celebrate its centennial in 2016. and the ideas of people like theodore roosevelt, john muir, george catlin, carter watkins, which is some of the names recognized for their contributions to creating america's best idea. national park service. yet it's the name olmstead that is often left off the despite the positive generational impacts of the olmsted's. and more recently we have been reminded of their contributions. the necessary of role necessary role of parks in public spaces during a devastating pandemic with a need to spotlight olmstead legacy. the commissioned a comprehensive study led ethan and ralph and laura meier three incredible authors to better understand these remarkable spanning from the monumental of the yosemite report and the organic act, which helped to create the national park service to enduring conservation efforts to the expanse of design work within park service itself. this report produced a robust of research on the design and planning work of frederick olmsted, senior. his sons, john charles and frederick law olmsted jr. there are many associates and the olmsted office in firm. as we kick off the bicentennial of olmsted's birth. we appreciate ethan and ralph for bringing this research to a broader audience. considering olmsted 200 the national effort commemorating the continued legacy olmsted values of democratic space accessible to all and our local coalition olmsted now partners participating in the themes of shared use, shared health and shared power. i cannot think of a more appropriate story than the olmstead two share and stuart and i'd like to introduce jonathan lippincott, associate director, library of american landscape history. thanks, victor. thank you. thank you all for coming today. and again, thank you to friends of fair stead to the arnot arboretum for hosting this book launch. i'm, as you mentioned, with the library of american landscape history is the leading publisher of books that advance the study and practice of american landscape architecture. our books educate the public motivating stewardship of significant places and the environment and inspire designs that connect people with nature. we're actually also selling an anniversary, celebrating an anniversary this year. we were founded in 1992. and lila is the only nonprofit organization dedicated to publishing in the field of american landscape design in history. we're particularly excited to be publishing. and ethan's new book on olmstead in yosemite. i'm sure many of you are familiar with parts of this story. olmstead design of central park and his ideas about yosemite. his work for the movement and for the union army and is helping to shape the concept of the urban and national park in the united states. what's remarkable to consider and what the authors reveal so beautifully is that he was working on all these various projects the same time during the 1860s, both park and yosemite embody the new of freedom that inspired the union during its greatest crisis, epitomized seeing the duty of the republic to enhance the lives and well-being of all of its citizens. marking the bison of olmsted's birth. the birth book sets the historical record straight offers a fresh interpretation of how the american park, urban and national came to figure so prominently our cultural identity. so to keep along, i will hand this off to lauren and thank you very much. thanks. you can see me over the podium. my name? lauren meyer. i'm president of the friends of fair stead, the philanthropic partner of the national park service protocol at homestead national historic. it's my great pleasure. introduce the afternoon speakers. but before i do, i'd like to just reiterate my thanks to the arnold arboretum for hosting for the library of landscape history, for publishing this wonderful book and the friends have had many opportunities in the past. collaborate with both the arboretum and la lh on project that advance knowledge and appreciation of the olmstead legacy and this book talk will certainly do that where i'm looking forward to hearing more about a new perspective on the role of the homesteads in the post-civil war nation and the creation of our national park system and. finally, i'd like to just thank pat shirkey, who's chair of the program committee for friends, ted and to eastern national, who made it possible to have books for sale here today after the speakers are completed. just a reminder we'll have a short q&a session. and for anyone who's on the livestream, please go ahead and type your questions into the chat. and now it's my pleasure to my dear friends dumont and ethan carr. ralf dumont is a landscape architect and and adjunct professor in the at the university of vermont. historic preservation program in his previous 37 year career with the national park service. ralf was a planner, resource manager and superintendent, a believer in expanding the national park system in new directions. ralf worked on the development urban national parks, national heritage areas and partnership based while ed and scenic rivers as superintendent of fredrick law olmsted national historic site. he organized the multi-year to conserve and open. the olmsted archives as the first super attendant of marsh rockefeller national historical park. he guided the park's early development as a catalyst for creative approaches to conservation. ralph, a beatrix farrand fellow at the universe of california, berkeley, where received a b.s. and a master's in landscape architecture and was a loeb fellow in advanced environmental at the harvard university graduate school of design. he currently writes about history of national parks and their impact on american society. he is co-editor and, contributing author of a thinking person's guide to america's national parks and his column on national regularly appears in the journal parks. stuart forum. ethan is a professor of landscape architecture and director of the masters of landscape architecture program at the university of massachusetts in amherst. he is a landscape ape historian and preservationist specializing in public landscapes. three of his award winning books, wilderness by design, published in 1998, mission 66, modernism, the national park dilemma, published in 2007, and the greatest speech in history of cape cod national seashore, published 2019. describe the 20th century history of planning and design in the united states national park system as a context for considering their future car was the lead editor of the early boston. 