Epilogue

By 1988 I was weary. I had been running on adrenaline and perpetually pushing to maintain momentum for the six years I had been superintendent in Seneca Falls. I always felt that if I stopped running the administration might overtake and destroy the park. I would daily say to myself and others as well the word “momentum”: we have to keep the momentum going. The park was on a fast track for development, and it would have been easy to knock it off its fast track and into the glacially slow standard processes of the Park Service where there would be endless lines to stand in, waiting for women’s rights to make it to the top of that list, if the park ever got to the top…. and then go back to the bottom of the list for the next step in the process and wait once more. Wait your turn could easily have taken twenty years, or more. Or never.

By 1988 I was typically up at 4 a.m. reviewing planning documents in my home office. I would go into my park office at 9 a.m. for a day of meetings and phone calls. I would then be in my park office until 10 p.m. writing reports, and letters, and the all-important thank-you notes. And listening to a recording of the Tompkins County Horseflies to stay awake.

A high school friend to whom I confided some of my stress said the major reason the park managed to develop in the face of political headwinds and community concerns and Park Service worries was that I was always the last one standing, and still smiling.

I began thinking about a change. There seemed two logical times for my departure: in 1988, as design and construction began for the Wesleyan Chapel Block, or, alternatively, when that construction was completed, which turned out to be five years later, in 1993. I believed in 1988 that the future of the Wesleyan Chapel Block was secured. The competition winners Ann Marshall and Ray Kinoshita had created their own team of outstanding professionals to produce the architectural and engineering drawings for the chapel based on their winning design and had won the contract to complete the design work. The project funding also included the interpretive exhibits for the visitor center, and the renowned firm of Chermeyaff and Geismer was committed to hiring a historian to work with their exhibit design specialists. I felt comfortable to leave the park to finish itself.

In the fall of 1988 I requested a short-term detail to the Park Service headquarters in Washington to see if I could be reenergized. Herb Cables created a four-month assignment for me to work on a visioning project for the National Park Service. I was stationed at headquarters in the Main Interior Building across the hall from the legislative division. A legislative specialist position came open, and I applied and, in the spring of 1989, was selected for the position. It was an opportunity to help in the creation of more new parks, more places where untold stories could come alive. And I was relieved to be only a two-hour drive from my aging parents in Richmond, Virginia. My mother passed away within months after I moved to Washington, and my father a few years later. I was consoled that I had been able to spend many weekends with them toward the end of their lives.

My expectation of a smooth transition through the development of the Wesleyan Chapel did not happen after my departure as superintendent. The original estimate to develop the Wesleyan Chapel Block had been about $7 million. By 1989 this had ballooned to $11.7 million. After a year of discussion, in February 1990 Congressman Horton requested personal reassurance from Herb Cables, by then deputy director of the Park Service in Washington, that the Park Service was prepared and ready to obligate the $11.7 million. As I was then the legislative specialist for the Northeast Region, Herb asked me to step into the back-and-forth and be the liaison to Congressman Horton and his staff.

Requesting a line-item add-on appropriation of this magnitude would considerably strain the long-established good-government reputation that Congressman Horton had acquired over his many years of service in the House of Representatives. It would be a detriment to his reputation if he muscled through an $11 million line item and the funds were not promptly spent through construction contracts signed by the Park Service.

A briefing was set up for February 7, 1990, with Herb Cables and the congressman, but the information prepared was not satisfying to Representative Horton. Over the next few weeks many memos flew back and forth between Washington and Boston and Denver regarding timing, progress, splitting the contracting, and anything that might be a thoughtful and professional answer to the congressman. A House appropriations hearing was set for mid-May 1990. Horton and the Park Service did manage to come to an agreement, and he did request the $11.7 million, and both parties testified in support of his request. Debbie Weatherly was again the park angel. At one point I delivered papers outlining the issues to the front porch of her home in a brown paper bag. By December 1990 Congress voted to fund the $11.7 million as a line-item add-on appropriation.

The Park Service prepares a list of desired construction projects costing over $500,000 and ranks them in priority order to both indicate official agency approval and recommend which should be funded first. By agreement with Congress, without that official Park Service blessing no appropriation could be directed to the Women’s Rights National Historical Park. The chapel block received a priority number of 213; however, the list forwarded to Congress was cut off at 200. Herb Cables fought hard and moved the priority number to 39. Without Cables shifting up the priority number for the chapel block, it could not have received a congressional appropriation so quickly, or perhaps at all, in the subsequent political climate.

