistance to neighbors.70 While the options for the third issue were supposed to flow from most to least NPS involvement, it was difficult for the public reviewing them to clearly distinguish the differences. One commentator observed: “I would combine A, B, C, since they are all equally meritorious. No single alternative would achieve the desired future.” Another expressed frustration at the way in which the options were phrased: “This all reads like Govt. ‘Bureaucratese.’” This individual asked bluntly: “Are you going to work to preserve resources or are you going to try to get others to do it for you?” The commentator encouraged the NPS to reword the draft to read: “Preserving these resources is so important to the Truman NHS that we are going to ‘solicit’ sponsors to fund preservation activities and we will conduct community workshops to explain and encourage neighborhood preservation. Be Real not Governmental!”71 Obviously this individual was concerned that the NPS had not taken an active interest in the preservation of the Truman neighborhood; and the concerns were warranted because, since 1987, the community, including residents of the Truman NHL, had seen the NPS do very little to aid in preservation of the NHL other than offering words of encouragement. In short, no superintendent since Reigle had made the preservation of the NHL properties a priority. The NPS had not completely turned its back on the NHL: from 1996 to 1998 the park historian organized three seminars for NHL residents and others on “Preserving a President’s Community,” “Discovering Preservation Resources on the Internet,” and tuck-pointing bricks on historic homes. But these seminars ceased when the park historian left in August 1998.72 It is understandable that the GMP revision focused more on properties owned by the NPS than on those outside its boundaries. But the initial GMP had devoted a great deal of planning effort to crafting a preservation strategy for the Truman neighborhood because park managers, Midwest regional officials, and Washington NPS 70. See D18 [Amended GMP1997–99] folder, Central files, Harry S Truman NHS. 71. See ibid. 72. R. Scott Stone, Haberdasher [NPS occasional newsletter], December 1996; “Learn Masonry Repair at Saturday Workshop,” Independence Examiner, 12 February 1998.

220


officials all recognized the significance of Truman’s neighborhood. Ten years after the park’s first GMP, however, the neighborhood still lacked a credible preservation strategy. The fifth GMP issue committed the NPS to a greater involvement in the community through local partnerships. These partnerships would “(1) improve promotion and awareness of area sites related to the Harry Truman story; (2) identify and tap new resources of funding to accomplish park and community goals . . . and (3) accomplish park and community projects related to the Harry Truman story.” In contrast to the other issues, only two options were presented for public comment, one committing the park to engage in these partnerships and the other stating that the “National Park Service would focus primarily on its own internal goals and programs.”73 The public comments overwhelmingly favored an active NPS partnering with other area agencies that shared common goals. One reviewer noted that pursuing the partnership alternative “reflects an awareness on the part of the NPS that they don’t work in a vacuum. They are/and should be a part of the communities in which they work and serve.” Another commentator was more forthright: “The problem we have now is a large gov’t agency which has much to say about what they want to see in the neighborhood, but do nothing to help the larger cause of preservation in old town Independence.” Not one person thought the agency should “focus primarily on its own internal goals and programs.”74 Unfortunately, the final draft GMP deleted all reference to the fifth planning issue and the public’s reaction to it. In the GMP planning sessions, the superintendent did not consider this a valid issue for discussion because he felt the park was active enough in the community through his involvement with various community commissions and boards, even though these were not partnerships.75 Those who publicly commented on this issue recognized there was a problem—the NPS had failed to integrate itself into the community of Independence. This failure began when the Truman Preservation Trust was never seriously pursued, and it continued when NPS managers pursued a management policy that valued their structures more highly than those in the Truman NHL, even though previous park superintendents had clearly argued that the structures in private hands were just as important as those owned by the park. 73. D18 [Amended GMP 1997–1999] folder, Central files, Harry S Truman NHS. 74. Ibid. 75. Author recollection.


221

In contrast to the 1987 GMP, which generated several hundred responses, the public comments concerning this GMP were sparse. Why? The revised GMP was primarily focused on park operations and not on the preservation of large sections of the Truman NHL and, therefore, was much less controversial than the 1987 plan. Simply put, this revision did not threaten the city’s control of its Truman resources nor threaten to dictate how churches should manage their property. Consequently, little opposition to the plan surfaced. Superintendent Apschnikat was interested—but not aggressive—in crafting a strategy to address the park’s role in the preservation of the Truman NHL. Unlike the 1987 GMP, the finished GMP, officially approved in 1999, scarcely mentioned the Truman NHL because the focus of the plan was the Truman farm home. While the finished plan noted that the park would “work in partnership with others to preserve historic resources [and] promote awareness of NPS resources and related resources in the area,” the plan did not craft a comprehensive strategy such as the earlier proposed neighborhood trust that outlined the role the park should play in the preservation of the Truman NHL. Instead, the report noted: “The NPS will provide technical assistance and work with others to develop a comprehensive set of alternative protection and preservation strategies, possibly including a revolving fund for historic preservation.”76 In preparing the GMP revision the park historian drafted statements of historical significance for both the Truman farm and the Truman NHL. The section for the Truman NHL included statements from top Truman historians Alonzo Hamby and Robert H. Ferrell, who noted the value of interpreting the Truman story within the context of his neighborhood. It also included research the park historian had conducted on this relationship. Unfortunately, the section concerning the historical significance of the Truman NHL was deleted from the final GMP draft while the section for the Truman farm was retained. There was thus a serious lack of information available to future park managers consulting the revised GMP for guidance in advocating the preservation of the Truman NHL. The final draft GMP did make a commitment to expand the interpretive programming at the park. The report noted: “Visitor programs will go beyond park boundaries and encompass both NPS facilities and those in the surrounding area.”77 While the document did not mention the Truman NHL 76. Harry S Truman National Historic Site: General Management Plan Revision, 25. 77. Alonzo Hamby to Jon E. Taylor, 3 September 1997, and Robert H. Ferrell to Taylor, undated [September 1997], Historian’s files, Harry S Truman NHS; National Park Service, Harry S Truman National Historic Site: General Management Plan Revision, 25.

222


by name, one could hope the park’s interpretive program would include its resources.

Community Memory and Preservation With the release of the revised GMP, the real preservation of the Truman NHL was once again left up to the citizens of the NHL district, the heritage commission, and city officials. In 1998 the city began work on two important preservation documents: design guidelines for the Truman Heritage District and a citywide comprehensive preservation plan, which incorporated preservation planning into the city’s comprehensive plan. The design guidelines were approved in 1999 after three public meetings with residents of the Truman district. The citywide comprehensive preservation plan, funded by the city council, was approved in 2000. Both these plans enjoyed public—including NPS—support, and they demonstrated the city’s newfound commitment to historic preservation as a tool to preserve the city’s Truman history.78 The city’s focus on preservation did not end with the completion of the Truman Heritage District design guidelines and the citywide preservation plan. City officials began a community-wide fund-raising campaign in 1999 to preserve and make useful once again the Memorial Building which, along with the RLDS auditorium, had served as a community gathering place since its construction as a veterans’ memorial in 1927. The mayor renamed the building the Truman Memorial Building, hoping that Truman’s name would help generate the estimated $7.3 million dollars needed to renovate it. In August 1998 voters approved a half-cent city sales tax, which in part funded the preservation of the memorial. Additional funding for its preservation came from a combination of local fundraising and state and federal grants. By January 2002, over $800,000 had been either given or pledged by Independence residents and businesses.79 Passing a sales tax to aid in the preservation of the Truman Memorial Building sent out a strong message that the community looked favorably 78. For public meetings regarding the Truman district design guidelines, see July 1998 staff report, Historic Preservation Division, folder HC 4 August 1998, OHPM Papers. For NPS support for the design guidelines, see Apschnikat to Steele, 27 August 1997, Blues file, Harry S Truman NHS. For NPS support of the citywide preservation plan, see Apschnikat to Steele, 22 December 1998, Jim Sanders to Steele, 22 December 1999, ibid. 79. City Scene 11, no. 1, January 2002.


223

on historic preservation, but the half-cent sales tax also promised road improvement, and most voters probably supported the tax increase because of the promise of better roads. The rationale used by city leaders to justify the preservation of the building was different. In Mayor Stewart’s view, the building should be preserved not to retain another part of the president’s neighborhood but because the building was important to the collective memory of the community. The building had hosted graduations, dances, and other community events, and those memories served as a catalyst for the community fund-raising support. The mayor captured the public’s sentiment when he observed: “There are a lot of wonderful memories associated with it and for that reason it is important that we restore the Truman Memorial Building.”80 It is interesting that city leaders encouraged the public to preserve the Truman Memorial Building as a way to preserve the memories of the events that many community residents experienced in the building. What is really interesting, however, is that city leaders never used this argument to justify the preservation of the Truman Heritage and NHL districts. No mayor or other city leaders recalled publicly how Truman walked through his neighborhood or how the city businesses decorated the town square in anticipation of his first visit home as president in 1945. The new generation did not understand the history surrounding the president’s interaction with the community. When NPS superintendents, neighbors who had known the president personally, and neighbors who had not known the president but who understood the importance of the neighborhood incessantly urged city leaders to preserve this locally and nationally significant history, the leaders could not understand the urgency. The Truman history was not part of their collective memory. They could not evoke

80. Ibid. David Glassberg explores the relationship between historic sites and memory sites in Sense of History: The Place of the Past in American Life, 157–59. Glassberg defined historic sites as places that were set aside to honor town founders, places the federal government designated that were “important to the rise of the nation-state such as battlefields and presidential birthplaces,” and places the local chamber of commerce wanted tourists to visit. In contrast, he defined memory sites as “places that local residents associate with their personal and family past.” However, Glassberg does not explore the possibility that a site could be both a historic site and a memory site. The Memorial Building provides an example of how one place can share both site definitions. It is certainly the conclusion of this author (to take Glassberg’s thinking a step further) that if a site is a recognized historic site and, more important, a memory site, the effort to obtain community support for the preservation project will increase and so will the probability the community will retain that structure as part of the built environment.

224


that history to encourage preservation of the environment surrounding the Truman home. They did, however, base the preservation of the city’s Truman history on the argument that it served the community’s economic interests. This is why, as early as 1984, city leaders promoted the preservation of Truman structures, linking the Truman home opening and the Truman centennial celebration with the city’s other histories. When the NPS wanted to add additional properties to the historic site under the 1987 GMP plan, the agency received support from city leaders and chamber of commerce officials based largely on the idea that the acquisition of these properties would benefit tourism in Independence. In 2001 city leaders once again employed this rationale to preserve a residence almost directly across the street from the Truman home. The Winget house had been utilized as a staging area by broadcast network reporters during Truman’s presidential years, but by the twenty-first century it had fallen into disrepair. In early 2001 the IHC chairman expressed concern about the structure to the city’s community development director, who responded that the condition of the structure negatively affected “the experience of our tourist visitors to the Truman Home.” He added: “Removal of this house would alter the historic setting of the Truman Home.” Once again the city justified the preservation of a structure near the Truman home because of its perceived ability to contribute to the city’s tourism industry. In March the city council acquired the Winget house by eminent domain and prohibited its demolition.81 Later that year, the home was sold, with restrictive covenants, to a private individual who rehabilitated it. City leaders’ use of eminent domain to preserve this structure was a bold move representing a strong activist city government, unlike the government during the 1984 preservation crisis. The action drew little public reaction. The First Baptist Church and the RLDS Church, who had opposed having their properties governed under the heritage district ordinance, and the Freedom Fighters, who opposed the M/TRC redevelopment plan, did not respond. Since the use of eminent domain involved only one structure, and this structure was not owned by an influential area institution, there was little controversy.

81. Bruce Hall to Steve Cauveren, 5 February 2001, folder HC 4 February 2001, and Commission minutes, 6 March 2001, folder HC 11 April 2001, OHPM Papers.


225

M/TRC Rehabilitation, Redevelopment, and Demolition While there was little controversy over the city’s use of eminent domain near the Truman home, there was considerable controversy surrounding the fate of a block of structures the M/TRC had acquired for rehabilitation just outside the Truman NHL boundary. It was a controversy that pitted the historic preservation manager and the heritage commission against the M/TRC and the developer. In 1998 the M/TRC purchased twenty-five properties from CDA, including eleven properties located two blocks directly west of the Truman home along Truman Road. The M/TRC hired a developer with ties to the RLDS Church who had the financial capital to carry out the project but no previous experience in rehabilitating historic residences. The developer wanted to widen Truman Road, place a median down the center, and move some of the homes back on the existing lots. These changes would violate the secretary of the interior’s standards, which the M/TRC, in the 1995 approved plan, had agreed to abide by. The city preservation manager was able to get the developer to reconsider, and the project went forward, but at a slow pace. The heritage commission, disappointed at the slow pace of the project, then vented frustration in a letter to the M/TRC board: “I hope you . . . share our frustration with the lack of progress on this project in this gateway to the most conspicuously visible neighborhood in Independence, the Truman neighborhood.” The letter ended by urging the M/TRC board to “consider the Heritage Commission and the City of Independence historic preservation staff as resources to assist you with this project.”82 The slowness of the project was due in part to the fact that the developer, Ken McClain, and his architect, Jim Gamble, had little experience in preservation planning. McClain was involved with a number of projects demanding his time; his lack of preservation experience did not mean he was not interested in the history or in utilizing it in his redevelopment efforts. McClain was also an environmental lawyer who had gained local fame and fortune through the successful litigation of lawsuits against asbestos and tobacco manufacturers. He had become interested in redevelopment on the Independence Square when he and his wife decided to convert an old drugstore into a restaurant. In 1997 he explained that his motivation for redevelopment in Independence was because he could 82. September staff report to Heritage Commission, 6 October 1998, OHPM Papers; Brian Snyder to M/TRC board, 5 November 1998, folder HC December 1 and 15, 1998, OHPM Papers.

226


never find fine quality dining or hotel accommodations for clients when he brought them to the square. McClain was also concerned that the square conveyed a negative impression to the entire country. The corner where the drugstore was located was just across the street from the Truman statue, which many presidents and presidential hopefuls had visited. Since this part of the square attracted national press attention when dignitaries visited, McClain was concerned that the boarded-up drugstore “made Independence look as if the town had dried up and blown away.”83 In 1998 he further clarified his interest in the square and its historical legacy: “What we have in the Square and the Truman Historic District is what people all over the country are saying they want. Developers are going out into cornfields to build what we already have, an attractive community with a town square. I think we should emphasize and develop that.” At the time of the statement McClain had acquired three other structures on the square in addition to the old drugstore-turned-restaurant, which opened in 1998.84 It was only a few months later that the M/TRC board announced he would develop the properties that the corporation had purchased from CDA. When this was announced, McClain outlined a vision for the project. A December 1998 Examiner article indicated that his “goal was to have the neighborhood resemble some of the up-scale neighborhoods of south Kansas City” and the redevelopment should “be similar to the homes on 47th Street leading toward the Plaza.” McClain also said he would follow the secretary of the interior standards. But the redevelopment just outside the Truman NHL could not resemble the neighborhoods in south Kansas City and just outside Kansas City’s Plaza area because the homes were architecturally very different. Altering them to resemble the structures in Kansas City would violate the secretary of the interior’s standards. This was the source of controversy between the city’s historic preservation manager, the heritage commission, McClain, and the M/TRC. The differences were eventually worked out, and the north side of the block realized dramatic change with only one demolition. In December 2000 McClain again connected his redevelopment on the square to the city’s history: “My vision for the Square is a highly specialized shopping district that caters to people that are interested in our his83. Kansas City Star, 6 October 1997; “McClain Aims to Revitalize Key Part of Independence,” Independence Examiner, 1–2 January 2000. 84. Eric Cramer, “Plan Could Revive Part of the Square,” Independence Examiner, 9 January 1998.