1882 to 1890. volume of the papers of frederick law olmsted, published in 2013. the book are going to hear about today. olmsted and yosemite civil war abolition and the national park idea, co-written with ralph diamond, traces the origins of the american park movement. his latest book, boston's franklin park boston's park olmsted recreation and the modern city forthcoming in 2023 rican sitters the history, this landmark urban park and the arboretum neighbor car consults with landscape architecture firms developing, plans and designs for historic parks of all types. and now it's my pleasure to hands over to ethan. we're going to sing a duet of yeah, we win. just a quick word of thanks given this audience. first of all lauren. we wouldn't be here without your help. and your your colleague reality and support. and in all that we've done and i like to we both like to thank recognize the frederick law homestead national historic site for the support of the resource study that ethan and i and lauren got the ball rolling with. and, you know, we're so pleased to see alan banks and lee farrell cook here. well. they were the project managers for the national park service. nothing would have come together without. their enthusiasm, encouragement and, support each step of the way. so thank you all. i'm going to start talking, so i'll simply say yes. thank you all on my part as well. all right. homestead and yosemite. ralph and i are clearly here to talk. our new book, a timely reinterred of the national park idea. idea, i think we'd all agree. do we need to adjust way for mike. mike's on a little bit, up a little. okay. i think ralph and i would agree it's a timely reinterpretation of the national park idea. where did the idea for the national system come from? did it arise spontaneously during campfire in 1870 on the yellowstone plateau. that's sort of been the official story for many years. and doesn't it have something to do with teddy roosevelt or john muir? and why are we talking about wasn't he a park designer and national parks don't aren't usually don't usually come to mind is designed. he central park the arnold arboretum etc. what does that have to do with national parks? well, these are questions that ralph and i have been plagued with our entire professional lives. and so we decided to write this book and hope i don't know, maybe i don't know if this is the last word or not, ralph. but but but hopefully, hopefully the term national park idea is in our title is a bit misleading because we're really here to talk about the public park idea as it took shape specifically in the united states in the mid-19th century, including urban and national parks and as i hope we show in the book, there was a broader idea of public parks that was the source of the national park idea. and even if we want even if we want to consider that a separate idea at all, they're obviously linked. so our goal is to put yosemite valley the historical context of the great issues, the day which we all know, civil war, abolition, reconstruction. and by doing that, answer the question of what olmstead actually does have to do with valley and the origin of the national park idea and what olmstead was doing. yosemite valley does have something to do with what he was doing at central park at the same time. and his antislavery act, his activism he was doing at the same time and his in the civil war and more generally with his ideas, his theory as an important public, intellectual and social theorists of the day. yosemite was the first park, the first national park. it was created by congress through federal legislation. 1864 that granted the area to california for park purposes. so the first national park was state park, at least for a while. if that's confusing, i'm sorry it gets worse. we haven't even talked about hot springs or the washington mall or any the other places that claim to be the first national park. but yosemite really was in 1864 and lincoln signed legislation while central park was still under construction. and what they both shared at that time and really from the beginning was that they both express and hopes and aspirations a remade american republic. that sounds odd to us today. maybe, but it didn't sound odd in the mid-19th century. a lot of people were going to a war on this topic and. what was a remade american republic? one without enslaved people above all, one that preserved the union allowed it to assume a better form a republic that if still a very imperfect, at least move toward the realization of the goals and ideals that it had been founded on in 1776. in other words, the bedrock ideology of the republican that got lincoln elected. to oh, sorry. i was supposed to switch lives earlier. there they are. so this quest, this quotation, a letter by sarah shaw to olmstead, was really the starting point for the book. shaw was an abolitionist, a social reformer, a philanthropist. need i add a bust? a bostonian that might be redundant after. that description. she was all of those things. and she was a and correspondent of olmstead with some personal and business connection. she was also the mother of robert gould shaw, who died two years later after this letter was written with over 100 black soldiers of the 54th massachusetts regiment. these were people with convictions. shaw captured a remarkable moment in this letter and identification of an unprecedented public park, which central park was at least in the united states. the abolition of, slavery and the remaking of the republic at this critical time, as the nation was sliding into war and central park by 1861 was largely completed, shaw visited it or not largely, but a lot of it had been completed, and she had visited it with millions of others and was complimenting olmstead what it was such a worthy project for the future. okay, here we are. so it was during this tumultuous before, during and after the civil war that the idea of the public park, both municipal and national, became established as a new public institution in the united states, both in the nation's largest city and in the remote sierra nevada of california. and by 1864, when congress makes the u.s. grant both of these parks embodied many of the values and the aspirations that people like olmstead and sarah shaw and many others had for this remade republic in contrast to what it had been before. they were literally physical manifestations of what a more enlightened and unified government could do, and instead remarkably, as a consistent thread through all this. and it is sort of remarkable. i mean, on both coasts, serendipitous is the word that comes to mind. but yes, he is a consistent thread throughout, this story of the establishment of this new public the public park on both sides of the continent. yes. and very dramatically different, i realize very dramatic, totally different circumstances settings, etc.. they're very different places. but in our book, what we're interested in looking at and what they both have in common without ignoring the differences. so what do they have in common. i mean, we could probably go on about that for some time. but first, their purpose as it was described and understood then, which we should remember, might not be exactly how we might describe and characterize them right now. but they were both acquired and developed the general public to enjoy the benefits and experiences of landscape that not otherwise would be readily available to them. those benefits were considered real. they improved individual, and public health, physical and, emotional. and it was a duty of a responsible government to make sure everyone could have