Still, as Congressman Horton pursued the appropriation, he was jumping the priority line to help the park. Line jumping is not appreciated by the park superintendents who have patiently or impatiently waited in line. An article from the Reno Gazette-Journal, dated Friday, December 14, 1990, hinted at the kinds of problems that could result. The title of the article was in large, bold letters:

Officials: Park projects draining needed funds

It was followed by a subtitle:

Park Service pushes own favorite projects

WASHINGTON—Sometimes officials of the National Park Service push their own priorities ignoring positions taken by the agency or the White House. Park Service officials here said privately that happened in the case of the Women’s Rights National Historic [sic] Park in Seneca Falls, NY, credited as being the birthplace of the women’s rights movement. Judy Hart, the Park Service’s congressional liaison for the north east region and a former superintendent of the park, teamed up with Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan D-N.Y. to get the $12 million approved for fixing buildings at the park. That work was not part of President Bush’s $86 million construction budget for the Park Service but ranked 39th among 195 construction projects on the Services priority list. Twenty projects that ranked higher than the women’s park went unfunded. Hart did not return calls seeking comment.

I was pleased at the time that the criticism of the $12 million was not included in the other half of the article condemning “pork barrel politics and the National Pork Service.”

Ann and Ray struggled with the park and the Denver Service Center to preserve the essence of their design. A mini-storm erupted over the color of the concrete bricks to fill in the spaces where the historic bricks were missing. I was hearing from Ann and Ray on a regular basis. One disagreement would later become crucial to the future of the chapel: the Park Service objected to the large brushed stainless-steel pivoting door located in the outer wall along Fall Street. It was symbolic in Ann and Ray’s design, as it would only be open during the Convention Days weekend. The door was removed, but never replaced with another design. The outer wall and closed door were intended to block street noise from entering the chapel; with the door removed, the street noise came straight into the chapel.

Finally, construction was completed for the chapel. A ribbon-cutting ceremony for the Wesleyan Chapel Block would be July 31, 1993, but Ray and Ann told me they were not invited. On hearing this I met with Herb Cables. Herb picked up the phone and called the park and said you will include Ann and Ray in the ceremony. They took their place in the line of dignitaries on the stage for the opening ceremony, which featured Senator Moynihan. Peter Smith and Kathy Christie of the NEA were also seated on the new long stage overlooking Declaration Park and the chapel. I was standing in the back of the audience. Kathy, Peter Smith, and I drove up from Washington for the event and joined Ann and Ray for a joy-filled celebration weekend in a house on Cayuga Lake.

But then, after five years of construction and the final expenditure of more than $11 million in tax dollars, I heard that the Wesleyan Chapel design selected by the design competition jury would be dismantled. There was observable deterioration of the exposed historic brick, and objections had been raised to the street noise entering into the chapel. The park issued a report offering three alternative responses: (1) no action; (2) filling in the missing pieces of the chapel with a conjectured reconstruction with modern bricks; or (3) enclosing the entire chapel in a glass box.

Ann and Ray had been promised that their design would be built, and it was. The leadership of the National Park Service had made a personal commitment to that effect. Congressman Horton had worked years for the $11.7 million to construct the winning design. But there was no prohibition on demolition.

The added design elements were demolished, including the new perimeter wall that stabilized the historic brick side walls and extended across the front of the structure to protect the chapel remains from the noise of the street. A new front façade was imagined by Park Service staff. The front facade and side walls were filled in with new brick. Blank front double doors and side windows were added. The reconstructed chapel became an enclosed building useful for programs, and the quiet and weather protection were appreciated.

The enclosed chapel was a grave disappointment to Adele Chatfield-Taylor, the design chair of the NEA, and Grover Mouton, one of the original jurors, who said “the competition monument was lost, and the laundromat was lost. It has no identity because the narrative is gone. It has no identity, and so no life.” The competition adviser Theodore Liebman said in a 2022 interview that the educational and inspirational messages of the competition design were demolished and that meaning and message were lacking in the reimagined chapel. Liebman said it was “an error” to erase the intended and intense public involvement integral to the design competition and replace it with an in-house design.

The Women’s Rights National Historical Park is a fine example of history changing. In 1978 I and those working on the proposal in the Park Service believed it accurate to say that the 1848 convention was the first women’s rights convention and that the convention began the women’s rights movement. Our belief was critical in bringing the site into the Park Service. The buildings did not meet Park Service standards, but the story was compelling. The Park Service wants the very best sites to be parks, and “best” and “first” are reassuring words to those evaluating a story that is new to them.