227

tory and also [in] specialty items that we have in our stores.” The stores he developed and proposed featured and promoted the city’s history. Santa Fe Furnishings, when it opened to the public in 2000, featured upscale furniture, clothes, and interior decorations with a southwest accent, and McClain acquired property for additional restaurants and specialty stores, including one related to the city’s Mormon history. At the corner of Liberty and Lexington, McClain purchased the building located on the site of the former Gilbert and Whitney Store, the Mormon-owned drygoods store that first appeared on the square in 1833 and was later looted when the Mormons were driven from the city. McClain, who had come to Independence because of his strong ties to the RLDS Church, was cognizant of the history of this location and wanted to utilize the history to promote the existing redevelopment of the building.85 While McClain certainly utilized the history of the square to promote its redevelopment, there remained a deeper motivation for his interest in seeing the square and surrounding neighborhood succeed. It was the same reason that in part motivated the RLDS Church to launch the M/TRC plan. Its members were committed to building Independence as Zion. In an oral history interview, longtime resident of the Truman neighborhood and RLDS Church member Carl Mesle stated that he believed McClain’s involvement in both the residential and the commercial redevelopment around the square was motivated by his desire to build Zion in Independence. While RLDS M/TRC board members and McClain never discussed their redevelopment efforts in terms of building up Zion, their actions demonstrate a commitment to doing just that.86 On a more personal and business level, McClain’s involvement in the M/TRC project benefited his redevelopment efforts on the Independence Square. Redeveloping homes as single-family residences just blocks away from the square would provide patrons for his envisioned “highly specialized shopping district.” Clearly, his commitment to redevelopment linked these two areas with a common personal and economic agenda. One could argue that McClain’s redevelopment project also resulted in the gentrification of the Truman neighborhood. The rehabilitated homes were placed on the market at a selling price of between $150,000 and $200,000, far beyond the average selling price of unrehabilitated neighborhood properties. However, while the M/TRC was committed to re85. Robert Hite, “McClain Mines Past to Shape the Future,” Independence Examiner, 7 December 2000. 86. Carl Mesle, interview by author, tape recording, Independence, December 2001.

228


storing single-family homeownership in the project area, not all the rehabilitation projects in the M/TRC boundary favored single-family owners. In 1999 another developer, Cohen-Esry Housing Partners LLC, submitted a plan to the M/TRC to purchase eight properties within the Truman NHL along Maple and Lexington avenues. The plan was approved. Of these eight buildings, two were apartment buildings, which had been situated at the end of Delaware Street since the turn of the century. The firm renovated two homes into small apartments and rehabilitated the remaining four structures for single-family occupancy. The occupants were relocated during the rehabilitation. When the apartments were finished, new residents had to meet low-income requirements in order to qualify for occupancy.87 Cohen-Esry’s project qualified for tax credits because the properties rehabilitation was carried out according to the secretary of the interior’s standards and because the housing was rehabilitated for lowerincome residents. But although the secretary’s standards were applied to the rehabilitated structures in this part of the NHL, they were not applied to the surrounding cultural landscape. As part of the revitalization effort in this block, Independence Power and Light buried the overhead electrical system, dramatically altering the landscape. No NPS reaction was recorded to the city’s decision to put the power lines underground. However, Vincent Gauither, the Cohen-Esry project supervisor, noted that he was not interested in preserving the poles and wires along this section of the Truman NHL.88 Once again the cultural landscape Truman would have experienced on a morning walk to his barbershop or to his polling place in the Memorial Building had been altered. While the Cohen-Esry project allowed for multi-family projects, which the M/TRC had not embraced as part of its plan, McClain also proposed the construction of low-income townhomes on some of the remaining M/ TRC property purchased from CDA. The M/TRC balked at the plan stating: “[The] M/TRC does not want a 22-unit complex built there or occupied by low-income renters.” McClain backed off.89 Even the heritage commission became concerned about social service agencies located within and on the borders of the Truman Heritage and NHL districts. In 1997 the IHC supported the city council’s decision to reduce the zoning in the M/TRC boundary from multi-family housing to single-family residences, and the commission asked the city planning 87. Robert Hite, “Developer Has Plans for Old Apartments,” Independence Examiner, 14 July 1999. 88. Comments heard by the author on a tour of the Cohen-Esry properties. 89. “Plan Withdrawn for Townhomes,” Independence Examiner, 5 January 1999.


229

commission to monitor the types of social agencies granted permits in and around the Truman neighborhood. These social service agencies included a free lunch program operated at the former William Chrisman Junior/Senior High School, an important building in the Truman NHL. Other social service agencies on the outskirts included a shelter for homeless families, two residential group homes, and a social services center on the square. The IHC chairman wrote to the city’s planning commission arguing that the presence of these social service agencies was “detrimental” to single-family homeownership and that these agencies presented “a negative impact on tourism because of their close proximity to the Truman Home, the square, Truman Walking Tour and the Truman Memorial building.” He urged the planning commission to “exercise great caution in granting additional special use permits” in the area, to “enforce the existing zoning codes,” and to “consider single family zoning of a lesser density in and around the Truman Home and Square areas.” The city planning director, Larry L. Mlnarik, responded by drafting a memo to the community development director, which indicated that, of the five social service agencies outlined in the heritage commission letter, only one merited further investigation. While the city was committed to the M/TRC objective of single-family homeownership, Mlnarik’s memo recognized the legitimacy of these social service agencies operating in and around the Truman neighborhood.90 The M/TRC plan clearly favored individual homeowners who could afford to make the minimum required improvements to their properties in order to qualify for the tax abatement. By April 2000, the M/TRC board reported that over $50 million had been invested in the project area. In all, 106 residents took advantage of the tax abatement credits and invested an average of $14,000 each, far above the required average investment of $6,000, to bring their homes up to code. For every resident who received tax abatement, the M/TRC estimated that another three or four housing units were voluntarily brought up to code. The M/TRC reported 900 deficient housing units in 1995, but by the year 2000 only 160 remained in the project area.91 Clearly, the M/TRC experienced success in neighborhood redevelopment. In 2000 the city expanded the M/TRC boundaries to include all of the 90. Mike Calvert to Independence Planning Commission, undated, folder HC 3 August 1999, and Larry L. Mlnarik, planning director, to Bruce A. Hahl, community development director, 29 September 1999, folder HC 5 October 1999, OHPM Papers. 91. For the statistics, see M/TRC board minutes, 13 April 2000, in folder BOD 19 April 2000, M/TRC Papers.

230


Truman NHL and additional residential homes outside the NHL boundary, adding approximately 700 structures to the original M/TRC project area, which had contained approximately 1,400 residential properties (see M/TRC map). The M/TRC conducted another study of all the properties within the enlarged M/TRC boundary in December 2002 and found that, within the old M/TRC boundary, the rental occupancy rate had been reduced from 70 percent to 42 percent. In the new area, the percentage of rental properties had declined from 38 percent to 34 percent. The M/TRC goal was to have rental property comprise less than 50 percent of the total properties in the project area.92 The M/TRC published report for 2001–2002 suggested that the corporation had succeeded in gentrifying a portion of the project area. It noted that one section of the area, previously listed as “low-to-moderate,” showed an increase in average family income, including the homes McClain had rehabilitated along Truman Road. The report noted also that some individuals in the M/TRC project area wanted to participate in the tax abatement program but could not do so because of “financial setbacks.” The M/TRC did not evaluate how to assist these individuals obtain funds to participate, but it suggested that some individuals with “low-to-moderate” incomes might be left out of the program.93 While McClain worked on rehabilitating historic properties on the north side of Truman Road between Union and River, in 2003 the south side of the road, also containing M/TRC-owned properties, received neighborhood attention. These properties had just missed being included in the city’s 1979 expanded heritage district because the RLDS Church had plans for their removal. The neighbors, who had moved into the homes on the north side of Truman Road, wanted to see the south side’s boardedup properties redeveloped. McClain had an agreement to complete the rehabilitation work on the south side, but he decided not to pursue it and the M/TRC had to find another developer. Dial Realty, a firm whose expertise was not in historic rehabilitation but in suburban strip mall development, submitted a proposal to the M/TRC board for the construction of seven new houses and two historic rehabilitations.94 The developer’s plan also included the demolition of two historic properties on the 92. Midtown/Truman Road Corridor Revitalization Project: Two-Year Report 2001–2002 (M/TRC Papers), 10. 93. Ibid., 8. 94. David Tanner, “Tear It Down or Not?” Independence Examiner, 21 August 2003. Harpool noted: “this is my first residential project.” See commission minutes, 5 August 2003, 25, OHPM Papers.


231

block. The M/TRC approved Dial Realty’s plan, but since the plan called for the demolition of properties it was submitted to the heritage commission for approval. At their meeting on 5 August 2003, the commissioners voted on the fate of each individual property, and the vote shows a great deal about their views of historic preservation and how they viewed these properties as part of the Truman neighborhood. M/TRC board members, the developer, and members of the neighborhood attended the meeting. Historic preservation manager Steele prepared the city staff report on the two proposed demolitions, which included an 1890s Victorian home and a 1940s-era duplex. Steele recommended that the commission not approve the demolitions, because both buildings possessed historical integrity and could be successfully rehabilitated according to the secretary’s standards. Schwenk, M/TRC board member and the one who presented preservation credentials to the commission, commented on the demolition proposal for the 1890 Victorian structure: “It is the position of the [M/TRC] Board and the committee after reviewing the information that the building has been compromised to such an extent that the property, after rehabilitation, will not retain sufficient integrity to qualify as a contributing member to the National Register Historic District or Historic Landmark District.” Steele’s report specifically contradicted the M/TRC board’s position: “This building is important to the streetscape. The building retains integrity of location, setting, feeling and association.” Schwenk disputed Steele’s conclusion, stating that previous demolitions to the west of the structure had contributed to the structure’s loss of streetscape integrity. Schwenk concluded by arguing that since 75 percent of the structure would have to be replaced, any rehabilitation effort would create a “false” sense of history and would not conform to the secretary’s standards. Demolition was a better alternative. Schwenk did not address the fact that demolishing the structure and replacing it with a completely new structure would also create a false sense of history.95 After Schwenk’s presentation, the IHC chairman opened the floor to public comment about the developer’s plan. No one spoke out in opposition to the plan to demolish the two structures. Four Truman neighborhood residents spoke in favor of the plan. All agreed with Schwenk that the Victorian 1890s home did not have the required integrity left for historic preservation.96 No one questioned the historical integrity of the 1940s duplex, yet the 95. Commission minutes, 5 August 2003, 16, 20, OHPM Papers. 96. Ibid., 20–24.

232


developer’s plan required the removal of this structure also from the landscape of the Truman neighborhood. Lee Williams, neighborhood resident and wife of heritage commissioner Brent Schondelmeyer, spoke in favor of demolition. She noted that the structure was “there when Truman was there and that’s the reason that we consider it contributing today, but I also think it is going to create a significant economic hardship for this developer to have to rehabilitate that structure even to make it a single family home.” Williams acknowledged the significance of the structure to the Truman neighborhood, but Jennifer Grove, Truman NHL resident who had moved to the neighborhood in 1999, observed: “As far as the duplex, I don’t see any historic value to that, it was constructed in 1949.”97 Don Reimal, First District councilman and twenty-five-year resident of the Truman NHL, believed the “duplex probably could be rehabbed,” but that it would be a “deterrent to the sale of houses close to it.” In other words, having a duplex next to the single-family homes the developer was proposing to build on the vacant lot might discourage a potential buyer from buying one of the developer’s homes. The councilman’s willingness to agree to demolition was a seemingly odd twist in the preservation of the Truman neighborhood. His position in 2003 was very different from the position he had taken in 1983. Don and Jo Reimal had strongly opposed the First Baptist Church expansion in 1983 and 1984. In a letter to the city council in 1983, they had written: “We need to do everything possible to preserve the Truman Heritage District intact. Visitors are here seven days a week, not three hours on Sunday morning, they will be walking the area on Truman’s famous route. Please consider that asphalt parking lots can be seen anywhere, but beautiful old homes in a preserved district are a unique sight.”98 Now Don Reimal, seemingly without hesitation, agreed to the demolition of a structure that could be rehabilitated, although it was now handicapped by the perception that the rehabilitation was not profitable for the developer, or the structure was not historic because it was just a duplex. Apparently, Reimal and some of his neighbors such as Williams had grown tired of seeing the dilapidated structures day after day and wanted the situation changed. Reimal noted that the developer’s plan was “an opportunity to move that neighborhood forward with leaps and bounds, to bring it back to one that we can point at with pride and that the tourist 97. Ibid., 22. 98. Ibid. Don and Jo Reimal to Dear Councilperson, 25 July 1983, [Truman Heritage District] 1st Baptist Church vs. Historical District [1983 and undated], folder 2, ser. 14, Subject file 1967–1997, Potts Papers, JCHS.


233

will not be ashamed to say they came to Independence.” Williams said: “We are so tired of looking at this blight and we would really like to see something done.”99 Reimal believed the project would have a positive impact on tourism in Independence. He stated that over the last few years many tourists had asked him about the boarded-up properties along Truman Road: “I would like not to have to answer that question any more. I would like for them to say, ‘Man, this looks nice, just the way we pictured where Harry Truman lived.’”100 Reimal, like the other neighbors at the heritage commission meeting, had decided that it was acceptable to change the Truman neighborhood to suit their own neighborhood self-interest and what they perceived to be the interests of tourists. However, these cultural landscape changes would not offer the tourist the ability to experience the neighborhood as Truman did. Instead, the tourist would experience a fabricated neighborhood Truman never would have recognized on a morning walk. The heritage commission conducted two separate votes on the developer’s demolition plan for the block. Commissioners voted 6–2 to refuse the demolition permit for the Victorian home; the vote to refuse the demolition for the duplex passed by a slimmer margin, 5–4, with the chairman casting the tie-breaking vote. Unfortunately, the minutes do not explain why the commissioners voted as they did. Apparently, there was strong support for the preservation of the 1890s home because it was perceived as having more historic value than the 1940s duplex, even though the integrity of the duplex and its association with Truman was never questioned. It would appear that the commission had not fully come to terms with the idea that twentieth-century structures in the Truman historic district are historically significant—something several neighbors and participants in the 1983–1984 preservation crisis could not come to terms with either.101 The heritage commission’s vote was a short-lived victory for preservation in the Truman neighborhood, however. Jim Harpool, encouraged by neighborhood residents, appealed the IHC decision to the city council. Prior to the vote four council members, staff from the city’s community development department, and neighborhood resident Greg Neubauer toured the two properties in question. According to a newspaper report, 99. For remarks, see Commission minutes, 5 August 2003, 24, 22, OHPM Papers. 100. Ibid., 22. 101. Commission minutes, 5 August 2003, 43–45, OHPM Papers.

234


the “verbal consensus” among the council members favored demolition. The article quoted council member Jim Schultz as saying: “I’m really disappointed a house this close to Truman’s Home would get in a condition like this.” The newspaper reporter also interviewed M/TRC board president Byron Constance, the developer, and Greg Neubauer. Constance reiterated the position of the M/TRC board that the 1890s Victorian home had lost too much of its “integrity” to be rehabilitated and preserved. The developer stated that the 1940s single-level duplex had to be demolished because it did not fit the “scheme for period style homes in [the] corridor” and it would be too costly to convert it to a single-family home, which was the M/TRC goal. Neubauer, a neighborhood resident who had purchased one of the rehabilitated homes on the north side of Truman Road, told the council members that everyone on the north side favored these demolitions. Neubauer acknowledged that Harpool had consulted with the neighbors on the north side about the redevelopment plan he submitted to M/TRC and had incorporated their ideas into it.102 Two days after the tour, the Independence Examiner printed a letter to the editor from Neubauer, which encouraged Independence residents to support the developer’s plan to demolish the two structures: “If the city continues with the attitude that everything must be saved regardless of condition and appropriateness, the area will continue to be blighted, and the boarded up, dilapidated houses will continue to sit, rot, and attract trouble.”103 The fact that the proposed demolitions were a block and a half away from an NHL district and a national park did not seem to matter to the neighbors who had moved in on the north side of Truman road, the M/TRC board, or the developer. On 25 August 2003, the city council overturned the IHC decision by a 7–0 vote and approved the developer’s plan for the south side of Truman Road. According to two newspaper accounts, council members offered virtually no comment on the proposal except for council member Renee Paluka, who noted that some members of the community had contacted her about the impending demolition of the 1890s home and had offered to purchase the home and rehabilitate the structure. The newspaper noted that Bruce Hahl, Independence community development director, stated that a rehabilitation was not possible because the home was owned by the Community of Christ Church, which was working with the M/TRC 102. David Tanner, “Tear It Down or Not?” Independence Examiner, 21 August 2003. 103. Greg Neubauer, “Truman Road Plan Needs City Support,” letter to the editor, Independence Examiner, 22 August 2003.