these benefits because they necessary to human health, physical and emotional and because otherwise privileged few only would enjoy them, even monopolise them. to detriment of everyone else. this is very rhetoric that that is being put forward for both of these places. of course, the people who are being despised or evicted in order to make these places public parks were not. and this is another shared characteristic of these places dispossession, justified. as with all public works, really, at least they require the exercise of eminent domain by what we call a public interest doctrine. so who is the of the public interest? doctrine will not everyone? clearly not then, and arguably not now either. but the assertion a public benefit and in fact, necessity for societal well-being was being asserted. and that's that's what justified the dispossession as it was for water projects, roads, bridges and so on. was public health infrastructure in words, among many other things. so the purpose is something they have in common. second, these places had common meanings. they both emerged out of the tumult of the mid-19th century to embody some of most important goals for a remade republic. they both emerged out of the conflict, the activism, the rhetoric, idealism of the before and during the war. and this may be our main point in the book. the institution. the public park emerged at this time because of the war and the social upheaval. it not in spite it, which is remarkable because there was so much other stuff going on. right? a sort of a busy time in american history, antislavery activism, sectional strife, the bloodiest in american history, the emancipation proclamation. and later abolition and reconstruction. all the legislation and cost of two amendments that sought to remake the american republic were always going describe this in much more detail in a moment. but historians have noticed that many new american institutions came out of this period of conflict, as did a reforged national. and one of those institutions was the public, both municipal and national. and we think of it as one of these institutions that's part of a reforge national identity. begin to understand why public parks have been so large in the american public imagination ever since. so let's consider central park for a moment. not the more familiar most of you know its design and construction, but specifically in terms of the meanings as it was proposed and then built leading up right up to the beginning of the war. great urban parks already existed in europe. above all, the royal parks of london. and, you know, new yorkers wanted to compare new york to london. right. they always wanted new york to london. the london of north america. and they existed elsewhere of, course, as well. but the name royal parks says it all. parks in european cities were almost always vestiges of some kind of aristocratic privilege, gradually open to the public. the benefits were well known in terms urban social life, public health and of course, the enhancement of property values. that was not a secret, right? london's west end would be a good example. they were all well known. but the landscapes themselves that existed earlier on were remnant of a more autocratic of a more autocratic of government. they became public places largely through the largesse of an aristocratic class. could republican form of government create own version of this type of thing, this type of amenity with all the benefits, including real estate values, that that would accrue if the attempt would would if the attempt were made urban public parks be taken over by the unruly mob or mobs that many associated with republican forms government. the failed republican revolutions of 1848, remember, were still very fresh in the mind. the idea a republican government was being violently suppressed all over europe by monarchists and of course in the united states of our own republic was quite intent on an end to the whole right there. well our republic was seemed to be very intent on ending the oldest experiment in republicanism and declaring it a doomed failure. at least half of us did. could the largest city of the oldest republic create, a great park like those in london. it would have to. there were no royal. and obviously it opened to the public. there was just the topography of manhattan an island, which was by 1850, was covered, reaching all the way up more less to 42nd street. was it possible. could it be done? the creation of a large park require a great public work by government, which is slightly different from other situations. considering the context and the form of government in the united states. it would require a public work by government. the acquisition and development of a new public landscape. what would the result be even if it were done well? that's why i would to suggest that the creation of a great public park in the largest city of american republic was a radical act in the 1850s. it was a statement, first of all, it was a major public works project, the largest new york city had ever undertaken up to that at a time when public works or public improvements, as they would have been called, were being rejected at the federal level, especially by southern democrats in congress, who defended slavery at all and felt public improvements would undermine their position. growth will also explain this further. but secondly, it was openly and avowedly for the public and wherever that was. and to some, that meant the mob. it's a public, a sort of problematic word. we always have sort of put it in quotation marks and try to define who it is. we're talking about at what time. but at this time, the public a scary word because a lot people felt that republicanism equaled, mobs in a public landscape like this in the united states would be taken over by the mob. and so the question wasn't really about success or failure of a park in new york. it was a question of success or failure of the american city. a northern induced real metropolis filled with a rapidly population, very diverse, filled with larger and larger numbers of immigrants. the whole question of whether in northern industrial city was going to tenable, whether it was going to be viable, whether it was even going to be survivable, could was was the question that was really being because it was the northern vision of the republic's future and increasing the urban, diverse future that would be cities. and if those cities weren't healthful, if they weren't tenable, then the northern vision of the republic for the future wasn't either. it was really about the survival the republic as well, if you think of it, that. and that's exactly what the monarchists in europe were saying. and more importantly so were the southerners in the united. and they they believed that the image of an unhealthy, chaotic northern city was great propaganda. right. it was the source of a lot of propaganda for the south. how can you condemn our plantations when your cities are like that. all right. so images like these were a successful, beautiful park