CONCLUSION
A CENTURY OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN TEXAS
After its first century of existence, it is necessary to analyze how the concept and the practice of historic preservation in Texas has evolved. The essential difference between the endeavors of the earliest preservationists and the enterprises of present day preservation organizations is that the work of the latter is not emotionally improvised, but carefully planned with years of preparation. In the course of attaining the current level of achievement, preservationists toiled through a century of trial and error. Their experiences are invaluable lessons for today's historians and preservationists, not only because they represent more than a century of knowledge related to their disciplines, but also because they show why historic preservation is considered to be such an important activity.
As in the case of Europe, historic preservation was born in Texas to glorify its national past. At the end of the nineteenth century groups of patriotic citizens began to consider that some buildings and sites deserved protection because their connection to a great person or event almost always related to the Texas War of Independence and the subsequent republic. It is not surprising that these first preservation ventures were the result of private initiatives, since during the nineteenth century the Texas government was focused on
the territorial development and economic growth of the state, hence historic preservation could never be among its priorities. The majority of the early preservationists were middle and upper-class women who considered it their duty to look after historic structures so as to use them to inspire patriotism in succeeding generations. This behavior coincided with two traditional feminine roles in Victorian society, housewife and teacher. Thanks to their educational backgrounds and to their financial security, these women had the inclination and free time to contribute to civic causes, which is what historic preservation was originally considered.If you want to read the missing paragraphs, please e-mail me at
miguela.lopez@uah.esOne proof of their success was that in the 1910s groups of concerned citizens influenced the legislature to create public parks out of other nationally significant Texas historic sites such as Washington-on-the-Brazos and the Fannin battlefield. Initially, the state purchased historic grounds without any criteria other than particular interests of powerful citizens and politicians. As a result, it gathered a collection of isolated sites with little relation to one another. The legislature assigned historical park administration to the Board of Control, the management agency for state properties. Since neither historians nor preservationists were represented on the board, it ignored the special characteristics of historic parks and maintained them as they would any other public land. Additionally, the legislature was unwilling to fund parks beyond their administrative necessities because their development was not considered an urgent need for the state. Thus, parks remained small and suffered deterioration for years, and the interpretive needs of visitors were ignored.
The first organization that valued historic heritage beyond its glorious and patriotic side was the San Antonio Conservation Society, founded in 1924. On the surface SACS resembled the DRT and THLA, for it was (and still is) a volunteer organization of amateurs with an overwhelming female membership, and its scope of action was limited to the San Antonio area. The similarities end here, for the philosophy of SACS was absolutely different and well ahead of its time. First, its preservation emphasis shifted from emotional patriotism and monumentality to
If you want to read the missing paragraphs, please e-mail me at
miguela.lopez@uah.es...
the Centennial Celebration of 1936. Although celebration of the triumphant story of Texas independence was the main purpose of monuments, markers, reconstructions, and restorations, during the centennial other historic structures and sites (the Spanish missions and presidios for example) were preserved and documented because of their importance beyond the events of the Texas War of Independence and Republic. Furthermore, centennial preservation efforts were not only directed toward places of statewide significance. Except for exceptional projects such as the San Jacinto monument and investments in significant sites such as the Alamo and Washington-on-the-Brazos, most of the funding was, in fact, destined to preservation projects of regional or local significance.The unexpected sources of money provided by the New Deal agencies and the centennial projects permitted Texas to carry out for the first time a statewide development program for its historical parks and sites. The results are impressive even today because of the amount of work done in so little time. Still, more could have been done.
For instance, only state-owned properties fell within the scope of New Deal and centennial projects, thus leaving private historic properties aside. Moreover, historic interest was almost always focused on the Anglo-American and Spanish colonial heritage, thus ignoring other periods of Texas history. Another problem was that some of the centennial programs were done hurriedly and carelessly because of political pressure. For instance, there was little concern for the accuracy of the replicas of historic structures because they were built only to be tourist attractions. The main shortcoming of the New Deal and centennial preservation efforts, however, was that they were temporary. The New Deal agencies only aimed to provide relief jobs in any useful field, while the centennial only aspired to honor Texas during a single year. Therefore, no permanent preservation solutions were implemented. When the centennial ended and the war interrupted the flow of federal money, preservation activities stalled and the work done in previous years rapidly deteriorated due to lack of maintenance.Despite this squandered opportunity, the New Deal and centennial experiences not only increased public interest in historic preservation, but also provided preservationists a path that they could follow in the future: the creation of state agencies with exclusive competencies in the subject; the development of a unified and statewide set of directions and goals; and the investment of sufficient and regular amounts of public money to support the high costs of the projects.
When the war ended, the state began to work on the first objective, the creation of ...