235

redevelopment corporation. Neubauer was at the meeting and was quoted as saying that the council’s decision would result in “an excellent opportunity” for the south side of Truman Road. IHC member Vicki Nave was quoted as saying: “I’m unhappy that the council members didn’t seem to read the applications” and that “they seemed to have predetermined what their vote was going to be.”104 Few members of the community, other than those heritage commission members who voted to preserve the structures, opposed the developer’s plan. Eric Fowler, local historian, wanted to give a “special demolition derby award to James Harpool and Dial Realty” for their proposed plan, and he encouraged them to reconsider it because “both houses were there when Mr. Truman was president.” Elizabeth Eulinger, homeowner and renovator of the Choplin house in the Truman NHL district, also disagreed with the developer’s demolition plan. She could not understand why the M/TRC board did not entertain other proposals from other developers to rehabilitate the structures. She noted that her son had submitted rehabilitation plans for the two structures to Steele, but that the properties could not be purchased because they were being held for another developer. Eulinger concluded her letter: “The Harry S. Truman Historic District and the neighborhood is part of the past. A past that must be preserved for our children.” She urged all residents to speak out on this issue and hoped the structures would be spared.105 Fowler seems to have been the only one to respond to Eulinger’s call for residents to speak out. In a follow-up letter to the editor, Fowler was more emphatic that the structures along Truman Road, already approved for demolition, should be preserved. He took issue in particular with the city council’s decision to allow the demolition of the 1940s duplex. Fowler could not understand “why the new owner [Dial Realty] wants to tear down a structurally sound building and why the council would vote to allow it. The building should be restored and included in the expanded Harry S. Truman Historic District.”106 The decision to demolish two structures seemed like a small concession to secure the services of the developer. But the council’s decision took its 104. Ben Embry, “Demolition Approved,” Independence Examiner, 26 August 2003; Brian Burnes, “Council OKs Razing of Houses,” Kansas City Star, 27 August 2003. 105. Eric Fowler, “Home Likely Has a Truman Connection,” and Elizabeth Eulinger, “Preserve the Past: Save Two Houses,” letters to the editor, Independence Examiner, 27– 28 September 2003. 106. Eric Fowler, “City’s Historic Homes Should Be Restored,” letter to the editor, Independence Examiner, 24–25 October 2003.

236


toll on Patrick Steele, the city’s historic preservation manager, who had led the charge to preserve these buildings. The Independence Examiner announced that Steele was going to retire, and he left the city in November 2003.107 On 23 December 2003, the homes were demolished. When the city rejected the NPS Truman Neighborhood Trust in the late 1980s as a way to preserve President Truman’s neighborhood for future generations, the community was left without a credible preservation plan. Instead of making a commitment to the preservation of the larger environment surrounding the Truman home (as embodied in the expanded 1979 historic district), the community and its leaders chose to preserve or allow the destruction of parts of the Truman neighborhood on a caseby-case basis. There finally emerged a redevelopment plan for the neighborhood, in 1995, but the piecemeal approach to the preservation of the environment Truman would have remembered continued. Instead of finding one developer experienced in historic preservation to work on the properties in and around the Truman home, the M/TRC utilized three different developers who each had a different conception of what the neighborhood should look like. Despite this piecemeal approach, the M/TRC, and specifically the tax abatement program it offered, did make a difference in the overall preservation of the Truman neighborhood. In 1995 when the M/TRC first surveyed the properties in the project area, only 36.2 percent were in sound condition. The December 2002 survey showed that 83.7 percent were in sound condition. By December 2002, 345 people had participated in the abatement program in a project area that contained over 1,700 structures. And many other residents made improvements to their properties who did not apply for the tax abatement. The M/TRC valued these improvements at $3 million. While several owners made improvements without applying for tax abatement, there were others who did not participate in the program. Why these individuals did not participate has yet to be explored fully.108 The M/TRC utilized the Truman history in order to secure funding to enhance the neighborhood surrounding the RLDS world headquarters, which changed its name to the Community of Christ Church in 2001. When the M/TRC was first conceived, the preservation of the city’s Tru107. Patrick Steele, telephone conversation with author, 29 December 2003. While he was disappointed with the council’s decision, Steele said this specific decision did not force him to retire. 108. Midtown/Truman Road Corridor Revitalization Project: Two-Year Report, 2001– 2002, 8 – 9.


237

man history was not cited as the justification for the plan. But in the M/ TRC’s 2001–2002 report, the corporation referred to itself as the overseer of “revitalization activities in an area surrounding the Harry S. Truman home.”109 The NPS, which operates the Truman home, was not listed as a board member of the corporation nor as a member of the citizens’ advisory committee that assisted the board in its decision-making process. Instead of implementing the NPS Truman Neighborhood Trust or a plan drafted by the heritage commission to preserve the Truman neighborhood, the city implemented the church’s plan for the redevelopment of that neighborhood—under the guise of preserving the city’s Truman history. The Truman history and the Community of Christ’s commitment to create Zion in Independence clashed in the city’s cultural landscape. The cost to the Truman history was a loss of the cultural landscape within the neighborhood that Truman had known. However, the preservation of the city’s presidential history forced the church to rethink its grand scheme to create a northern entryway to the temple complex, and the CDA signed over the properties it owned on Truman Road to the M/TRC for redevelopment. For the most part, the M/TRC worked hard to preserve the structures on the north side of Truman Road and hired a developer who poured a lot of money into the rehabilitation of those structures. But the commitment to preservation did not extend to the south side of Truman Road, and a new developer demolished two structures that contributed to the historic character of the block. These demolitions, coupled with the structures the developer proposed to replace them, disqualified the block for inclusion in an expanded Truman NHL district, which the NPS was considering in 2007. The M/TRC worked swiftly to redevelop the south side of Truman Road because Independence Regional Hospital, owned by Columbia Health Care and providing the TIF money that paid for the planning services of Ochsner Hare & Hare, was sold to the Nashville-based Health Care Associates (HCA) in 2004. Almost immediately, HCA announced it would close the hospital and build a new facility elsewhere in Independence. The announcement shocked many Independence residents, and the city council held hearings with those residents to assess their reactions. The announcement to relocate had its most immediate impact on patient care, but it also had a direct impact on the M/TRC. Without the hospital and the taxes it generated, there would be no TIF funds to con109. Ibid., 1.

238


tinue the M/TRC, whose offices and working hours were scaled back. The new hospital opened in 2007, leaving the old Independence Regional Hospital vacant.110 It was the first time the area had been without a hospital since the opening of the sanitarium in 1909. The closure of Independence Regional Hospital is the most important recent development to impact the Truman neighborhood and the neighborhoods surrounding the sixty-three-acre Temple Lot. The hospital was the neighborhood’s largest employer. Many of its employees lived in and around the Truman neighborhood. Will they stay in the area or move closer to the new hospital? The RLDS Graceland College had also constructed a nursing center directly east of the old hospital as part of the M/TRC redevelopment plan. It is unclear how the hospital’s closure will impact the college’s nursing program. More important, without the M/TRC, the larger question is how will the neighborhoods sustain their viability into the twenty-first century and beyond? Old homes need constant repair and updating, and without a strong plan—for either preservation or redevelopment—the viability of the Truman neighborhood and the neighborhoods surrounding the Community of Christ’s international headquarters will be challenged again in the future. How will the community respond? The ideal would be to develop a program now, rather than wait twenty-five years or fifty years hence when a program will be essential for neighborhood viability. These neighborhood resources are critical to the interpretation and preservation of the Truman NHL, to the city’s tax base, and to the success of the Community of Christ’s international headquarters. All parties should work closely together to draft a plan to ensure the viability of the area for generations to come.

110. David Tanner, “White Says City Needs Consultant on HCA,” Independence Examiner, 8 June 2004.

Conclusion The years from 1995 to 2003 marked the fiftieth anniversary of Truman’s tenure as president. The Truman library took the lead in commemorating the achievements of his presidency by hosting several symposia. However, from 1993 to 2000 the library director and staff were in the midst of a fund-raising effort to update the museum’s presidential exhibits, and no systematic calendar of events was planned for the seven years of the fiftieth anniversary. The NPS hosted only a couple of events for the fiftieth anniversary, and the city of Independence and its tourism office did little to entice tourists to visit the city to remember his presidency. The collaboration between the city, the National Archives, the Harry S Truman NHS, and the city for the 1984 Truman centennial had evaporated. By not promoting the anniversary, all three agencies missed an excellent opportunity to reinvigorate within the memory of the community and the nation the significance of Truman as president and as a resident of Independence.1 1. My thinking here comes from my tenure as historian at the Harry S Truman NHS from 1993 until 1998 and from research I conducted between 1998 and 2007 for this book, as well as from my career in public history. I have learned that, if the agencies responsible for historical interpretation or preservation of cultural resources do not find occasions (such as anniversaries) to interpret the history to the public, the public does not remember its importance. From Labor Day 2000 to November 2001, the Truman library’s presidential exhibits were in fact closed to the public, and this was during the fifty-year-anniversary period. The Truman Museum and Library galleries underwent significant renovations, which (some have argued, and this author agrees) present a more balanced view of Truman’s administration. See Benjamin Hufbauer, Presidential Temples: How Memorials and Libraries Shape Public Memory. Perhaps the Truman Museum and Library staff were correct to focus their attention on crafting redesigned exhibits that will endure beyond the fiftieth-anniversary celebration. My point is that effective collaboration among the museum and library, the NHS, and the city could have achieved both enduring exhibits and a renewal of interest inspired

239

240


The city’s tourism department was thinking about how to promote tourism in Independence but did not think to promote a seven-year-long fiftieth-anniversary celebration of the Truman presidency. In the fall of 1997 the city council contracted with Young Nichols Gilstrap Inc. to draft a comprehensive tourism plan for the city. The final plan, released in 1998, outlined four tourism “pillars” in the city: the city’s Mormon, trails, and presidential histories and the square. The planners included the square because they hoped it would serve as the “hub for Independence tourism,” where a new visitor center, featuring the other histories, would serve tourists.2 The 1998 plan, drafted after interviews with community and business leaders, indicated that the city’s Mormon, trails, and presidential histories still resonated within the historical memory of the community. The plan considered the Mormon history an asset, stating that the 1992 RLDS temple was “an architectural wonder dedicated to a prophet’s vision of the Biblical City of Zion.” The city’s place in westward expansion was described by the plan as “key” to understanding western history, so the trails center made “sense from both economic and educational perspectives.” The report noted the city’s “primary” presidential asset was the Truman library because it was “one of only ten presidential libraries and museums” in the country.3 The plan noted the national importance of these histories, but the consultants placed a different emphasis on how the city should promote its tourist attractions based on the number of tourists who visited the city’s sites and whether these tourists were local or out-of-town guests. The consultants believed the city’s RLDS and LDS history had a “powerful niche” as an Independence attraction because the LDS Museum and Visitor Center, in operation since 1971, had 60,000 annual visitors, 41,000 of whom came from outside the Kansas City region. These outside visitors, according to the consultants, were the most important to attract because they would probably stay overnight and pump more money into the local economy. In contrast, the consultants believed that the city’s ability to attract tourists to the Truman library and museum and the Truman home was in decline because visitation to the library had declined in recent years. Even though the consultant’s report stated that the combined visiby the anniversary. The city should have been a hub of activity during those fiftiethanniversary years, and it was not. 2. Young Nichols Gilstrap Inc., 1998 Independence Tourism Strategy: A Report Commissioned by the City of Independence, 16. 3. Ibid., 19, 31.

Conclusion

241

tation of the home and library was 180,000 in 1996, they expressed concern because many of these were local visitors who did not stay overnight in Independence. It is surprising, but the consultants recommended that the city’s trails center, which only had 20,000 visitors in 1996, be redeveloped so it could be linked with the city’s Mormon history. The plan noted that if the city’s trails history could create links with the RLDS, LDS, and the square, then “visitors will be exposed to the Truman attractions as well.” In 2004 John Mark Lambertson, director of the National Frontier Trails Center, stated that it “could become the draw for Independence that could one day surpass the Truman home and presidential museum.”4 Unfortunately, the Gilstrap plan diminished the importance of the Truman home as a national attraction. It mentioned the home as an important presidential site but never identified it as part of the Harry S Truman NHS. The consultants not only downplayed the value of the Truman home as an NPS site (an honor for any community) but also limited the city’s presidential tourist attractions to the Truman library and Truman home. The Harry S Truman Historic District NHL and the Harry S. Truman Heritage District were never mentioned by name as potential tourist attractions. The report mentioned a “Truman walking trail” that had been planned by the city and that would wander through these districts, but the significance of the Truman neighborhood and these two historic districts had vanished from the community’s memory.5 The walking trail was completed in 2003, and the city published a brochure featuring properties in the neighborhood that had ties to Truman. In 2004 the city erected new signs to its historical attractions. None of the signs directed tourists to the Truman NHL or Heritage districts. The city’s completion of the walking trail and brochure still did not mean the Truman neighborhood resonated within the historical consciousness of the community. City leaders have been unable to craft a preservation strategy in order to preserve the environment Truman would have experienced on his morning walks. Instead of preserving the president’s walking environment, the community has embraced a piecemeal approach to preservation that has focused primarily on saving individual structures within the neighborhood. However, the 2003 city council decision to allow the demolition of historic structures only two blocks away from the boundary of Harry S Truman NHS demonstrates that not 4. Ibid., 31, 44. For Lambertson’s quote, see “Trails Museum,” Independence Examiner, 13 May 2004. 5. Young Nichols Gilstrap Inc., 1998 Independence Tourism Strategy: A Report Commissioned by the City of Independence, 23.

242


even the structures of Truman’s neighborhood are safe from removal. The overriding reason for the city’s piecemeal approach is that Independence cannot think in terms of preserving the entire cultural landscape Truman would have experienced on his morning constitutionals. Its efforts have also been limited by the presence of the city’s other histories. Over the course of the twentieth century, the nineteenth-century concept of Independence as Zion, long a part of Mormon and RLDS Church memory, influenced the RLDS Church to buy property in and around the Truman neighborhood in order to develop the temple complex. This development brought about the destruction of a number of historic structures that were historically important to the RLDS Church movement, which altered the neighborhood surrounding the Truman home. In the mid-twentieth century the city’s historical memory of the trails was kept alive by the Independence Chamber of Commerce, which developed the Santa-Cali-Gon days celebration in the 1940s and revived it in 1974 in order to promote business on the Independence Square. The concepts of Independence as Zion and the idea that the Independence Square was the seat of the city’s trails history were firmly planted within the historical consciousness of the community when the Harry S. Truman Heritage District was established in 1974. For the first time in the city’s history, the proposed heritage district ordinance challenged the ability of churches to develop their surrounding environment as they saw fit, and the city council responded by exempting churches from compliance with the ordinance. What had clearly emerged by 1974 was a cultural landscape that aligned all three histories in close proximity to one another. The Truman neighborhood was right in the middle of two competing histories: the RLDS vision of Zion to the west and the city’s trails history immediately east, centered on the Independence Square. For a brief period from 1974 to 1984, the Truman neighborhood was seen as a historical and economic asset to the community. It was Truman’s neighbors, those who personally knew him and witnessed his walks through the neighborhood, who persuaded the city council to create the locally designated district, and in 1979 the city council expanded the district, which was a community victory for the preservation of the memory of Truman’s environment. The expansion was undertaken in order to develop the neighborhood as a tourist attraction. Development never took place, however, and the church exemption from the expanded historic district ordinance remained in place. In 1984 the city council, bowing primarily to the argument that church autonomy was more important than preserving the environment associ-

Conclusion

243

ated with a former president, again redefined the Truman neighborhood and reduced the size of the heritage district. The reduction effectively diminished the neighborhood’s importance in the community’s memory. City history shows that, when structures no longer possess either an economic or a historical value within the community’s consciousness, their preservation becomes difficult. NPS officials took issue with this decision and reminded the community of the historical significance of the entire Truman NHL when the service crafted its general management plan strategy to preserve all structures within the Truman NHL. The NPS plan received strong support from residents who had supported the creation of the heritage district in 1974 and from other neighbors who had moved into the area because they also believed the preservation of Truman’s neighborhood environment was important. However, the churches and the city council once again argued that religious use of property was more important than preservation of presidential history. The view that property in the Truman Heritage and NHL districts was religiously inviolable had a profound impact on how the community came to remember the Truman neighborhood. It is, however, not the only factor reducing the significance of Truman’s walking environment within the community’s historical memory. During the mid 1980s, when the city promoted the Truman centennial, city leaders vigorously campaigned for funds to construct a trails center, capitalizing on the city’s historical memory of the trails in order to establish a museum. In addition to the Santa-Cali-Gon Festival, the 1990 opening of the trails museum firmly planted the city’s trails history within the historical consciousness of the community. The community continues to find its trails past fascinating, even though few of the city’s historic resources, including those on the Independence Square, date from the period 1830–1850. Most of the structures date from the early twentieth century, when Truman’s political star was rising from county politician to president. Fascination with the city’s trails history became evident once again when the 1998 tourism plan recommended that the city place a priority on redeveloping the trails center to attract more tourists.6 At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the preservation of the Truman neighborhood hangs in the balance. The community currently does not share a collective memory of the neighborhood’s historical significance. Collective memory is composed of personal memories of a community’s residents, as refreshed by public policy. Many of those who per6. Ibid., 31.