were a direct rebuttal of the negative images and characterizations of large cities in the north, the popular success of central park was proof that the northern vision of the future of the republic tenable. it was even. and it was created by a republican form of government, which was part of a society that was not drifting and chaos and dysfunction. it was drifting into war, but it wasn't drifting. chaos and dysfunction. it could do. so it's powerful ideology of the union of republicanism and so on at the mid-19th century. it's covered vox put it. it was the big artwork of the republic as this quote from the atlantic monthly put it. it was nothing less than a profoundly effective and vindication of self-government itself. so let's consider what the benefits really were, especially as olmstead was describing them beyond enhancing estate values, beyond the contemporary struggle to vindicate self-government, beyond the cause itself of the mid-19th century. what central park as olmstead and fox designed it was intended to provide were experiences of landscape beauty, which now sounds very banal. it wasn't. it was experience just like this one. but for everyone, or at least the public, whoever were and they were able they were able and they were to be made available in the as part of the city, accessible to anyone, in theory, accessible to anyone with a nickel who could get on the omnibus from the lower east side. some people could go to the catskills each summer and refresh their physical and emotional health as see here. the rich could own country or could afford afford private resorts. but a public park could be available to all. and the goal may not have been realized for all people, not for the people who are dispossessed. make central park, for example. not for the many who, at least during its first decades, found it to be too distant or simply off putting socially, sort of a middle class scene of people, you know, very bourgeois people would get get dressed up and on and try to try to put on their best airs or maybe just the people who didn't have a for the omnibus, but for a remarkable to a remarkable degree, it succeed. it was a popular phenomenon. and it continues be at least in my opinion. so would today probably describe some of these benefits the benefits that olmstead described in aesthetic terms, talking about landscape beauty, knowing no one knows what you're talking about anymore. hardly. you know. and you talk about a very profound way, you know, the influence of landscape beauty on individual and society. we have other terms. right. and if you think about it a little, we talk the importance of experiencing or biophilia or simply the need of all people to experience some part of the natural in order to maintain physical and emotional health. we use terms like nature, deficit disorder and point to the abc epidemic or other sort pathologies to emphasize the importance of this kind of experience. but whatever language or terms we use, this was the essential reason. the purpose for the large urban park as downing advocated it earlier and 1840s, as olmstead and fox realized in the 1850s. and i think may still be true if we can get past the different ways people express themselves in the 19th century. recent social science and medical research has only confirmed that they were on something. it's important to consider at least and so when olmstead finds himself in mariposa near yosemite valley in 1864, sort of a remarkable thing has the yosemite grant is being signed. it's not too hard. imagine why the state park commission created to receive the yosemite grant for the purpose of making the valley into a public park. yes a state park at first, but later would be a national park. it's hard. it's not to see why they would decide to make use olmsted's experience his ideas above all, and his weird, serendipitous proximity. he was there, a totally different reason it just happened. be there when when lincoln signed the legisla ation, but they would ask him to produce a report to guide how this place would become a public park and the purpose of the new park. the justifications for government act in making it as olmstead described them in 1865, were entirely consistent what he had for what he had described for central park just a few years earlier. he went back to working on central park, 1865, designed prospect park. so on. there was no inconsistency here, total consistency in terms of how the purpose and justifications politically for these parks was being described. what's more, so are the symbol ism and meanings, and perhaps even more so. here was a national landscape to be set aside, preserved and made available to the general public, not the privileged few. right. because not what a republic does. the creation of this park wasn't a part of an entire wave of legislation and amendments and so forth that that would remake the republic. ralph will will describe that in much more detail. and it happened because of the war. again, because of the change in the conflicts surrounding it, because of the desires for should follow the war in terms the duties of the republic to its people, not in spite of it. these two great icons of the american landscape, in other words, have some very important things in common that transcend their and i'm as aware as anyone what the differences are. a lot of time. both at yosemite and central park and, i understand what a design landscape is, and i understand the degree to which yosemite is not a design landscape. but i guess my answer to that question, which may very well come up because i will say is in central park, opposite of yosemite valley, it's a designed landscape. and your summary is a natural landscape. so let me anticipate that by suggesting you think of yosemite valley a little bit more as a cultural landscape, a little bit more as as a as a as a designed landscape and you think of central park a little bit less as a manmade artifact, which it is not. it was a it was an existing landscape that was improved and central park is less designed and yosemite valley is more designed than people normally think. but that's that's an aside. this is the important part. this is an intellectual for a national park system and in fact, for the american park movement as it would proceed over the next hundred years and generally would see parks created at every level of government from and cities to regions and states. and yes, at the federal level. so too, statements like these, which we've just out of the of report the yosemite report itself is reprinted in the book so you can look for yourself but but we've extracted this sort of ideological statements about public parks does does does this remain the of public parks in the united states today despite everything that's changed since 1865? that's my question you. perhaps a lot has certainly you know a lot of things including the environmental movement you know that really change how people thought about national parks. so i'll end this portion of the talk questions for you. do these ideas still have currency in a world