Lisa Tetrault’s book The Myth of Seneca Falls was published in 2014. The fifth page of her prologue states that the 1848 meeting was the first meeting explicitly called to demand women’s right in the United States. This does not, she continues, mean that the meeting began the women’s rights movement, and terms that a myth.

If Tetrault’s research had been completed and published prior to 1980, demonstrating that the women’s rights movement might have had a different starting date or location, there might not be a Women’s Rights National Historical Park in Seneca Falls, where, ironically, this new research can be shared with the public. It was the power of the story that allowed the nonconforming sites to fight their way into the National Park Service.

Since 1978, much research has been done and published on the history of women’s rights. The interpretation, the exhibits, and the programs at Seneca Falls can be changed as new research brings to light new information and new perspectives. Recent books include Lori D. Ginzburg’s Untidy Origins: A Story of Women’s Rights in Antebellum New York and Martha S. Jones’s Vanguard: How Black Women Broke Barriers, Won the Vote, and Insisted on Equality for All. The National Park Service in 2020 published an official handbook titled Women Making History: The 19th Amendment. It is a compilation of articles by thirteen authors and is lavished with historic photographs of the women activists.

To enrich the interpretation at the park, the program theme for the annual Convention Days celebration for 2022 was “The Abolitionist Roots of the Women’s Movement.” The key speakers shared new perspectives on the movement’s ties to abolition work. The principal speaker was Elaine Weiss, author of The Woman’s Hour: The Great Fight to Win the Vote. The interpretive programs at the park will continue to change as new research is revealed.

A significant change in use of the park includes the designation of two free speech sites, one in Declaration Park and one at the Stanton house. This designation made it possible for a group of nonprofit organizations to sponsor the January 21, 2017, Women’s March, which brought a crowd estimated at ten thousand to the park. And the newly enclosed Wesleyan Chapel can now host a variety of meetings. All this is a great, and positive, leap from the strictures I repeatedly heard that this park is only authorized to tell the history of women’s rights, not support current activism.

The M’Clintock house in Waterloo has been restored and is now interpreted, establishing a closer park connection with the history and contributions of Waterloo. There are also several new programs that will expand the influence of the park and should result in increased attention and more visitors. The Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor was authorized by Congress in 2000. The canal running parallel to the main street of downtown Seneca Falls is a feeder canal to the Erie Canal. The creation of the Erie Canal National Heritage Area enhanced the connection between Seneca Falls and the larger Erie Canal system. Boat tours have became popular. Private boats are tied up end to end along the length of the canal side for special events.

Congress also passed a law in 2009 authorizing the Votes for Women History Trail Route, an automobile tour route connecting additional important sites across New York State historically and thematically associated with the struggle for women’s rights. The route is to be administered by the Park Service through the Women’s Rights National Historical Park.

Coline Jenkins, the great-great-granddaughter of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, has worked with a partnership that includes volunteers across the United States who are researching, and marking with handsome signs, sites that are important to women’s rights. The initiative is funded by the William G. Pomeroy Foundation and the National Women’s Suffrage Centennial Commission, under the direction of the National Collaborative for Women’s History Sites. The leaders see potential for an unlimited and comprehensive network of sites all across the country.

Congress also passed a bill signed into law in March 2019 mandating that the Park Service study a proposed Finger Lakes National Heritage Area, which includes Seneca Falls and Waterloo. If enacted by Congress, the possible new heritage area would provide coordination among the many opportunities for visitors to the area and also substantial promotion of the area.

In Seneca Falls, the National Women’s Hall of Fame conducted a ten-year campaign to raise funds to purchase and restore the imposing Seneca Knitting Mill building across the canal from the Wesleyan Chapel. They have greatly expanded their space for displays for the women of achievement who have been inducted into their Hall of Fame, and also for permanent and special exhibits and special programs. Their network has hugely expanded, and their future is unlimited.

In May 2021, Lieutenant Governor Kathy Hochul announced that the New York State Downtown Revitalization Initiative will bring $10 million in grants to Seneca Falls. This includes $1 million for preservation work on the historic Seneca Knitting Mill. Also, a state grant of $3.69 million will support additional canal-side improvements. This will greatly enhance the experience of boaters coming to visit Seneca Falls via the historic Erie Canal, as well as Seneca Falls residents.

The future is bright for the region, and enthusiasm and awareness will continue to increase. Come and visit!

I will give the last word to Ted Liebman, the design competition adviser. The great joy for me in writing this book is reconnecting with friends. And reconnecting them with one another after all these years. When I found Ted on Facebook recently and called him, he opened the conversation by saying that I really had to telephone him more often than every forty years. Yes, Ted, and all of you, we will stay in touch. Our friendships are deep and forever.