244


sonally knew the president as a friend and neighbor have either died or moved away. These were the ones who approached the city council to request that a local historic district be created to honor their former neighbor and friend. Many were the same neighbors who fought the First Baptist Church’s decision to demolish structures within the Truman NHL. They understood the importance of the neighborhood Truman called home. But today, their personal memories, comprising a collective neighborhood memory, have grown silent and there has been little effort by the NPS, the National Archives, or the city to revitalize the memory. It is difficult to predict how the community will remember the Truman environment in the twenty-first century. This study has demonstrated that city leaders have been reluctant to create a preservation strategy to preserve the environment Truman would have recognized on a morning walk. Since 1984 they have been content to define the Truman neighborhood primarily as the structures managed and interpreted by the NPS, and the service has been content to confine its interpretation of Truman’s environment to his occupation of 219 N. Delaware. Both city officials and administrators from the National Archives and the NPS must broaden their interpretation of Truman’s legacy in Independence if the significance of Truman’s walking environment is to resonant among future generations of Independence residents. A broader interpretation of Truman’s legacy in Independence will present a challenge to the city’s religious and trails histories. The Midwest regional office of the NPS has recently concluded that a considerable portion of the Independence Square has historic ties with the former president, and that many of these structures could be included in an expanded Truman NHL boundary linking the Truman neighborhood with the square. While square merchants have expressed support to be included in an expanded Truman NHL district, it may be difficult to expand the local Truman Heritage District to provide local zoning protection to the area. The fact that the heritage district still does not protect the entire Truman NHL speaks volumes about the city’s commitment to upholding the ability of churches to develop property without restraint. In 2006 the Heritage Commission city ordinance was revised yet again to include language that recognized the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) of 2000, which exempts churches from having to comply with land-use ordinances, including historic preservation ordinances. The constitutionality of the law has yet to be established. Expanding the heritage district might spark another battle between the city’s religious and presidential histories because the First Baptist Church still owns properties in

Conclusion

245

the area. Expanding the Truman NHL to include the Independence Square could also threaten how the city has traditionally remembered its trails history. Even though a few buildings on the square have indeed survived from the trails days, there are not enough of them to justify the creation of a separate trails district. Expanding the city’s Truman history to include the square would challenge the community’s memory of the square as the seat of the city’s trails history—a history now rarely visible on the city’s cultural landscape. Remembering the environment of Truman’s neighborhood in the twentyfirst century will require the community to rediscover, or discover for the first time, the significance of the Truman presidential neighborhood. This will be a challenge because the cultural landscape of Truman’s neighborhood operates against a landscape dominated by the history and memory of Independence as Zion and as provisioning center for the country’s nineteenth-century westward migration. The result is that these competing histories are vying with each other for space and place within the community’s collective memory. This competition has resulted in a unique situation: the city’s most numerous and visible historic resources, those related to Truman, have become the least visible in the community’s historical consciousness. If future generations of Americans are to experience the Truman neighborhood as Truman did, residents of the Truman NHL, the city, and the federal agencies that manage its presidential history must remind current neighborhood residents of the president’s sixty-four-year association with that environment. While the Truman history has largely remained a key economic asset to the local community, it is often not seen as an important historical asset. Reminding the public that the Truman neighborhood is an asset can be accomplished through interpretive exhibits, brochures, and walking tours. However, what sets the Truman history apart from the nationally significant Mormon and trails history is that residents and visitors to the city can actually walk the same streets as the former president walked—and see, for the most part, the same sights he would have witnessed. This is what makes the city’s presidential history unique—it does not have to be re-created in a museum. Hopefully, the next generation of Independence residents will be able to generate a historical consciousness that will allow a local, state, national, and international audience the opportunity to experience Truman’s neighborhood, not re-created in a museum, but as he did on one of his morning walks.

Bibliography

Manuscript Collections Chamber of Commerce Board Minutes, Independence, Missouri. City of Independence, Missouri: City Council Minutes. Office of Historic Preservation Manager Papers (OHPM Papers). Community of Christ Archives. See Reorganized Latter Day Saints (RLDS) Archives, Independence, Missouri. Jackson County Historical Society, Independence, Missouri (JCHS): Adams, W. H., Papers. Brooks, Dr. Philip C., Collection. Everitt, Robert Stanton, Collection. Haynor, John, Papers. Independence Chamber of Commerce Collection. Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority Meeting Minutes. O’Brien, Patrick, Papers. Potts, Barbara, Papers. Society Minute Book 1940–1961 Papers. Wright, Edward C., Papers. Midtown Truman Road Corridor Redevelopment (M/TRC) Offices, Independence, Missouri: M/TRC Papers. Reorganized Latter Day Saints (RLDS) Archives, Independence, Missouri (now the Community of Christ Archives): First Presidency Papers (RG29-1, RG29-2). Gathering Committee Papers (RG19). 247

248

Bibliography

Hartshorn, Chris, Papers (P80). Presiding Bishops’ Records and Papers (P54). Presiding Bishopric Papers (RG28). Sanitarium Papers (P89). Smith, Frederick Madison, Records and Papers (P45). Smith, W. Wallace, President Emeritus Papers (P94). United Order of Enoch Papers (RG8). Square One Offices, Independence, Missouri: Independence Merchants’ Association Minute Books. Harry S. Truman Library, Independence, Missouri (HSTL): Brooks, Philip C., Papers. Burrus, Rufus, Papers. Harry S. Truman Library Inc. Papers. Miller, Merle, Papers. Miscellaneous Historical Documents Collection. Neild-Somdal Associates Papers. Truman Centennial Committee Papers. Truman, Harry S., Papers. Vertical file. Zobrist, Benedict K., Papers. Harry S Truman National Historic Site (NHS), Independence, Missouri: Blues files, Central files, Historian’s files.

Oral Histories Ketterson, F. A. (“Andy”). Interview by Jim Williams, 5 August 1991. Transcript of tape recorded interview. Harry S Truman NHS, NPS. Mesle, Carl. Interview by author, December 2001. Tape recording. Independence, Missouri. Recording in author’s possession. O’Brien Patrick. Interview by author, 19 March 2002. Tape recording. Overland Park, Kansas. Recording in author’s possession. Reigle, Norman. Interview by Michael Shaver, 22 December 1989. Draft typescript of oral history interview. Harry S Truman NHS, NPS. ———. Interview by Sharon Siron, 20 November 1989. Draft typescript of oral history interview. Harry S Truman NHS, NPS. ———. Interview by Pam Smoot, 13 December 1985. Draft transcript of oral history interview. Harry S Truman NHS, NPS. Richter, Thomas P. Interview by Pam Smoot, 1985. Transcript. Harry S Truman NHS, NPS.

Bibliography

249

———. Interview by Jim Williams, 27 August 1990. Transcript of tape recorded interview. Harry S Truman NHS, NPS. Smith, W. Wallace. Interview by E. Keith Henry, 1981. Transcript. RLDS Archives. Weatherford, Robert P. Interview by J. R. Fuchs, 1976. Transcript. Harry S Truman NHS. Zobrist, Benedict K. Interview by author. Tape recording. Lake Lotawana, Missouri, December 2001. Recording in author’s possession.

Periodicals and Internet Web Sites City Scene (Independence city newsletter). Haberdasher (NPS occasional newsletter). Heritage (newsletter of the Missouri Parks Association). Independence Examiner. Kansas City Post. Kansas City Star. Kansas City Times. Pictorial News (Independence). Saints’ Herald. Spirit of ’65 (Independence High School newspaper). www.archives.gov/presidential_libraries/about. www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/mackintosh1. www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/standards_guidelines.htm www.nps.gov / history / hps / tps / standards / standards_regulatory .htm

Books,Articles, Dissertations,Theses Alanen, Arnold R., and Robert Z. Melnick, eds. Preserving Cultural Landscapes in America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000. Alternatives Document for Public Response: General Management Planning for Harry S. Truman National Historic Site, Independence, Missouri. N.p.: USDI, 1984. Alternatives for the Management of the Truman Family Farm, Grandview, Missouri. N.p.: NPS, Midwest Region, 1990. American War Mothers. Official Program and Souvenir Booklet of the SantaCali-Gon. Independence: Chamber of Commerce, 1947.

250

Bibliography

Anderson, Mary Audentia Smith, ed. The Memoirs of President Joseph Smith III, 1832–1814. Independence: Herald Publishing, 1979. Aron, Cindy S. Working at Play: A History of Vacations in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Arrington, Leonard J. Great Basin Kingdom: An Economic History of the Latter-Day Saints, 1830–1900. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958. Arrington, Leonard J., and Davis Bitton. The Mormon Experience: A History of the Latter-Day Saints. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979. Atherton, Lewis. Main Street on the Middle Border. 1954. Rpt. New York: Quadrangle/New York Times Book Company, 1966. Bennett, Richard E. Mormons at the Missouri, 1846–1852: “And Should We Die . . . ” Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1987. Benson, Susan Porter, Stephen Brier, and Roy Rosenzweig, eds. Presenting the Past: Essays on History and the Public. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1986. Benton, Thomas Hart. Independence and the Opening of the West. Independence: HSTL, 1961. Blackburn, Bob. Heritage Hills: Preservation of a Historic Neighborhood. Oklahoma City: Western Heritage Books, 1990. Bodnar, John. Remaking America: Public Memory, Commemoration, and Patriotism in the Twentieth Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992. Brown, Dona. Inventing New England: Regional Tourism in the Nineteenth Century. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1995. Brown, Richard A. An Illustrated History of the Stone Church. Independence: Herald Publishing, 1988. Campbell, Craig. Images of the New Jerusalem: Latter Day Saint Faction Interpretations of Independence, Missouri. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 2004 Cockrell, Ron. The Trumans of Independence. Omaha: USDI, 1985. Cocks, Catherine. Doing the Town: The Rise of Urban Tourism in the United States, 1850–1915. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2001. Collins, Richard C., Elizabeth B. Waters, and A. Bruce Dotson. America’s Downtowns: Growth, Politics & Preservation. Washington, D.C.: Preservation Press, 1991. Comprehensive Management and Use Plan, Final EIS: California National Historic Trail, Pony Express National Historic Trail. N.p.: USDI, 1999. Comprehensive Management and Use Plan: Oregon National Historic Trail. N.p.: USDI, 1981.

Bibliography

251

Conference Minutes, 1917 to 1923. Independence: Herald Publishing, 1923. Cullingworth, J. B. Political Culture of Planning: American Land Use Planning in Comparative Perspective. New York: Routledge, 1993. Dilsaver, Lary, ed. America’s National Park System: The Critical Documents. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 1994. Dorsett, Lyle W. The Pendergast Machine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968. Draft Comprehensive Management and Use Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Statement: California National Historic Trail, Pony Express National Historic Trail. N.p.: USDI, n.d. Eakin, Joanne Chiles, comp. The National Frontier Trails Center and Its History. Independence: Friends of the National Frontier Trails Center, 1991. Elkinton, Steve. “CRM and the National Trails System.” CRM 20, no. 1 (1997): 3–5. Evans-Hatch, Gail E. H., and Michael Evans-Hatch. Farm Roots and Family Ties: Historic Resource Study. Silverton, Ore.: Evans-Hatch & Associates, 2001. Ferrell, Robert H., ed. The Autobiography of Harry S. Truman. Boulder: Colorado Associated University Press, 1980. ———. Harry S. Truman: A Life. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1994. Ferrell, Robert H., and Francis Heller. “Plain Faking?” American Heritage Magazine 46, no 3 (May/June 1995): 14, 16. Finley, David. History of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1965. Fitch, James Marston. Historic Preservation: Curatorial Management of the Built World. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1982. Flader, Susan, ed. Exploring Missouri’s Legacy: State Parks and Historic Sites. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1992. Foerster, Bernd. Independence, Missouri. Independence: Independence Press, 1978. Francaviglia, Richard V. Main Street Revisited: Time, Space, and Image Building in Small-Town America. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1996. General Management Plan and Environmental Assessment: Harry S Truman National Historic Site. Draft. Washington, D.C.: USDI.NPS, 1986. General Management Plan: Harry S Truman National Historic Site. Washington, D.C.: USDI.NPS, 1987. Geselbracht, Raymond H. “Creating the Harry S. Truman Library: The First Fifty Years.” Public Historian 28, no. 3 (Summer 2006): 37–78. Glass, David. Beginning of a New National Historic Preservation Program,

252

Bibliography

1957–1969. Nashville: American Association of State and Local History, 1990. Glassberg, David. American Historical Pageantry: The Uses of Tradition in the Early Twentieth Century. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1990. ———. Sense of History: The Place of the Past in American Life. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2001. Greenspan, Anders. Creating Colonial Williamsburg. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 2002. Hamby, Alonzo. Man of the People: A Life of Harry S. Truman. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. Hamer, David. History in Urban Places: The Historic Districts of the United States. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1998. Harry S. Truman National Historic Site: General Management Plan Revision. N.p.: USDI, 1999. Hata, Nadine Ishitani. The Historic Preservation Movement in California, 1940–1976. San Francisco: California Department of Parks and Recreation, 1992. Higdon, Barbara, ed. An Illustrated History of Graceland College. Independence: Herald Publishing, 1989. Historic Preservation Forum 11, no. 1 (fall 1996): 41–44. A History of Jackson County, Missouri. Kansas City: Union Historical Company, 1881. Reprint, Cape Girardeau, Mo.: Ramfre Press, 1966. Holleran, Michael. Boston’s “Changeful Times” Origins of Preservation & Planning in America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. Hosmer, Charles. Presence of the Past: A History of the Preservation Movement in the United States before Williamsburg. New York: Putnam, 1965. ———. Preservation Comes of Age: From Williamsburg to the National Trust, 1926–1949. 2 vols. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1981. Howard, Richard P. The Church through the Years. Vol. 1, RLDS Beginnings to 1860. Independence: Herald Publishing, 1992. ———. The Church through the Years. Vol. 2, The Reorganization Comes of Age, 1860–1992. Independence: Herald Publishing, 1993. Howe, Jim. Balancing Nature and Commerce in Gateway Communities. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1997. Hufbauer, Benjamin. Presidential Temples: How Memorials and Libraries Shape Public Memory. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2006. Hunt, Larry E. F. M. Smith: Saint as Reformer, 1874–1946. 2 vols. Independence: Herald Publishing, 1982. Hurley, Andrew. Environmental Inequalities: Class, Race, and Industrial Pol-

Bibliography

253

lution in Gary, Indiana, 1945–1980. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995. Jacoby, Karl. Crimes against Nature: Squatters, Poachers, Thieves, and the Hidden History of American Conservation. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2001. Kammen, Michael. Mystic Chords of Memory: The Transformation of Tradition in American Culture. New York: Vintage Books, 1991. King, Thomas F. Federal Planning and Historic Places: The Section 106 Process. New York: Altamira Press, 2000. Koch, Cynthia M., and Lynn A. Bassanese. “Roosevelt and His Library.” Prologue 33, no. 2 (2001). Kreisman, Lawrence. Made to Last: Historic Preservation in Seattle and King County. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1999. Lee, Antoinette, ed. Past Meets Future: Saving America’s Historic Environments. Washington, D.C.: Preservation Press, 1992. LeSueur, Stephen C. The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1987. Lindgren, James M. Preserving Historic New England: Preservation, Progressivism, and the Remaking of Memory. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. ———. Preserving the Old Dominion: Historic Preservation and Virginia Traditionalism. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1993. Little, Charles E. Greenways for America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990. Longstreth, Richard. The Buildings of Main Street: A Guide to American Commercial Architecture. Washington, D.C.: Preservation Press, 1987. Lowe, Judge J. M. The National Old Trails Road: The Great Historic Highway of America. Kansas City, Mo.: By author, 1925. Lowenthal, David. The Past Is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. ———. Possessed by the Past: The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History. New York: Free Press, 1996. Lynch, Kevin. The Image of the City. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1960. ———. Managing the Sense of a Region. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1976. ———. What Time Is This Place? Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1972. Mack, Arien, ed. Home: A Place in the World. New York: New York University Press, 1993. Mackintosh, Barry. The Historic Sites Survey and National Historic Landmarks Program: A History. Washington, D.C.: USDI, 1985.