of change, of changing climate, increased inequality, etc. ? can we suggest where national we can suggest where national parks from, where they going? as a matter more for discussion and questions, however. thank you. this topic. well, as ethan indicated, i'm going to look little closer at the wider social political context of the assembly grant as as a modest and it was a modest at time but consequential as we look back at it today. component of what was as ethan described, a cascade of wartime legislation and constitutional that redefined and broadened the duties and role of government its responsibilities and expanded the rights and privileges of american citizens. that's what it aspired to say. all this, of course, was predicate it on the final and complete destruction of slavery and the insurrectionary confederation that fact was founded to perpetuate it. i will then turn my attention back to frederick law olmstead and look at the remarks able opportunity that yosemite reporter presented to him to to actually imagine what the future would be of. great parks in a post-war reconstructed american nation. i will conclude just with some thoughts on this. history is so important for us today. acknowledge. before the civil war, southern planners and the political allies effectively blocked land grants for transports and education and homesteading. they were content with a weak central government, with very limited responsibility. they wanted a government that just would port duties, conduct foreign affairs, deliver the u.s. mail, protect and pursue fugitive slaves. they preferred financing that government through the sale of public lands in lieu of personal taxes, avoiding taxation on the vast wealth by enslaved labor labor. however by the second year of the civil war, it had become the war become and in the words of abraham lincoln, a remorseless and revolutionary struggle. and hundreds of thousands of enslaved people self emancipated by seeking freedom and sanctuary behind the lines of union forces actually, frederick law olmstead wrote a letter to the new york times very early in the war in 1861, predicting that if this momentum of self emancipation continue, it would fact hollow out the confederacy and lead to its eventual collapse. remark doubly prescient. very early in the war, putting down the rebellion in earnest that reestablished the union were paramount objectives for most law. new northern loyalists now. the goal was no longer the restoration of the old union as it was, but its replacement something better when it became increasingly clear to both congress and the lincoln administration that no negotiated settlement, returning the country to its pre-war status quo would ever occur. rapid changes began to happen. the republican dominated congress, without the presence of southern democrats, who would all withdrawn to the south. now set about replacing antebellum laws and policies that primarily served the interests of those profiting from slavery. congress sought to rebuild a more activist republic, serving broader public constituencies. within a period of five months, just five months from march to july of 1862, congress sought and passed the passage of a series of land grant bills. all the bills that had been vetoed the war. it established the department of agriculture. it centralized monetary policy. it first banned slavery. finally, in district of columbia, then banned and all banned slavery and all the territories. and lastly, banned slavery in all lands occupied by the union troops. and finally, with the passage of the militia act actually authorized the recruitment of black soldiers soldiers. the capstone, of course, came in that same at the end, that same five month period with the abraham lincoln. the preliminary proclaimed emancipation proclamation. that ended almost 250 years of slavery in america. these are some of the that came through in that five year period. and finally, the emancipation proclamation. in 1864 with the war well into third and bloodiest year. abraham lincoln to grant the grant for yosemite valley to the state of california for as a public park in. it was in trust for the whole nation. we wish to emphasize all of the reform i've been talking about was contingent on the dismantlement of slavery and a fraction fatally fractured political system. replacing. that system forever without a union victory aided by the mobilization of approximately 180,000 black soldiers, legislation for yosemite and for that matter, as the template of all national parks that followed might never have been. in fact if the legislation for the assembly grant had been introduced, perhaps just a few years earlier, in the prior. it would have been vetoed and not passed. like all the rest of the republican legislation for land grants, it just would have failed with the rest of them. the 1864 yosemite act as as ethan is described, drew its inspiration from central. and near the end of the war. relocated to california. frederick olmstead was asked to write that report to guide the future management of yosemite as a public park. but he took opportunity not only to apply his design ideas honed at central park to the magnificent landscape of yosemite valley. but he also shared a vision for a reconstructed post-war nation where great parks would become keystone institutions institutions. the yosemite report affirmed every person's entitlement to. enjoy the nation's most spectacular scenery and landscapes, and recognized the explicit responsibility of government to make sure that that happened. in the process. olmstead laid out the intellectual foundation and framework, a system of national parks declaring declaring that the establishment of government of these places was a political duty of the republic. olmstead also believed that government had a compelling obligation to support these great parks on an equal footing with all of its other major duties. he was always an internationalist. he always had an international perspective, and he realized that this an opportunity for the states of america to demonstrate to the world. how an enlightened republic could fulfill its obligations to its citizens. as ethan's mentioned, it's just important to recognize that. people living in yosemite valley for eons and that the establishment the park for a following about a decade after the dispossession of the miwok or the unreached people from the valley indigent peoples were among the beneficiaries of lincoln's new birth of freedom. and they were forced of their ancestral lands to repurpose, repurpose to expedite republican land policies. those early writers who describe yosemite untrammeled, wild nature, willfully overlooked countless generations of human occupation. there is no record that we could of homesteads. reply to sarah shaw's letter to him. but they certainly shared a similar vision in the assembly report. olmstead specifically identified continuing work on central park, along with the construction of the capitol dome in washington dc and the establishment of a public park in yosemite. as essential