If you want to read the missing paragraphs, please e-mail me at
miguela.lopez@uah.esTexas's boost to preservation in the early 1960s coincided with the effort of the federal government to create a national preservation policy. To avoid the systematic destruction of historic and archeological sites provoked by accelerated urban growth since the end of World War II, the federal government in 1962 established the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation to assist states in developing their historical parks systems, and in 1966 passed the National Historic Preservation Act to establish
a national preservation program to be carried out by the individual states. The act also created a grant program to help states finance their preservation programs, and a National Register of Historic Places to declare National Historic Landmarks the most outstanding historic items of each state. Although the legislature appointed only the TSHSC to administer the National Historic Preservation Act in Texas, both the TSHSC and the TPWD received federal grants, which became an essential funding source for the future activities of both agencies.The National Historic Preservation Act produced three major consequences in Texas. First, it definitely fostered professionalism in preservation because state agencies were obliged to employ specialists in the field in order to receive federal money. Second, the act originated the concept of historic district, which considered it equally important to preserve historic structures and the context in which they made sense. Finally, and most importantly, the act institutionalized and made permanent the preservation system that the state had been spontaneously building. From then on, the TPWD would be the manager of historical parks, whereas the TSHSC would promote historic preservation in the rest of the state.
Another important advancement of the sixties was emergence of the archeological heritage of Texas from an unjustified disregard. The creation of the Office of the State Archeologist and the Texas Antiquities Commission, and the passing of the Texas Antiquities Code placed archeology on a par with historic constructions by making the preservation of archeological resources an official state policy. Although only public lands were affected by the antiquities code, the law
created a legal obligation to review all construction projects to be undertaken on public lands, which has prevented the destruction of innumerable archeological resources ever since.If you want to read the missing paragraphs, please e-mail me at
miguela.lopez@uah.esDue in part to the busy preservation agenda of both TPWD and THC, the state created a new preservation agency, the State Preservation Board, to undertake the restoration project of a very demanding building, the state capitol. From 1983 to 1997, the State Preservation Board successfully restored the capitol to its original 1888 design and, at the same time, effectively managed the edifice, despite the building's two contradictory uses as a government office and a tourist attraction. After fifteen years of excellent work, the continuation of the State Preservation Board as a separate management and preservation agency for the capitol seems to be assured.
Starting in the early eighties, some developments in preservation philosophy dramatically affected today's THC and TPWD activities. In the first place, historic interpretation became as important as physical preservation alone, thus obliging preservation agencies to modify and expand their interpretive interests and programs. For example, the THC developed projects related to previously ignored aspects of Texas history, such as women or military history. Moreover, both the THC and the TPWD are now more sensitive to satisfying the interpretive needs of the different segments of the population, especially ethnic minorities. Consequently, historic interpretation now deals with a variety of topics and serves a greater diversity of Texans than ever before. The encouragement of community and volunteer support has also been another recent tendency in historic preservation. For example, since 1984 the TPWD has been organizing groups of "friends" to assist in park management, and in 1983 THC created a
statewide stewardship network of volunteer archeologists to assist in identifying and protecting archeological sites. The contribution of these volunteers have saved both agencies great quantities of work and money.If you want to read the missing paragraphs, please e-mail me at
miguela.lopez@uah.es...they generated private-public partnerships and stable collaborations among state agencies. Since these new programs demanded even greater investments of work and money, preservation organizations needed to combine monetary resources and coordinate their personnel in order to carry them out. After working together on the Old San Antonio Road and Los Caminos del Río programs, THC and TPWD realized their limitations, abandoned the differences that had separated them in the past, and decided to join efforts to achieve their common preservation objectives. On the one hand, THC could take advantage of TPWD's increased budget and experience as manager of historic sites. TPWD, for its part, could take advantage of THC's expertise as a preservation agency and utilize its specialized staff to work on historical parks. The result was the 1996 agreement between the two agencies, which is now in the process of becoming a law,
consolidating the collaboration and determining the different functions that each agency is to perform.The frequently suggested idea of establishing a preservation superagency in Texas by combining the existing state preservation agencies is now dated. Rather than creating such an artificial organization, THC and TPWD had united their efforts spontaneously. Thanks to this initiative not only a new organizational system has been developed, but both agencies have also agreed to prepare an innovative historic master plan, the Texas Cultural Heritage Plan, which they will present in 1999. Its objective is to coordinate under THC-TPWD guidance all private and public preservation initiatives during the next century in order to create the finest state historical park system in the United States, and to improve the quality of life of citizens by seeking excellence in preservation. If funding does not die out, this plan will be the most ambitious preservation endeavor ever carried out in Texas.
If you want to read the missing paragraphs, please e-mail me at
miguela.lopez@uah.esFrom the purchases of the San Jacinto battleground and the Alamo chapel in 1883 to the Texas Cultural Heritage Plan of 1998, the evolution of preservation in Texas reflects how our image of the past has changed. In the nineteenth century Texans needed to conserve physical remains of the past in order not to forget their national history; today these remains are our guarantee that industrialization and city growth will not destroy environments and landscapes that we cherish. In addition to strengthening our identity by connecting us with our ancestors, we have come to understand that historic ambiences provide charm, grace, and aesthetic pleasure to our everyday lives. The preservation of the historic heritage of Texas has been a venture that not only has conserved for our enjoyment, and that of future generations, one of the historically richest and most diverse areas of the United States, but has also contributed to the creation of a more human world in which to live.