254

Bibliography

———. The National Historic Preservation Act and the National Park Service: A History. Washington, D.C.: USDI, 1986. McCullough, David. Truman. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992. McKiernan, F. Mark. Preserving and Interpreting Our Physical Heritage: A Master Plan of the Historic Properties of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. N.p.: N.p., 1977. McKiernan, F. Mark, Alma R. Blair, and Paul M. Edwards, eds. The Restoration Movement: Essays in Mormon History. Independence: Herald Publishing, 1979. Medoff, Peter, and Holly Sklar. Streets of Hope: The Fall and Rise of an Urban Neighborhood. Boston: South End Press, 1994. Miller, Merle. Plain Speaking: An Oral Biography of Harry S. Truman. New York: Berkley Publishing, 1974. Miller, Richard Lawrence. Truman: The Rise to Power. New York: McGrawHill, 1986. Moe, Richard, and Carter Wilkie. Changing Places: Rebuilding Community in the Age Of Sprawl. New York: Henry Holt, 1997. Moore, Arthur. The Powers of Preservation: New Life for Urban Historic Places. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1998. Morley, Julie Mattivi. Historic Preservation and the Imagined West: Albuquerque, Denver, and Seattle. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2006. Mulloy, Elizabeth. History of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1963–1973. Washington, D.C.: Preservation Press, 1976. Murtaugh, William J. Keeping Time: The History and Theory of Preservation in America. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1997. Nash, Gary. First City: Philadelphia and the Forging of Historical Memory. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002. National Park Service, ed. National Register of Historic Places 1966 to 1994: Cumulative List through January 1, 1994. Washington, D.C.: Preservation Press, 1994. Nelson, Megan Kate. “A Refuge for Birds: Preservation and Restriction in the Okefenokee Swamp, 1902–1940.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Environmental History Conference, Providence, Rhode Island, March 2003. Norkunas, Martha K. The Politics of Public Memory: Tourism, History, and Ethnicity in Monterey, California. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993. “Notes and Queries.” Journal of History 16, no. 2 (1923): 256. O’Brien, Patrick. “Independence, Missouri’s Trade with Mexico, 1827– 1860: A Study in International Consensus and Cooperation.” Ph.D. diss., University of Colorado, 1994.

Bibliography

255

Ochsner Hare & Hare. Midtown/Truman Road Corridor Revitalization Plan. N.p.: N.p., 1993. O’Connor, Thomas H. Building a New Boston: Politics and Urban Renewal, 1950–1970. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1995. The Oregon Trail: A Potential Addition to the National Trails System. N.p.: USDI, 1977. Page, Max, and Randall Mason, eds. Giving Preservation a History: Histories of Historic Preservation in the United States. New York: Routledge, 2004. Pearson, Jonathan P. “Presidential Libraries in Transition: The Significance of the Harry S. Truman Library in the Formative Development of Cultural Identification in the United States.” Master’s thesis, International Centre for Cultural and Heritage Studies, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, 2002. Pettigrew, Alversia Brown. Memories of a Neck Child. N.p.: N.p., 2001. Powers, Ronald. White Town Drowsing. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1986. Reddig, William M. Tom’s Town: Kansas City and the Pendergast Legend. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1986. Reichel, Alexander J. Reconstructing Times Square: Politics and Culture in Urban Development. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1999. Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Book of Doctrine and Covenants. Independence: Herald Publishing, 1990. Rome, Adam. Bulldozer in the Countryside: Suburban Sprawl and the Rise of American Environmentalism. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Romig, Ron, and John Siebert. “Historic Views of the Temple Lot.” John Whitmer Historical Association Journal 7 (1987): 21–27. Rosenzweig, Roy, and Elizabeth Blackmar. The Park and the People: A History of Central Park. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1992. Rothman, Hal. Devil’s Bargains: Tourism in the Twentieth-Century American West. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1998. Runte, Alfred. National Parks: The American Experience. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1987. ———. Yosemite: The Embattled Wilderness. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1990. Ruoff, Norman D. The Writings of President Frederick M. Smith. Vol. 1: Theology and Philosophy. Independence: Herald Publishing, 1978. ———. The Writings of President Frederick M. Smith. Vol. 2: Educating, Nurturing, and Upholding. Independence: Herald Publishing, 1979. ———. The Writings of President Frederick M. Smith. Vol. 3: Zionic Enterprise. Independence: Herald Publishing, 1981.

256

Bibliography

Sands, Gary. Truman in Retirement: A Former President Views the Nation and the World. South Bend, Ind.: Justice Books, 1993. Santa Fe National Historic Trail Comprehensive Management and Use Plan. N.p.: USDI, 1990. Sarvis, Will. “A Difficult Legacy: The Creation of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways.” Public Historian 24, no. 1 (Winter 2002): 31–52. Schullery, Paul. Searching for Yellowstone: Ecology and Wonder in the Last Wilderness. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1997. Schwenk, Sarah F. “What’s Happening in Truman’s Neighborhood?” Jackson County Historical Society Journal 26, no. 2 (1984): 18 –19. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. Washington, D.C.: USDI, Heritage Preservation Services, 1996. Sellars, Richard. Preserving Nature in the National Parks. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. Shaffer, Marquerite S. See America First: Tourism and National Identity, 1880–1940. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 2001. Short, Nancy, Louise Taraba, and Rolfe Teague. Milestones in Missouri’s Past. Boonville, Mo.: Missouri State Society Daughters of the American Revolution, 1988. Sies, Mary Corbin, and Christopher Silver. Planning the Twentieth-Century American City. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996. Spence, Mark. Dispossessing the Wilderness: Indian Removal and the Making of the National Parks. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Stevenson, Katherine H. “A Model Partnership.” CRM 19, no. 6 (1996): 7. Stipe, Robert E., ed. A Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation in the Twentyfirst Century. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003. “Temple Lot.” Journal of History 3, no. 1 (1910): 52, and 5, no. 2 (1912): 53. Thelen, David, ed. Memory and American History. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990. Timmons, Sharon. Preservation and Conservation: Principles and Practices. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1976. Truman, Harry S. Mr. Citizen. New York: Bernard Geis Associates, 1960. ———. Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Harry S. Truman, 1945–1953. 8 vols. Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1964. Tyler, Norman. Historic Preservation: An Introduction to Its History, Principles, and Practice. New York: W. W. Norton, 2000. Vogel, Lisa, and Pratt Cassity. “The Buck Stops Where?” Preservation Forum 10 (Summer 1996). Weinberg, Nathan. Preservation in American Towns and Cities. Boulder: Westview Press, 1979.

Bibliography

257

West, Patricia. Domesticating History: The Political Origins of America’s House Museums. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1999. Weyeneth, Robert. Historic Preservation for a Living City, Historic Charleston Foundation. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2000. Wilcox, Pearl. Independence and Twentieth-Century Pioneers: The Years from 1900 to 1928. N.p.: N.p., 1979. ———. Jackson County Pioneers. Independence: N.p., 1975. ———. Saints of the Reorganization in Missouri. Independence: N.p., 1974. Wills of the United States Presidents. New York: Communication Channels, 1976. Wilson, Chris. The Myth of Santa Fe: Creating a Modern Regional Tradition. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1997. Winn, Kenneth H. Exiles in a Land of Liberty: Mormons in America, 1830– 1846. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989. Woestman, Kelly. “Mr. Citizen: Harry S. Truman and the Institutionalization of the Ex-Presidency.” Ph.D. diss., University of North Texas, 1993. Yarrington, Robert. The Auditorium. Independence: Herald Publishing, 1962. Young, Leonard M., ed. Church Administrator’s Handbook. Independence: Herald Publishing, 1995. Young Nichols Gilstrap Inc. 1998 Independence Tourism Strategy: A Report Commissioned by the City of Independence. N.p.: N.p., 1998. Yuhl, Stephanie. A Golden Haze of Memory: The Making of Historic Charleston. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2005.

Index Page numbers in italics refer to illustrations Baker, Bill, 189 Baptist Church. See First Baptist Church Barbour, James R., 175 Barnett, Leroy, 152–53 Battery Block, 26, 44 Bell, C. Jasper, 35 Bellavista Development Corporation Inc., 37 Bennett, Thomas A., 135, 136 Benton, Thomas Hart, “Independence and the Opening of the West,” 68 Bingham-Waggoner Estate, 138, 142 Blacksmith shops, 54, 56 Blight: in M/TRC area, 198–99, 234; in Truman neighborhood, 137 Blue River Kansas City Baptist Association, 149 Bodnar, John, 2, 3, 4, 5 Boehmer, Harold R., 101 Boggs, Lilburn W., 17, 64 Bond, Christopher, 191 Brennan, Robert A., 149, 156 Brooks, Philip: goals as library director, 99; on historic preservation, 104; Jackson County Historical Society and, 99–101; national historic landmark designation and, 117–18; old jail preservation and, 66; relations with community, 100; support of national historic landmark designation, 113– 14; Truman home and, 110–11; urban

AAA. See American Automobile Association Adams, W. Howard, 66–67 Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation, Independence, 122 African Americans: churches, 107; residents of Neck neighborhood, 106, 107– 8 Alexander, Rees, 88–89 American Automobile Association (AAA), 55 American Legion, 64, 65, 67 American Pioneer Trails Association, 54, 60, 61 Apschnikat, Kenneth, 200, 204–5, 208, 217, 221 Archivist of the United States, 142, 143. See also National Archives and Records Administration Ashcroft, John, 77, 78 Auditorium, RLDS, 31, 42; community events held in, 32, 46, 58, 97; construction, 32, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 160; dedication, 40; demolitions near, 182; events attended by Truman, 37, 38, 40, 85 – 86, 89–90, 162; as historic site, 48; importance, 40; Laurel Club, 38, 40, 89–90; parking lots, 38, 42, 160, 182; plans, 30–31; residential neighborhood surrounding, 31, 34, 38, 160; as tourist attraction, 34, 39, 40

259

260 renewal projects and, 101, 102, 104–5, 109; view of Truman neighborhood, 113 Buckley, Bob, 150, 151 Bullard, William C., 74–75, 82, 129–30, 131, 171 Burns, Paul, 115 Burrus, Rufus, II, 70, 109, 116, 120, 123 Bush, George H. W., 183 California Trail, 58, 76, 80. See also Trails history Campbell, Craig, 20 Campbell, Mary, 19 Carnes, John, 155, 156, 157, 158 Carpenter, Bill, 152, 153, 189, 203 Carvin, Grace L., 117 Case, Vernon, 175 Castleberry, Don, 179 CDA. See Central Development Association Center Place, 22, 34, 37, 39, 42. See also Zion Center Place Improvement Inc., 44–45, 126 Center Stake, RLDS, 43–44, 109–10, 115 Central Development Association (CDA): demolitions, 210; establishment, 34; housing rented by, 38, 209– 10; nursing school project, 207–8; properties sold to M/TRC, 215, 225, 237; property acquired by, 34, 38, 41– 42, 43, 46, 47, 49; responsibilities, 34 Central Professional Building, 44 Certified Local Government (CLG) program, 214n59 Chamber of Commerce. See Independence Chamber of Commerce Chandler, Ed, 147 Chandler, Teri, 176–77, 185 Chicago and Alton depot, 204 Choplin, Josephine, 166–67, 170 Choplin, Luke, 170 Choplin, Maxine, 170 Choplin house, 192–93, 235 Chrisman High School, 29–30, 229 Church, Leonard E., 109 Churches: African American, 107; attended by Truman, 90, 133; building demolished by RLDS, 44, 109–10; demolitions in Truman neighborhood, 155 – 56. See also First Baptist Church;

Index Latter Day Saints; Religious exemption; Religious freedom and zoning ordinances; Reorganized Latter Day Saints Church of Christ (Temple Lot), 18, 20, 21–22, 46, 50 Citizens Progressive Committee (CPC), 107 City Council. See Independence City Council Clark, William, 60 CLG. See Certified Local Government program Clifford, Clark, 146 Clinton, Bill, 192 Cockrell, Ron, 154 Cohen-Esry Housing Partners LLC, 228 Colonial Williamsburg, 2–3, 7 Columbia Health Care, 198, 237 Columbian School, 29, 90 Commager, Henry Steele, 93 Community of Christ, 19, 234–35, 236. See also Reorganized Latter Day Saints Community Welfare League, 54 Compton, Polly, 89, 117 Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), 107, 108 Connally, Ernest Allen, 68, 113, 115–16, 143 Constance, Byron, 210–11, 234 Constitution. See Fifth Amendment; Religious freedom and zoning ordinances Conway, Rose, 113 Cook, Ruth, 84–85 CORE. See Congress of Racial Equality Courthouse. See Jackson County Courthouse CPC. See Citizens Progressive Committee Cultural landscapes: along Truman Road, 200; changes proposed in M/TRC plan, 195, 212–17; historic significance, 214, 215, 216; integrity, 188; loss of, 237, 241–42; preservation, 9, 214; secretary of interior’s standards for preservation, 217n65; trees, 216; of Truman Heritage District, 131, 195, 198, 213; of Truman neighborhood, 211–17; of Truman NHL, 187– 88, 195, 198, 213, 228, 233. See also Utilities burial proposals

Index Curry, L. F. P., 102, 105 Curtis, George, 146 Danforth, John, 191 Daniel, E. Clifton, 113–14, 116, 118 Daniel, Margaret Truman, 114, 141–42, 143, 157, 165, 182 Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR), 53 – 54, 55, 56, 57, 64 Davies, Charles A., 100 Davis, Frank, 190–91 Dawson, Betty, 191–92 Deaver, A. Neal, 39–40 DeLapp, G. Leslie, 35, 38, 40, 98, 123, 124 Demolitions. See Housing demolitions Department of Natural Resources. See Missouri Department of Natural Resources Depression, 33, 34, 35 DeTray, Mrs. Robert, 170–71 Dial Realty, redevelopment project, 230– 36 Dickenson, Russell, 73, 144, 157, 158, 165 Dillon, Ann, 158 DNR. See Missouri Department of Natural Resources Dodsworth, George, 84, 162 Donovan, Robert, 191 Earley, Barbara, 159 Earley, Billy Ray, 159 Eastern Jackson County Young Democrats, 67 Eisenhower Library, 125 Eisenhower National Historic Landmark, 112, 117 Electric lines. See Utilities burial proposals Eller, Robert, 191–92 Eminent domain, use of, 224 Enoch, United Order of. See United Order of Enoch Enoch Hill, 24 Environmental history, 11–12 Eulinger, Elizabeth, 235 Everitt, Robert S., 123, 124, 126–27, 128, 131 Federal funding: historic preservation, 204; Independence Sanitarium, 35–36, 36n58, 39, 44; Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, 204,

261 211–16; RLDS housing projects, 44– 45; urban renewal, 44 Federal Highway Administration, 214 Federal Housing Administration (FHA), 45 Fender, Irwin, 123, 189 Fender, Reva, 108 Ferguson, Dean, 201 Ferrell, Robert H., 30, 33, 191, 221 FHA. See Federal Housing Administration Fields, Jan, 148 Fields, Gary, 148 Fifth Amendment, 10 Finke, Ron, 150 First Amendment. See Religious freedom and zoning ordinances First Baptist Church, 145; alley-closing proposal, 144; exemption from heritage district ordinance, 127, 144, 147; expansion plans, 144–45, 147–53, 154–58, 160; First Amendment rights, 159–60, 174, 184; houses demolished by, 156, 188–89, 190; impact of expansion on Truman NHL, 148; influence on city council, 154–56, 157–58, 183; members on Heritage Commission, 166–67; neighborhood opposition to expansion plans, 144, 147, 150, 151; opposition to Heritage District expansion, 135–36; preservation battles, 147–53, 154–58; properties currently owned, 244–45; property rights issues, 189; responses to NHS general management plans, 169, 173–74, 177; supporters of expansion, 148, 150, 151, 155 –56, 157–58 First Presbyterian Church, 90, 124, 133 Fleming, Beverly, 189 Flores v. City of Boerne, 10 Flournoy, Jones and Clara, 15 Flournoy House, 48 Foerster, Bernd, 133–34 Ford Foundation, 39 Fort Osage, 60, 61 Fowler, Eric, 70, 71, 133, 235 Fowler, Pauline (Polly), 75, 123, 134, 151, 175 –76 Franklin, Benjamin, 132 Franklin, Mo., 58, 60, 76, 79 Frantz, John, 178 Frantz, Ruth, 178