projects undertake taken in the midst of war. that affirmed the efficacy of republican government and the necessity of defending. there have been several historians who've been at a loss to describe the enmity, understand the assembly act. they attribute it to it being an anomaly in for the united states unexplained anomaly or a great mystery. particularly in wartime. they puzzled over. how could congress with so many concerns win the war raging all around them have spent any time on this. quite the contrary. ethan and i believe that the assembly act was squarely in the context of a larger framework of war related legislation and reforms. in fact, lincoln himself said that if an insurrection could interfere with the function and continuity of constitution of government, quote, it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us. writing this book also enabled ethan and i to consider olmstead in wider context. he's certainly had his share of reversals. he abandoned farming, the literary career that he hoped for never really materialized. bureaucrat bureaucratic constraints hobbled some of his influence. central park in internal conflicts and exhaust exhaustion led to his resignation from the sanitary commission and his mining enterprise in california ended in near bankruptcy. writing from california at a low point in his professional life cut off from the close friendship of co-workers. he wistfully confess to his friend henry bellows. i look back upon the sanitary commission and the park as a pond, a previous state of existence, and yet, with each professional setback, his public stature seemed to only grow larger. his journalism, while unable to a consistent livelihood, nevertheless introduced him to other writers and intellectual roles. and he began and began to afford him the national and even internal national reputation. he desperately. his work. calvert vox and central park. quickly by any measure a huge popular success and held out the promise that his partnership vox might yet be revived. the leadership and organizational he honed working on central park and with the sanitary commission helped cement his image as honest, competent and self-sacrificing administrator. even his ruinous mariposa state venture had him improbably to california and yosemite valley, where he presented. he was presented with an unforeseen opportunity to assume that leadership of the assembly commission as a respected national figure with a value transnational perspective. armstead soon with the part, of course california to rejoin vox in new york and immerse himself in a myriad assignments and commissions during long and incredibly productive career. but though he would undertake so many high profile projects that would further his reputation around the world, none would afford him quite same platform as yosemite. now. throughout its history, the national park service has been reluctant for any number of reasons to recognize the singular role of the civil war reconstruction. and the role that these events played in the history of national parks, including the establishment of yellowstone and 1872. in our however, we look at yellowstone in the wider, particularly reconstruction and the legislative and conservation and excuse me, constitu tional reforms as shown with the timeline in the left of this slide. just to summarize us, historian lisa brady wrote in her book war upon the land, the war that established federal authority over states rights to determine citizenship and civil rights, also established increased federal power to decide what elements. in the national natural treasury would become permanent fixtures of the national landscape. however, early national park leaders and publicists content with inventing national park origin stories unburdened by any reference to the civil war emancipation, urban parks, homestead, or the 1865 yosemite report. the imagery of prestige and uninhabited western landscapes by either heroic explorers or famous conservationists such as john muir or teddy roosevelt as national parks were served the country with comfortable and reaffirming. olmstead was perhaps too closely identified with central park when the new parks were being marketed as a concept born in the rugged, not the urban east. olmstead was also probably too closely identified books forcibly condemning slavery and the old south when the civil war was being widely reinterpreted through the lens of the los cause. in these slides sort of go clockwise, that's. from the first slide as the. 1913 peace jubilee at gettysburg. the birth movie birth of the nation was screened. it's about same time as the national park service went through screen in the white house. throughout the country, north and south jim crow and segregation were ascendant. and even the first national parks in the south were open. and this is a slide from shenandoah with segregated facilities. and even the public in the final picture dedicating, the lincoln memorial had segregated seating. however, the assembly report was not entirely forgotten. its influence on national parks lived on through olmstead son and namesake who drafted key of the 1916 legislation creating the national parks national park service. the goals and purposes of national parks that olmstead jr famously described were based on many of the ideas his father had advocated 50 years earlier. so in conclusion, i ask why do we need to tell this story now. even in i believe it is to revisit our past with openness to new context and new information connecting earlier national parks to the legacy of emancipate asian and native american dispossession will hopefully help efforts to advance diversity, equity and inclusion in our national today. and finally, we believe that the 1865 yosemite report can still be interpreted today as a caution against the private monopolization or exploitation of our natural and cultural heritage. also, it can be interpreted as a timeless appeal for universal public access to the special places. in an unambiguous recognition by of its immutable response ability for parks stewardship now and. any questions here from our live audience. it's only right high periods of time where you talk a lot of this legislation being passed during the civil war did get a sense that the republican congress was thinking themselves that we all get that now someday we're going to have to accept ourselves and think back and we'll be able to then come back. howard, to be able to get things done like that. oh, for sure, absolutely you know that, was the whole push for the 13th amendment. it gets the emancipation proclamation was a was a decree, was essentially executive under war war authority. and lincoln was very worried. what if that when that happened, it could be easily there was no legislative or constitutional guarantee that some would be made to reintroduce slavery. i have allowed a lot, but an excellent degree of arlene. yeah, you're mentioned twice or several. the issue of dispossessed people and both and ralph also reflected that but as you know the controversies with regard to