262 Franzwa, Gregory, 76 Freedom Fighters, 201, 224 Freeman, Orville, 40 Friends of the Truman Farm Home, 191– 92 Galvin, Denis, 177–78 Gamble, Jim, 225 Gatchel, Janelle A., 170 Gates, E. P., home of, 188–89, 190 Gauither, Vincent, 228 General Management Plans (GMPs), Truman National Historic Site: development of first, 167–79; drafts, 158, 168, 172–79, 188; final 1987 version, 179, 180-81, 224; final 1999 version, 221–22; IHS responses, 175; implementation, 179, 182, 183; neighborhood preservation alternatives, 168– 69, 172–73, 218 –20, 221, 243; neighborhood support, 175–77; public comments, 169 –71, 173 –77, 178, 179, 184, 220, 221; revision, 217–22. See also Truman Neighborhood Trust proposal Gentrification, 227–28, 230 Gilbert, Algernon S., 54 Giles, Doris, 177 GMPs. See General Management Plans Graceland College, 40; establishment, 19; nursing school project, 195, 207– 10, 238; proposed Independence location, 105 Graff, Hap, 165 Graham, Hazel, 122–23, 124, 126, 127 Grand Central Station, New York City, 10 Grandview, Mo. See Truman Farm Green, George, 61 Green, Mrs. Joseph, 66 Grove, Jennifer, 232 Gurney, Darrell, 209 Gurney, Susan, 209 Gutenberg Bible, 89 Hahl, Bruce, 209, 234 Hamby, Alonzo, 55, 221 Hancock, Sarah, 163–64 Hankins, Thomas, 148 Hankins, William C., 175 Hannibal, Mo., 6 Harpool, Jim, 233, 234, 235

Index Harriman, W. Averill, 40 Harry S. Truman Heritage District. See Truman Heritage District Harry S. Truman Historic District Committee, 122–23 Harry S Truman Historic District National Historic Landmark. See Truman National Historic Landmark Harry S. Truman Library. See Truman Library Harry S. Truman Library Inc., 93, 94, 95, 96, 97 Harry S Truman National Historic Site. See Truman National Historic Site Hartzog, George, 112 Harvest Home Festival, 32 Haukenberry, Ardis, 115, 155–56 Hayner, John, 69 Health Care Associates (HCA), 237 Hedrick, Granville, 18 Hedrickites, 18 Heller, Francis, 30 Heritage Commission. See Independence Heritage Commission Heritage District. See Truman Heritage District Heritage tourism. See Tourism Hess, Jerry, 117 Hinde, Edgar G., Jr., 123, 124, 126, 127 Historic districts: in Independence, 167, 186, 207, 208; property values, 135, 136; recognition of, 9. See also Cultural landscapes; Truman Heritage District; Truman National Historic Landmark Historic Independence Inc., 65, 67, 68 Historic Kansas City Foundation, 121 Historic preservation: citywide plan for Independence, 222; economic development and, 9, 134, 137; evolution in United States, 2–5, 7–10; federal funding, 204; local interest in Independence, 122, 212, 222–23, 224; in Midwest, 8; piecemeal approach, 236, 241–42; property rights issues, 9–10; scholarship on, 7–8; secretary of interior’s standards, 57n16, 195, 200, 217n65, 225, 226, 228, 231; tax credits, 9. See also Independence Heritage Commission; Preservation battles Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 9 Historic preservation ordinances: ex-

Index emptions for religious organizations, 10, 244 – 45. See also Truman Heritage District ordinance Historic sites: Bingham-Waggoner Estate, 138, 142; classifications, 128, 129, 160; in Independence, 53, 129, 133–34, 222–23; local economic benefits, 4, 5; memory and, 223–24, 223n80; national historic landmarks, 111–13; national parks, 4; National Register of Historic Places, 5, 47, 121, 129; Neck neighborhood as, 106–7; residential neighborhoods, 106 –7, 207, 208, 232, 233; in RLDS history, 47–48 Historic Sites Act, 111 History: commodification, 6, 7; relationship with memory, 2–3, 5–6, 11, 223– 24 History of Jackson County, 100 –101 Hollings, Ernest, 177 Holt, Dan, 79–80 Homeless shelter, 229 Hoover presidential library, 114, 125 Horn, James, 161 Hosmer, Charles B., Jr., 7, 8 Hospital. See Independence Regional Hospital; Independence Sanitarium Housing: affordable, 45, 195, 228; deteriorating condition, 137, 187–91, 192– 93, 194, 198 – 99, 224, 232– 33, 234; developed by RLDS groups, 24, 37, 44– 45; historic significance, 160–61, 207, 208, 232, 233; historic value not seen, 47, 106–7, 150–51; homeownership rates, 32, 210, 229; multi-family, 194, 228; occupied by RLDS members, 38, 47; owned by RLDS groups, 32, 38, 41–42; rental rates, 230; subsidized, 45. See also Residential neighborhoods Housing and Urban Development, Department of, 108, 109 Housing demolitions: by churches, 156, 160, 190; justifications, 151, 160, 190, 210–11; moratorium, 188–89; by M/TRC, 200, 202– 3, 210, 231– 36; near Truman Heritage District, 145– 46, 149, 188–89, 190; opposed by Bess Truman, 115; by RLDS, 38, 41– 42, 47, 48, 182; in Truman Heritage District, xxii–xxiii, 151, 205; for Truman Library, 95–96; in Truman NHL, xxii–

263 xxiii, 44, 109–10, 115, 151; for urban renewal projects, 45, 110 Howard, Bob, 135–36 Howard, Richard P., 15 Hughes, John E., 144, 145, 147, 149, 154, 169, 173–74, 190 Hunt, C. J., 34 Hunt, Larry, 25 Ickes, Harold, 61 IHC. See Independence Heritage Commission Independence, xviii–xix; centennial, 56– 57; city historic preservation plan, 222–23; competing histories, 1–2, 7, 242, 245; local sales tax, 222–23; personal landmarks of Truman, 89–90, 103; population, 46; schools, 29–30, 90, 112n76, 229. See also Independence City Council; Mormon history; Presidential history; Trails history Independence, Missouri (Foerster), 133–34 Independence and Missouri River Railroad, 60 Independence Chamber of Commerce: celebration of Truman’s election as vice president, 84; city centennial celebration, 56–57; comments on NHS general management plan, 171; fundraising campaign for Sanitarium addition, 33; fund-raising dinner for Truman Library, 97; historical promotion committee, 101; old jail project, 64, 67; RLDS members, 33; slogan contest, 58; support of shuttle bus system, 163, 164, 171; support of Truman’s presidency, 84, 89; tourism promotion, 68, 69, 138; trails history and, 55; Truman Library opening and, 97–98; Truman’s homecomings as president, 37, 85, 162. See also Santa-Cali-Gon Festival Independence City Council: construction moratorium in Truman NHL, 125; control of presidential history preservation, 184; demolition moratorium, 188–89; hospital closing hearings, 237; land donated for Truman Library, 95– 96; lobbying by First Baptist Church members, 154–56, 157–58, 183; M/TRC redevelopment plan approval, 200; preservation battles and, 148, 233–36;

264 relations with federal agencies, 166; relations with Heritage Commission, 129–30, 166; responses to NHS general management plans, 178–79, 182; shuttle bus system approval, 164; support of National Frontier Trails Center, 78; support of religious exemption, 186; tourism promotion, 138, 184, 240–41; trails history and, 59; Truman centennial proclamation, 162; zoning changes, 228–29. See also Truman Heritage District ordinance Independence city historic preservation managers, 166, 190 – 91, 204, 207, 225. See also O’Brien, Pat; Steele, Patrick Independence city planning director, 74 –75, 82, 129 – 30, 171 Independence community development division, 209, 229, 234 Independence Department of Tourism, 138, 240 Independence Examiner, 26, 57, 66, 73, 75, 84, 85 – 86, 88, 104, 116, 135, 147– 48, 190, 201, 205, 213, 234, 236; Jones Hotel issue, 70, 71; Truman centennial articles, 162 Independence Heritage Commission (IHC): book on Independence historic sites, 129, 133–34; concerns about RLDS plans, 145–46; criticism of, 135; demolition moratorium and, 189; demolition review authority, 202–3, 207–9, 231; design guidelines, 125, 130–32; development project reviews, 125–26; establishment, 123; ex-officio members, 147, 166, 188, 193; First Baptist Church expansion plans and, 147, 150; Heritage District expansion, 134–39; Heritage District management, 126, 129–34; historical survey, 130, 133; members, 123–24, 166–67, 203, 206; moves to abolish, 149, 153; National Park Service support, 152; neighborhood support, 149, 151; nursing school plan review, 207–9; priority shifts, 166–67, 186–87, 190; relations with city officials, 129–30; responses to NHS general management plans, 175; reviews of property changes, 128, 135, 139; RLDS temple plan review, 182–83; scope of responsibility, 123,

Index 125, 129; support of church exemption, 166 – 67; Truman Library director as member, 123, 124 –25; Truman NHS superintendents and, 166, 188, 193, 202– 3; zoning changes and, 228 – 29 Independence High School, 90, 112n76 Independence Planning Commission, 110, 130–31, 144, 149, 150–53, 156, 228–29 Independence Power and Light, 213, 214, 215–16, 228 Independence Regional Hospital, 45; employees, 238; M/TRC Redevelopment Plan and, 194, 198, 199, 201, 237; relocation, 237–38; sale, 198 Independence Sanitarium, 45; community support, 33, 39; construction, 22–23, 24; expansion projects, 27, 33, 35–36, 39, 44; federal funding, 35–36, 36n58, 39, 44; indigent care, 27; non-Mormon patients and staff, 23, 36; suppliers, 29 Independence Square: association with trails history, 53, 242, 243, 245; buildings dating to trails period, 53, 56, 70– 71, 161; celebration of Truman’s election as vice president, 84; economic decline, 53, 225–26; Jones Hotel, 56, 70–71, 130, 138, 161; merchants, 70, 244; Oregon Trail marker, 63, 64; parkway to Truman Library, 110; pedestrian mall, 69; redevelopment projects (1990s), 187–88, 225–27; RLDS office space, 26, 44; Santa Fe Trail monument, 53–54, 64; tourism-related sites, 240; Truman’s homecomings as president, 85; Truman sites on, 53, 187–88, 243; urban renewal projects, 44, 53, 56, 69, 102, 103–4, 106; walking trail to Truman neighborhood from, 187–88. See also National Frontier Trails Center; Old Jail Museum; Santa-Cali-Gon Festival Independence Square Association, 70 Independence Tourism Advisory Board, 73, 163, 167, 184 Independence Truman Centennial Commission, 146, 162 Independence Urban Renewal Authority, 56 Independence Visitors Bureau, 138

Index Interior, Department of, 172; Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, 72; secretary of interior’s standards for historic preservation, 57n16, 195, 200, 217n65, 225, 226, 228, 231. See also National Park Service Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), projects funded by, 204, 211–16 Jackson, Nat, 66 Jackson County: road improvements, 33, 35, 57–58; Truman as judge, 27, 31, 33, 34 – 35, 57– 58, 66, 138 – 39, 163 Jackson County Courthouse, 36; old log courthouse, 54, 163; remodeling, 35; restored courtroom used by Truman, 138–39, 163; Truman’s terms as judge in, 35, 66 Jackson County Historical Society (JCHS): activities related to trails history, 60, 61–63; changing role, 125; endangered status of Truman Heritage District, 205–6; establishment, 59–60; historic preservation forum, 192; historic site surveys of urban renewal areas, 106; History of Jackson County, 100–101; Jones Hotel issue, 70; membership, 60, 69; objectives, 59–60, 67; reorganization (1948), 66–67; Truman Library directors and, 99–101; urban renewal projects and, 102; Wornall House, 121. See also Old Jail Museum Jackson County Jail. See Old Jail Museum Jackson County legislature, 191 Jackson Square project, 102 Jacobs, Virginia, 107, 108 JCHS. See Jackson County Historical Society Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, St. Louis, 4 Johnson, Lyndon B.: LBJ Ranch and boyhood home, 111–12, 117; National Historic Preservation Act, 121 Johnson, Neil, 75 Jones, Llewellen, 23 Jones, Louis, 56 Jones Hotel, 56, 70–71, 130, 138, 161 Joseph Smith Historic Center, Nauvoo, 47

265 Kammen, Michael, 2, 3, 5 Kansas City: historic sites, 121; Pendergast machine, 27–28, 31, 33, 35 Kansas City Star, 205 Kansas City Times, 156–57, 158 Kawamoto, John, 153 Kemper, W. T., Jr., 92 Kennedy, John F., 97, 125 Ketterson, F. A. “Andy,” 143 King, Richard A., 46 Kirtland, Ohio, historic sites, 47 Krause, Philip N., 174 Lafer, Evan, 206 Lambertson, John Mark, 241 Lamoni, Iowa: historic sites, 47; RLDS headquarters, 19, 22, 26, 47. See also Graceland College Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority (LCRA), 70, 101–2, 105. See also Northwest Parkway project Latter Day Saints (LDS): congregation in Independence, 22; land owned in Independence, 22, 46, 50, 95; sites related to history, 47; Visitors’ Center, 40– 41, 41, 240. See also Mormon history Laurel Club, 38, 40, 89–90 LCRA. See Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority LDS. See Latter Day Saints Lexington, Mo., 57 Library. See Truman Library Lincoln National Historic Landmark, Springfield, Ill., 114, 117, 124, 168 Lindgren, James L., 8 Livingston, H. L., 39 Lloyd, David, 93–94, 97, 100 Long, Edward, 108 Luff, Joseph, 20 Mack, Ron, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 193 Mackey, John, 152, 153 Mackintosh, Barry, 111 Maddocks, Juanita, 156 Maddocks, Leo, 156 Mahl, Mrs. Rodney, 108 Majors, Alexander, 61 Mantel and Teter, 144, 145 MARC. See Mid-America Regional Council Mason, Randall, 8

266 May, David, 171 McAfoose, Mrs. James D., 123 McClain, Ken, 225–28, 230 McCullough, David, 191 McCurdy blacksmith shop, 56 McDonald, Bill, 144 McGrath, Earl J., 94 Medical facilities. See Independence Regional Hospital; Independence Sanitarium; Nursing school Melton, Thomas G., 123–24, 129 Memorial Building, 64, 86, 133, 222–23, 229 Memory sites, 223–24, 223n80 Mesle, Carl, 228 Mid-America Regional Council (MARC), 204, 205, 212–13 Mid-Town Truman Road Corridor (M/TRC) Redevelopment Corporation: board members, 199, 200, 201, 202, 231, 234; establishment, 49, 199; links to RLDS church, 49, 199, 205–6, 215, 234 – 35, 237; Truman Road projects, 225, 227–28 Mid-Town Truman Road Corridor (M/TRC) Redevelopment Plan: advisory council, 199, 202; affordable housing plans, 195, 228; blight in area, 198–99, 234; boundaries, 196 – 97, 229–30; city council vote, 200; compared to city preservation plans, 195, 198; demolitions, 195, 200, 202–3, 210, 231–36; design guidelines, 202; draft plan, 194–201; funding, 198, 199, 204, 205, 237–38; future of, 238; homeownership promotion, 210, 229, 230; housing rehabilitation, 195, 200, 201, 207, 229, 236; impact on Truman neighborhood, 205; implementation, 202–3, 207–11, 212–13, 225–28, 236; link to presidential history, 205; NPS not involved in, 199, 200, 202, 237; NPS views of, 200, 204–5; nursing school project, 195, 207–10, 238; objectives, 195, 210, 229, 230; potential impact on Truman neighborhood, 200; preservation issues, 200; presidential history and, 236–37; public debate on, 200– 201; relocation of residents, 209–10, 228; tax abatements for property repairs, 201, 229, 230, 236; tax increment