central and senate the bill is are loud and distorted. and i wondered if you would address the fact that. the kinds of people who were dispossessed besides those people in central park, besides those because only of seneca village? well, yes, you're right. this has been going on for a while. there's an archaeological dig at seneca village in the park. and i think in 2011, something like that. and so people have been very aware about how people were dispossessed to make park. my point is that all parks really from the 18th century english landscape on end. in fact going back to the middle ages when we had medieval parks, people were dispossessed that the park and is how shakespeare put it right and that wasn't a nice thing when fencing off some someplace to reserve the resources to a feudal lord but specific so. so it's always been part of parks and it's always been part of public works. the question is, is there a public that's being served that justify that dispossession? and that's true of any public work. right. that uses eminent domain and and often it's debated as far as central park goes to the first public work to to evict people. and seneca village was croton waterworks, not central park half of that village was gone when they put the receiving reservoir right there, which was put there because it was high ground in the middle of the island. as far as know, it had nothing to do with purposely dislocating black people from new york city. it had to do with where the engineers wanted put their receiving reservoir, which is topography physically determined. so so, i mean, i can't say that with certainty. they had no consideration about who they were displaced. but. and so in the park comes along one of the main reasons that site is chosen a central site is because there's already two reservoirs there. so a tremendous amount of state land that was already available. and there were other reasons having to do with the amount of real estate that would be affected terms of its prices and other things. but there was never there was a lot of nasty things in the press when the evictions were actually taking place in the 1850s that were denigrating about the people who lived there. and so that has been discovered. but there was never, as far as i know any direct for creating park where it was in order to get rid of certain people. they got rid of all kinds of people. and most of them were irish and german. and most of them didn't get compensation as people in seneca village did because they were black. but they also owned their property. so in a in a condemnation hearing, you get a judge sets a price and you get and you get indemnified, right? whereas the german and, the irish were squatters, they didn't get anything. so so it's a complicated story and it does get missed told a lot. and i just would like keep it in perspective as best i can. it's a tragedy when people are displaced and the people that are 70 were displaced, much more. i mean, how did they discover yosemite valley, really? it was the army, right? they were chasing a tribal group and entered the valley that way. so it was directly part of a war that was going on to rid california of indigenous people. that's how somebody was dispossessed. so it's a big part of park history. it's not a new part of park history, and it's intrinsic it. the real question is, what public interest was being served? well, also the in the case the yosemite people who were forced out. no compensation, they were literally forced out of the while were being killed and there's just so there were treaties that were signed that were violated seriously. i mean, there's rarely were any treaties, if any, were respected. so there was no fairness in that. and terrible tragedy. well, i'm glad you both are addressing that, because at the moment there tends be social distortion, particularly your point about the irish and the germans who were displaced at the moment. you would think and it comes up in a lot of talks. it just came up recently in a colleague's tongue. it was as if the only people who were displaced with those people in village. and that's not the case because as you point out, they were compensated because they were landowners and they were substantial. and it's part of every public work. and, you know, we can identify public works that did target certain communities. it's called urban renewal. right. know and so i wouldn't like to put central park in that same category necessarily as specifically ethnic or racial groups because i never saw any evidence that it happened. but there was it was not why the project ended up there. and it was not a rationale for for project in the first place. so difficult. and thanks for bringing it up, because will come up as ralph and i are doing talks about this book. it will come up great if. there are any other questions. what i'd like you to do is use the microphone because the who are livestreaming this are having a little bit of trouble hearing it and it's easier for you just to do your question than for me to try to repeat it. thank you very. i'm i noticed that yosemite law signed by president. and i'm wondering what his attitudes were on. yellow. well, that was yellowstone in 1872 was yellowstone. yellowstone yeah. so what was his and do you know anything about his attitude toward parks as it were, big park presidents necessarily? yeah. you know, they had a war to fight. yeah, i think the republican party still had its majority. both of congress in 1872. and the point make in the book, we get into a little bit further in the book is, you know, part of the momentum that helped the passage of the yellowstone legislation, which was hugely ambitious, 2 million acres, was the fact the government had come out of the war much bigger than went into the war, enormously bigger. and this was occurring a point in a very difficult where during the period of southern reconstruction, when congress took charge of southern reconstruction and you it was a sort of a zenith for federal authority before reconstruction was in effect abandoned and the government retreated from its commitments. but the assessment act comes excuse the yellowstone legislation in 18, in 1872 comes months, congress passes, the antiquark klux klan or the they call the ku klux klan act. and it set up the justice department to pursue the klan. this was a period where the national was feeling the congress in particular feeling it was capable of actually not only designating a park, but having united states run it as well. it took a long time to work the kinks, obviously, but at that was the intent. it's also true and it's this is the book i don't know if it was in our talk today, but the failure of reconstruction and then the later creation, the park service under during that difficult period in the early 20th century of the jim crow laws, there are lots of reasons why it was better for the park service to have a news story about its origins. right. was it was it was it was, you know, tying it in as ralph was referring earlier, i think, to all of the messiness of the civil