Index financing district, 49, 198, 199, 237; zoning changes, 228–29 Miller, Merle, 30 Minor, Grace, 151 Missouri: expulsion of Mormons, 16–17, 54, 64; historic preservation tax credits, 9; Ozark National Scenic Riverways, 153, 184; sales tax to fund state parks, 74, 77; state legislature, 74 Missouri Committee on the Humanities, 138 Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR), 74; Office of Historic Preservation, 150, 160, 189, 193; parks division, 75, 77 Missouri Department of Transportation, 96, 199–200 Missouri Parks Association, 74, 75, 77, 82 Mlnarik, Larry L., 150, 229 Moe, Richard, 204 Moon, J. Orrin, 58 Moreland, Earl, 107 Mormon history: competition with presidential and trails histories, 1–2, 7, 242, 245; growth of settlement, 15, 16; historic sites, 47–48, 54, 133; importance of Independence, 50–51, 240; return to Independence, 18–19, 21–22 Mormons: arrival in Independence, 14– 15; dissenting factions, 17; expulsion from Missouri, 16–17, 54, 64; gathering in Independence, 15; polygamy, 17; tensions with non-Mormons, 15– 17. See also Latter Day Saints; Reorganized Latter Day Saints; Zion Mormon storehouse, 16, 54, 228 Mormon Visitors’ Center, 40–41, 41, 240 Morris, Doddie, 209 Morris, Terry V., 151 Morris family, 185 Mortensen, A. R., 128 Mosiman, Paul, 131 Mott, William Penn, 177 M/TRC. See Mid-Town Truman Road Corridor Mueller, Florence, 177 Murphy, Betty, 170 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), presidential library

Index management, 91, 97, 114. See also Truman Library National Frontier Trails Center, 80; development, 73 –79, 81– 82, 167, 243; funding, 74 –75, 77, 78 –79, 82, 243; objectives, 77; opening, 2, 53, 79; proposal to link to Mormon history, 241; as tourist attraction, 241, 243; visitors, 79 – 80, 82. See also Trails history National historic landmarks: impact assessments for federally funded projects, 121; presidential, 111–13, 114, 117. See also Truman National Historic Landmark National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 5, 121, 122, 208, 214, 215 National Historic Sites Act, 4 National historic trails, 72–73, 78, 79, 80, 81 Nationalism, 3, 4 National Old Trails Association (NOTA), 55 – 56, 68 – 69 National Old Trails Road, 55 National parks: native peoples removed, 11; relations with nearby residents, 153, 184; as tourist attractions, 3–4, 6 National Park Service (NPS): concerns about M/TRC plan, 200; establishment, 3; failure to integrate into Independence community, 220; historic sites acquired by, 4; importance of Truman neighborhood preservation, 152, 156 – 57, 167– 69, 186, 190 – 91, 218–22, 243; involvement in Truman neighborhood preservation, 168–69, 172–73, 218–22; lack of involvement in M/TRC plan, 199, 200, 202, 237; Midwest Region, 142, 143, 154, 158, 168, 179, 191; National Frontier Trails Center and, 79; national trail designations, 72–73, 78, 79, 80, 81; Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, 113, 128; opinion on Truman Heritage District ordinance, 128; presidential national historic landmarks, 111–13, 114, 117; seen as interfering in local affairs, 157, 158, 169–70, 174; trails museum study, 53. See also Truman National Historic Site National Register of Historic Places, 5, 47, 121, 129

267 National Trails System Act, 72, 79, 81 National Trust for Historic Preservation, 7, 154, 205–6 Native Sons of Kansas City, 60, 61 Nauvoo, Ill., 17, 47 Nave, Vicki, 235 Neck neighborhood. See Northwest Parkway project Negley, Daniel, 19–20 Negro for Progress in Independence Committee, 107 Neighborhoods. See Residential neighborhoods; Truman neighborhood Nesbitt, Millie, 73, 74–75, 157, 163–64 Neubauer, Greg, 233, 234 New York City: Grand Central Station, 10; St. Bartholomew’s Church, 10 NHLs. See National historic landmarks; Truman National Historic Landmark NHPA. See National Historic Preservation Act NHS. See Truman National Historic Site Noland/Haukenberry home, 174, 178, 201–2 Noland School, 90 Norkunas, Martha K., 6, 7 Norris, Larry R., 210–11 Northwest Parkway project, 102–3, 104 – 9 NOTA. See National Old Trails Association NPS. See National Park Service Nursing school, 195, 207–10, 238 O’Brien, Pat, 130, 132, 134, 135, 136, 139, 144, 145, 167, 187 Ochsner Hare & Hare, 49, 187, 194, 198, 199 –200, 210 OCTA. See Oregon-California Trails Association Odegaard, Charles, 158, 168, 172 Old Independence, 136n39, 148 Old Jail Museum: association with trails history, 56; opening, 68, 113; preservation, 66, 67–68, 100; as tourist attraction, 71, 163; uses, 64–65 Order of Enoch. See United Order of Enoch Oregon-California Trails Association (OCTA), 73, 76, 78, 81 Oregon Trail: interpretive center, 81;

268 monuments, 63, 64; as national scenic trail, 72, 73; origin in Independence, 58, 76. See also Trails history Ott, Mrs. Albert M., 151 Ottman, Mary, 213 Ott School, 29, 90 Ozark National Scenic Riverways, 153, 184 Page, Max, 8 Palmer, Ardelia Hardin, 58 Paluka, Renee, 234 Partridge, Edward, 15, 48 Pearley, Mrs. Seymour, 108 Pearson, Jonathan P., 4 Pearson, Russell, 145–46 Pendergast, Tom, 27, 31, 33 Pendergast machine, 27–28, 31, 33, 35 Penn Central Transportation Co. et al. v. New York City Co. et al., 10 Perry, Milton, 66 Pioneer history, 3, 54. See also Trails history Pioneer Mother statues, 56, 57 Plain Speaking (Miller), 30 Post office, old, 103–4 Potts, Barbara: as JCHS director, 205–6; as mayor, 143, 146, 149, 154, 155 – 56, 157– 58, 162, 175, 182; National Frontier Trails Center and, 74–75, 79; NHS general management plan and, 175, 182; preservation battles and, 149, 154, 155–56, 157–58; tourism promotion efforts, 73, 163; Truman centennial and, 146, 162 Powell, John, 213 Powers, Ronald, 6, 7 Preservation, of natural sites, 3. See also Historic preservation Preservation battles: city council and, 148, 233–36; demolition moratorium, 188–89; First Baptist Church expansion projects, 147–53, 154–58; M/TRC projects, 225, 227–28, 230–36. See also Historic preservation; Housing demolitions Preservation easements, 169, 171, 173, 186, 219 Preserving and Interpreting Our Physical Heritage, 47 Presidential history: city attention to, 118, 125, 134, 138, 163 – 64, 215, 222–23,

Index 224; competition with trails and Mormon histories, 1–2, 7, 242, 245; future of, 243–45; link to trails history, 65– 66, 68, 73, 74, 78, 81–82; local control, 184; M/TRC redevelopment plan and, 205; neighborhood redevelopment and, 236–37; not part of city’s historical consciousness, 12, 183, 223– 24, 241, 243–44; sites outside NHL boundaries, 187–88, 190; tourism promotion efforts, 89, 97–98, 138; as tourist attraction, 142, 162–65, 167, 171, 184, 240. See also Truman, Harry S. Presidential libraries: Eisenhower, 125; Roosevelt, 4n6, 90–91, 125. See also Truman Library Presidential Libraries Act, 4, 97 Prohibition, 25 Property rights issues, 9–10, 135, 169– 70, 189 “Queen City of the Trails” slogan, 58, 81 Railroads, historic, 60 Railroad stations: Chicago and Alton, 204; Grand Central Station, New York City, 10; Truman depot, 133, 163, 190, 204, 211–12, 212 Randall, William J., 44, 103–4, 116 Reagan, Ronald, 142, 146 Reagan administration, 172 Reed, Daniel J., 113 Reigle, Norman, 187; dedication of National Historic Site, 165; as ex officio member of Independence Tourism Advisory Board, 167, 184; general management plans, 168, 172, 179, 182, 188; importance of Truman neighborhood preservation, 152, 153–54, 156– 57, 158; Independence Heritage Commission and, 166; preservation of Truman home, 168; relations with city, 164–65; relations with community, 183–84 Reimal, Don, 232–33 Reimal, Jo, 189, 232 Religious exemption: arguments against, 127–28, 154; in historic preservation ordinances, 10, 244–45; legal challenges, 10, 148; property rights arguments, 169–70; support in

Index Independence, 166–67, 186. See also Truman Heritage District ordinance, religious exemption Religious freedom and zoning ordinances, 244–45; federal laws, 10, 244; First Amendment invoked, 149, 151, 159–60, 169, 174, 184; legal challenges, 10, 148 Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 10 Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) of 2000, 10, 244 Reorganized Latter Day Saints (RLDS): administration, 26; annual general conferences in Independence, 19, 20, 26, 34; branches in Independence, 22; businesses of members, 20, 29; Center Stake, 43–44, 109–10, 115; economic organizations, 29, 34, 44–45; formation, 17–18; globalization, 42–43, 48, 49; headquarters moved to Independence, 22, 26; history, 2; integration into Independence, 39–40, 46, 51; Lamoni headquarters, 19, 22, 26, 47; land purchases, 20–21, 26; member moves to Independence, 32–33, 34; mission programs, 43; Missouri government and, 34; M/TRC Redevelopment Corporation and, 49, 199, 205–6, 215, 234–35, 237; name change, 19, 236; number of members in Independence, 34, 46; nursing school project, 195, 207–10, 238; office space on Independence Square, 26, 44; opposition to Heritage District expansion, 135; political power, 25, 26–28; Presiding Bishopric, 26, 32; property demolitions near Truman Heritage District, 145–46, 149, 160, 207–11; property excluded from Truman Heritage District boundaries, 145–46, 156, 158; relations with non-Mormons, 18–20, 25, 29–30, 100–101; return to Independence, 18– 19, 21–22; sites related to history, 47– 48; splinter factions, 49; Stone Church, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26; Truman Road redevelopment project, 230–36; Truman’s relations with, 27, 33, 35; United Order of Enoch, 23–25, 29, 32, 34; women’s ordination issue, 48–49; world headquarters, 42–43, 48. See also Auditori-

269 um; Central Development Association; Independence Sanitarium; Mormon history; Temple; Zion Resch, Velma, 58 Residential neighborhoods: historic significance, 106–7, 207, 208, 232, 233; near RLDS Auditorium, 31, 34, 38, 160; near RLDS temple, 194; near Temple Lot, 38, 41–42, 47, 48, 49; near Truman Library, 126–27. See also Housing; Truman neighborhood Resthaven, 39, 45, 194 Restoration Heritage Plaza, 48 Restrictive covenants, 159 Reynolds family, 147 Rhoads, James B., 113 Rhoads, June, 159 Richter, Tom, 142–43, 144, 146–47, 152, 153, 165 RLDS Church. See Reorganized Latter Day Saints RLUIPA. See Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act Roads: improvements, 33, 35, 57–58, 223; National Old Trails Road, 55; parkway to Truman Library, 110 Robertson, Flavel, 61 Rockefeller, John D., 2 Rogers, Jerry L., 191 Romney, George, 49–50 Roosevelt, Franklin D.: death, 37; Hyde Park home, 114n82; National Historic Sites Act, 4; presidential library, 4n6, 90–91, 125; presidential papers, 98n38; Truman as vice president, 84 Roper-Park, Carole, 74, 81 Rothman, Hal, 6–7 Rucker, Frank, 58 Runte, Alfred. See also Historic preservation Ryan, James, 70 St. Bartholomew’s Church, New York City, 10 St. Louis: Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, 4; Old Post Office Building, 104 Saints’ Herald, 26–27, 38 Sales taxes: local, 222–23; state, 74, 77 Sandy, Eleanor, 123, 159, 176 Santa-Cali-Gon Festival: in 1940s, 52–53,

270 58 – 59, 59, 60, 61, 62; in 1970s, 53, 69, 71–72; economic impact, 71; historical consciousness of trails history raised by, 81, 242; purpose, 2 Santa Fe Trail: claim of Independence origin, 58, 76; Franklin as origin, 58, 60, 76, 79; Independence as provisioning point, 14, 76; monuments, 53–54, 64; as national historic trail, 78, 79; as national scenic trail, 72. See also Trails history Santa Fe Trail (movie), 58–59 Schaefer, C. Leonard, 175 Schlesinger, Arthur, Jr., 93 Schoenberg, Albert, 103 Schondelmeyer, Brent, 192, 232 Schools, Independence, 29–30, 90, 112n76, 229 Schulenberg, Mabel, 148 Schultz, Jim, 234 Schwenk, Sally, 200, 231 Secretary of interior’s standards for historic preservation, 57n16, 195, 200, 217n65, 225, 226, 228, 231 Secret Service, 88, 97, 115 Semple, Robert, 136–37 Sermon, Roger, 33, 35, 36, 92–93 Shuttle bus system, 143, 163–65, 171 Sibley, George, 60 Skelton, Ike, 182 Slusher, Donald, 122 Smith, Frederick M.: auditorium construction, 30–31, 32; building Zion in Independence, 28–29, 32–33, 36–37, 207; courthouse preservation committee, 54; death, 37; historic sites related to, 48; Jackson County Historical Society and, 60; on political role of church, 27–28, 35; RLDS headquarters moved to Independence, 22; RLDS leadership, 25–26 Smith, Israel, 37, 38–40, 41, 64 Smith, Joseph, Jr.: death, 17; in Independence, 15; in Kirtland, 47; in Nauvoo, 17; portrait in Memorial Building, 64; Temple Lot dedication, 15; vision of Independence as Zion, 2, 15, 21–23 Smith, Joseph, III, 17–18, 20, 22, 23, 25 Smith, Wallace A., 40 Smith, Wallace Bunnell, 48–49 Smith, W. Wallace: childhood, 29–30; development projects and, 126, 145–

Index 46; interest in church history, 47–48; RLDS leadership, 42–48, 100, 115, 116; temple development plans, 137 Snyder, Bill, 155 Snyder, Brian, 188, 193, 205–6 Social service agencies, 228–29 Solomon, Melvin, 132 Solomon and Claybaugh, 130–32, 133, 134, 139, 160 Southern, William, Jr., 84 Spillman, Pat, 211, 215 Springfield, Ill., Lincoln National Historic Landmark, 114, 117, 124, 168 State Historic Preservation Offices, 5, 121 Steele, Patrick, 200, 203, 205, 206, 208, 209, 214, 215, 231, 235, 236 Stewart, Deborah, 159 Stewart, James, 191 Stewart, Robert, 159 Stewart, Rondell (Ron), 189, 190, 203, 210, 212, 223 Stone Church, 20, 21, 22, 26 Straub, Michelle, 209–10 Summit Addition, 24 Supreme Court, U.S., historic preservation cases, 10 Surber, Jerry, 65, 71 Symington, Stuart, 108 Tandy, Gene L., 105 Taxes: abatements for property repairs, 201, 229, 230, 236; credits for historic preservation, 9; sales, 74, 77, 222–23 Tax increment financing (TIF) district, 49, 198, 199, 237 Temple, RLDS, 50; architecture, 240; construction, 41, 44, 49, 183; design plans, 49, 137, 182–83; funding of construction, 44; land acquisition, 41–42, 43, 45–47, 127, 160, 242; master plan for complex, 45, 46, 48, 146, 194; plans presented to Independence Heritage Commission, 182–83; property demolitions, 127, 145–46, 149, 160, 182–83; proximity to Truman neighborhood, 182–83, 242; residential neighborhood surrounding, 194; site, 43, 44; as tourist attraction, 240; visual entryway plans, 194, 211, 215, 237 Temple Lot, 31, 42; competition among Mormon groups for land, 22; dedica-

Index tion by Smith, 15; historic sites, 48; Mormon land purchases, 15, 18, 20– 21, 41–42, 46, 50; proximity to Truman neighborhood, 51; residential neighborhood surrounding, 38, 41–42, 47, 48, 49. See also Auditorium Thompson, Lynn H., 113 Thornton, Barbara, 159 Thornton, Kenneth, 159 TIF. See Tax increment financing Tourism: in American West, 6–7; entertainment, 7; heritage, 5, 134, 137; heritage or cultural, 6–7; middle-class, 6– 7; recreational, 7 Tourism, in Independence: attractions, 163; Chamber of Commerce promotion efforts, 68, 69, 138; directional signs for attractions, 89, 101, 241; economic benefits, 67, 71, 75, 142, 166, 224; increase after Truman’s death, 124; promotion efforts, 138, 142, 143, 163, 184, 240–41, 243; shuttle bus system, 143, 163–65, 171; Tourism Advisory Board, 73, 163, 167, 184; Visitors Bureau, 138 Trails history: celebrations, 56–57; competition with presidential and Mormon histories, 1–2, 7, 242, 245; controversies, 76–77, 82; Independence Square’s association with, 53, 242, 243, 245; link to presidential history, 65– 66, 68, 73, 74, 78, 81– 82; monuments, 53 – 54, 63, 64; myths, 58, 76; national historic trails, 72–73, 78, 79, 80, 81; public interest, 54–56, 69, 81, 242, 243; “Queen City of the Trails” slogan, 58, 81; sites related to, 54, 56, 60, 61– 63, 64–65, 66–67, 70–71, 161; as tourist attraction, 68, 69, 71, 73, 82, 240, 243; Truman on lack of interest in Independence, 56, 81; Truman’s interest in, 54, 55 – 56, 57– 58, 61– 63, 68 – 69. See also National Frontier Trails Center; SantaCali-Gon Festival Truman, Bess: death, 121, 141; family members, 90, 188; home deeded to U.S. government, 141–42, 143; home renovation, 84; JCHS membership, 66; marriage, 83; opposition to home demolitions in neighborhood, 115; return to Independence, 83; support of neighborhood preservation, 123

271 Truman, Harry S.: ambivalence about national historic site, 112; on antiMormon prejudice, 30; birthplace home, 112n76; community ties, 83–84, 162, 223–24; death, 51, 120; events attended at RLDS Auditorium, 37, 38, 40, 85–86, 89–90, 162; fiftieth anniversary of presidency, 239–40; homecomings as president, 37, 84–88, 85, 162; inauguration, 89; interest in trails history, 54, 55–56, 57–58, 61–63, 68–69; as Jackson County judge, 27, 31, 33, 34 – 35, 57–58, 66, 138–39, 163; JCHS membership, 66; library site selection, 92–95; marriage, 83; Pendergast machine and, 27–28, 31, 35; presidency, 37, 61–63; presidential election (1948), 88, 89; relationship with neighborhood, 1, 84–90; relations with RLDS Church, 27, 33, 35; return to Independence after presidency, 38, 83, 89, 162; school years, 83, 90; security protection, 88, 96–97; as senator, 35–36, 58– 59, 61, 84; support of jail preservation, 67–68; urban renewal projects and, 102–4, 109, 110; as vice president, 84; voter support in Independence, 27, 28, 31, 34–35, 84; voting in Independence, 86, 88; walks in neighborhood, 88, 89– 90, 91, 97, 162, 176, 241–42 Truman centennial (1984), 73, 74, 81, 142, 146, 154, 162–65 Truman Centennial Commission (Independence), 146, 162 Truman Centennial Committee, 146 Truman depot, 133, 163, 190, 204, 211– 12, 212 Truman Early Risers Walking Society, 87, 88 Truman Farm (Grandview): historic significance statement, 221; lack of integrity, 191; opening to public, 202; as part of National Historic Site, 183, 186, 191–92, 221; as potential library site, 93, 94; Truman’s life on, 83 Truman Farm Home Foundation, 191– 92 Truman Foundation, 92, 93 Truman Heritage District: city support, 153, 161; creation, 122–24, 126–28, 242; cultural landscape, 131, 195, 198, 213; demolition moratorium, 188–89;

272 demolitions in, xxii–xxiii, 151, 205; demolitions near, 145–46, 149, 188–89, 190; design guidelines, 125, 130–32, 222; deteriorating condition of housing, 137, 194, 198–99, 224; endangered status, 205–6; Heritage Commission role, 126, 128, 129 – 34, 135, 139, 151; historic properties classifications, 128; interpretive material, 138, 139; National Park Service support, 152; preservation efforts by city, 187, 203– 6, 224; preservation planning, 129–34, 195, 198; promotion as tourist destination, 134, 138, 161, 198, 242; property values, 135, 136, 195; resident support, 122–23, 243. See also Truman neighborhood Truman Heritage District boundaries: exclusion of RLDS property, 145–46, 156, 158; expansion (1979), xx–xxi, 132– 33, 134 – 39, 145, 161, 242; future expansion, 244–45; lawsuit opposing reduction, 159; original, xx–xxi, 123, 125, 128; planning commission vote (1983), 153; reduction (1984), xx–xxi, 154 – 55, 156 – 60, 161, 164, 242– 43; restoration of expanded (1992), 189– 90 Truman Heritage District ordinance: draft, 127–28; expansion of district, 137–38; NPS opinion, 128; passage, 242; proposed repeal (1983), 148, 149; reduced size, 158–59, 161, 164; resident support, 12; revision (1994), 193, 206; revision (1997), 206 Truman Heritage District ordinance, religious exemption: church projects allowed under, 144, 147; city council approval, 128, 139, 242; district expansion and, 134–35, 137; IHC vote on, 128; legal challenges, 148; objections to, 127–28, 154; proposed by First Baptist Church, 127, 156; repeal, 155, 158–59, 206; revised ordinance (1994), 193, 206 Truman High School, 112n76 Truman home, 166; architectural history, 154; directional signs to, 89; integrity, 143–44, 153–54; ownership transfer to U.S. government, 141–42, 143; preservation, 153–54, 168; public interest during presidency, 88–89; renovation

Index by Trumans, 84; sidewalks, 129, 139; structures in sight of, 115, 173, 174, 178; Truman’s life in, 83–84; Truman’s wishes for future of, 110–11. See also Truman National Historic Site Truman Library: archives, 100; cooperation with other tourist sites, 101; economic impact, 105; effects on preservation efforts in Independence, 65–66, 67; events for fiftieth anniversary of presidency, 239–40; fund-raising efforts, 92, 97; future of, 244; genesis, 90–98; goals of directors, 99; integration into community, 99–101, 124–25; land donated by city, 95–96; land south of, 96, 102–3, 105, 109; mural, 68; museum exhibits, 100, 239; number of visitors, 240–41; opening, 1, 4, 39, 65–66, 67, 97–98, 99; papers deeded to, 98, 100; parkway, 110; relations with National Park Service, 142; residential neighborhood surrounding, 126–27; site selection, 92–95; as tourist attraction, 98, 105, 124, 163, 240–41; Truman centennial and, 146; Truman’s goals for, 100; Truman’s office, 98; urban renewal projects and, 101–10 Truman Library directors. See Brooks, Philip; Zobrist, Benedict K. Truman Memorial Building, 222–23, 229. See also Memorial Building Truman National Historic Landmark (NHL): architectural diversity, 117, 125; boundaries, xx–xxi, 128, 237, 244–45; city support of preservation, 116–17, 187, 224; construction moratorium, 125; cultural landscape, 187–88, 195, 198, 213, 228, 233; demolitions in, xxii–xxiii, 44, 109–10, 115, 151; designation (1972), 1, 116–19; deteriorating condition of housing, 187–91, 192–93, 194, 224, 232–33, 234; First Baptist Church expansion impact, 148; future of, 244–45; historical significance of all structures, 190–91; historic significance statement, 221; impact on city, 122; multi-family housing in, 194, 228; neighbors’ support of preservation, 12; origins, 111–14, 115–16; preservation controversies near, 225, 227–28; social service facilities in, 228–29;

Index structures included in original boundaries, 116–18; structures in sight of Truman home, 115, 173, 174, 178; threatened status, 159; Truman’s view of, 115–16; walking tours, 182; walking trail, 241 Truman National Historic Site (NHS), 166; acquisition of neighboring properties, 173, 174, 178, 179, 182, 183, 201– 2; artifacts in Truman home, 143, 154, 168; artifact storage, 179, 182; boundaries, 180 – 81, 182, 183; concerns about M/TRC plan, 200; dedication, 165; enabling legislation, 146; establishment, 1, 146; events for fiftieth anniversary of presidency, 239; facilities provided by city, 164–65; future of, 244; historian, 173, 219, 221; historical architect, 173; importance of neighborhood preservation, 144, 152, 153, 156–57, 190–91, 218–22, 243; interpretive program, 217–18, 221–22; involvement in preservation battles, 187–88; inward focus, 202, 220, 221; local partnerships, 220; number of visitors, 168, 240–41; offices, 178; opening of Truman home, 73, 142, 146 – 47, 163, 165; potential effects on neighborhood, 143; preservation of home, 153–54, 168; relationship with Truman NHL, 218–19, 221; shuttle bus system and, 143, 163; superintendents and Heritage Commission, 166, 188, 193, 202– 3; takeover of Truman home, 142–44; as tourist attraction, 142, 171, 240–41; Truman Farm included in, 183, 186, 191–92, 221; visitor center, 164–65, 178; walking tours of neighborhood, 182, 218. See also General Management Plans Truman neighborhood: city master plan, 136–37; cultural landscape, 211–17; effects of Truman home opening, 143; future of, 238, 243–45; gentrification, 227–28, 230; historic significance, 113, 150–51, 176–77; integrity, 143; M/TRC redevelopment plan and, 200; piecemeal preservation approach, 236, 241– 42; property values, 135, 136, 195, 227–28; sidewalk and curb maintenance, 129, 139; trees, 216; Truman’s relationship with, 1, 84–90; Truman’s

273 walks in, 88, 89–90, 91, 97, 162, 176, 241–42; urban renewal projects near, 101–10; walking trail, 130, 131, 132, 204, 213. See also Truman Heritage District; Truman National Historic Landmark Truman Neighborhood Homes Association, 159 Truman neighborhood report (1998), 215, 216, 217 Truman neighborhood residents: concerns about M/TRC plan, 205–6; homeowners, 210; Independence Heritage Commission members, 123, 166– 67; opposition to demolitions in area, 235; opposition to First Baptist Church plans, 144, 147, 150, 151; personal contacts with Truman, 170, 176–77, 185; preservation ethic, 188–90; reaction to NHL designation, 117; responses to NHS general management plans, 175– 77; support of district protection, 12, 122–23, 136, 149, 159–60, 170–71, 176–77, 184–85, 188–90, 243; support of Truman’s presidency, 89; Truman relatives, 115, 151, 155–56; Truman’s homecomings as president and, 84– 85; view of NPS, 142 Truman Neighborhood Trust proposal: abandoned, 218, 220; city rejection, 236, 237; in draft General Management plan (1986), 172–79, 193; lack of political support, 182, 184, 187; neighborhood support, 186 Truman Preservation Trust, 192–93 Truman Road: cultural landscape, 200; proposed improvements, 199–200; redevelopment projects, 204, 215, 225, 227–28, 230–36; streetscape improvements, 212–17; utilities burial proposals, 213, 214. See also Mid-Town Truman Road Corridor Turner, Tim, 154 Twain, Mark, 6 Twyman family, 89 Tyson, Judith, 176, 185 Tyson, Robert R., 176, 185 Udall, Stewart, 111, 113 United Order of Enoch, 23–25, 29, 32, 34 University of Kansas City, 86, 94 University of Missouri, Columbia, 94

274 Uptown Independence, 187–88 Uptown Merchants Association, 98 Urban renewal: demolition of housing, 45, 110; federal funding, 44; historic sites destroyed, 69–71; historic site surveys of project areas, 106; Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority, 70, 101–2, 105; Northwest Parkway project, 102–3, 104–9; opposition to projects, 107–8; plans, 101; projects, 44, 45, 53, 56, 69, 101–10 Utilities burial, in M/TRC projects, 207, 216, 228 Utilities burial proposals: advantages, 132; along Truman Road, 213, 214; discussions by IHC, 132, 139, 195; false lines to replace, 214; funding, 213, 214–16; Memorandum of Agreement, 215; by M/TRC, 195, 199, 200, 205, 216; NPS views of, 214, 216; opposition to in Truman neighborhood, 214, 216; supporters, 139 Utley, Robert, 112 Waggoner-Gates Milling Company, 77 Walking trails: proposals, 130, 131, 132; in Truman neighborhood, 130, 131, 132, 204, 213; to Truman neighborhood from Independence Square, 187–88; in Truman NHL, 241 Wallace, George, home of, 174, 178 Walnut Park Development Association, 37 Walter, Doug, 159 Walter, Susan, 136, 148, 159 Warner Brothers, 58–59 Warr, Dorsie Lou, 170 Warren, Earl, 98 Watson, Felthan, 104 Watson Memorial Methodist Church, 44, 109 –10 Weatherford, Robert P., 38, 93, 94–95, 96, 97, 98, 118 Weeks, Phil, 116, 122, 127 Weston, Robert, blacksmith shop, 54, 56, 66

Index Westwood, Mike, 97 Weyeneth, Robert, 8 Wheat, Alan, 182, 191 Whitney, Newell K., 54 William Chrisman High School, 29–30, 229 Williams, Ariz., 56 Williams, Julius E., 107 Williams, Lee, 232–33 Williamsburg, Va., 2–3, 7 Wills, Ray, 88 Wills Garage, 88 Wilson, Dorace, 192 Winget house, 224 Winholtz, Winford, 43 Wirth, Conrad, 111 Wornall House, 121 Wright, Edward C., Jr., 67 Wright, Marilyn, 155 Young, Brigham, 17 Young, Hiram, blacksmith shop, 56 Young, Solomon, 55 Young Nichols Gilstrap Inc., 240–41 Yuhl, Stephanie, 8 Zion: economic aspects, 29; gathering RLDS members in Independence, 25– 26, 32–33; Mormon concept, 14, 50– 51, 242; preparations for, 21–23, 28– 29, 48, 228, 237, 242; Smith’s vision of Independence as, 2, 15, 21–23 Zobrist, Benedict K.: Independence Heritage Commission membership, 123, 124–25, 126, 129–30, 131, 166; involvement in local historic preservation, 122, 189; National Frontier Trails Center and, 75; national historic landmark designation and, 113–14, 116, 117; relations with National Park Service, 142, 165; support of Truman neighborhood preservation, 171; Truman centennial and, 146 Zoning ordinances. See Religious freedom and zoning ordinances; Truman Heritage District ordinance

A President, a Church, and Trails West: Competing Histories in Independence, Missouri

Israel and Palestine: Competing Histories

The American West: Competing Visions

The American West: Competing Visions

A Bid For Independence

The Proprietary Church in the Medieval West

When They Kill A President

When They Kill a President

Education Of A University President

Mugg Welcomes A New President

Getting a Church Started

Church Dogmatics: A Selection

A european declaration of independence

Missouri Caves in History and Legend (Missouri Heritage Readers Series)

Lewis and Clark in Missouri

Blood Trails

Blood Trails

Rough Trails

Tangled Trails

Twisted Trails

A History of the Church in Africa

Cairo: Histories of a City

Rough Trails

Rough Trails

Broken Trails

Rough Trails

Time Trails

Mountain Trails

Word and Church: Essays in Church Dogmatics

Church Safety and Security: A Practical Guide

A President, a Church, and Trails West: Competing Histories in Independence, Missouri

Israel and Palestine: Competing Histories

The American West: Competing Visions

The American West: Competing Visions

A Bid For Independence

The Proprietary Church in the Medieval West

When They Kill A President

When They Kill a President

Education Of A University President

Mugg Welcomes A New President

Getting a Church Started

Church Dogmatics: A Selection

A european declaration of independence

Missouri Caves in History and Legend (Missouri Heritage Readers Series)

Lewis and Clark in Missouri

Blood Trails

Blood Trails

Rough Trails

Tangled Trails

Twisted Trails

A History of the Church in Africa

Cairo: Histories of a City

Rough Trails

Rough Trails

Broken Trails

Rough Trails

Time Trails

Mountain Trails

Word and Church: Essays in Church Dogmatics

Church Safety and Security: A Practical Guide

Recommend Documents