war, tying it into a person like olmstead was known for this outright condemnation of the old south. i mean, he was as far as, you, these were people who saw it firsthand and they weren't having it. it needed a new and they needed to convince southern legislatures and a southern president woodrow wilson to sign the legislation for the national park service to be created. so so it was and that's what we're trying to address really is here. what were the origins? well, not the campfires. right now, not the yellowstone campfire, not teddy roosevelt's campfire either. you know, not actually not where the idea came from. and it probably wouldn't be so ingrained in national if it were. it comes of that period of the civil war when the united states, as we know it really gets formed, you know, and all these institutions get formed. and parks are one of them. and they're pretty deeply ingrained as a result. you know, we showed that slide of john muir and roosevelt that think that's glacier point in yosemite valley they they met there there's a photograph and they and they spent a night together camping out under the stars and i think you know you're probably talked there. well, they probably talk to each other's ears off to great talkers. and what really probably wanted dominate the conversation was to convince tr that the grant from cal to california be rescinded. and at that point there had been a new yosemite park all around the valley created, and muir wanted to see it all put together as one place. i'm that's what they talked about it to assume they discussed they were the fathers of the national park service an that wasn't created for another. 13 years or that they were the father of the inspiration for national which had been created 30 years earlier. if you if you take it to yellowstone and even earlier you go back to yosemite is a stretch. it's ironic and it's misleading. you because of course tr was always much against creating a national park service. okay. all right, all right. having been invited out to yosemite for that anniversary, i read that pamphlet many, many times. and he, olmsted, uses the phrase it is the duty of the government to provide these open spaces for all people and for me this is the problem of the age here in massachusetts and the country, the governments, the state governments, the city and the national are not coming near what we need. and therefore i think we should really focus upon olmsted was an organizer. he brought to the meeting that he held out there people from the newspapers and that made a big impact toward now niagara falls that was the picture we did show that picture. yeah no i i'm not i'm not arguing all your facts and all what you're saying i'm simply focusing on his duty of the government. i couldn't agree more. jared yeah, well, that's what that's and i've made my point. no, no, no, actually actually, i would like to talk more about your point because if you believe these kinds of statements that attractive for me, a seminar report, then why wouldn't government fund. exactly, you know, why are we looking private nonprofit partners for funding? why are we considering this some kind of a luxury that people who enjoy these things can pay for it. but when olmstead is saying it's actually necessary for a functioning society, it's necessary for individual group public health, it's necessary for the health of society. and so it's a duty of government that's the bottom line to me. why? why would you pay and why would you pay an entrance fee for property that you own? you know, that that is that is explicitly to be free and open to the public so it's an ideology we have gotten away from is the point and and many good results do right public private partnerships have done wonderful things it's only been the reality of my life i like a rather big impact with being the co-founder the co-founder of the nation. yeah because the longest existing paper in america and is still a voice for looking for the government. well it's a complicated issue but i'm saying that he was an organizer and that's what we working with you who understand depths of it. so i trust that during this year and the following we'll have a movement going. thanks, gerry. and we have time for one more question. if there's one more, anybody anybody question what do you think of the parks are better in the long run the myth or the fact you know that by lee wellesley and what's it say scully gloria pulse gloria gloria about about the yellowstone campfire myth. and it's all about how course we know it isn't true, but awfully good story, isn't it. and it appeals to our better, you know, and and and it's an appeal to the american to be better, you know. and so it's a little bit ambiguous what exactly they're saying in that book. but in in in the end, i think the campfires have had their day and the national park service is still interpreting the campfires on their website and you know the commemorative coin for the what was it for the 2016 anniversary was muir roosevelt. you know, it's it's like, okay well we'll have this one more and then be moving out into the lobby for any book signing. so you mentioned something i thought was interesting we all know central park was designed but you said yosemite was more design well we realized so are those olmstead in the valley is there really. but the basic idea of having a one way loop is the what olmstead wanted to see in yosemite valley was as little done as possible. and so he wanted those the carriage drive. he wanted paths and he wanted a series of cabins that would be shelter providing services, bathrooms, in other words. and, and material for camping. is there a reason that he's not really associated with? it was my that he was at the mine was the mariposa that you mentioned he saw yosemite often the so it's a little ironic he that was one of his failed ventures. no it wasn't really an environmentalist the time if he was. yeah that's in california right now there are a number of people making profile stories going about. how olmstead was had nothing to do with yosemite and it was a failure, etc. , etc.. well, the legislation signed while he was already in california and he saw this big champion of it. so it's really nice to get the story. well, yeah i mean, we didn't even touch on a discussion of. thomas starr king and was the sort of the most vocal champion for yosemite and to a large measure, the the act was act was passed also as king had died in the middle of the civil war. king was a not enormously influential figure in union circles in california and had been raised a lot of money for the sanitary sanitary and had been helped kick insisted california staying in the union. he was he was a very influential figure he and olmstead didn't know each other they they talked a lot went on to take out to california then king died a very early age natural causes worked himself to death probably and diphtheria and other things but you know in the was introduced really only literally months after king had died. and to some extent it's it's it's reasonable to interpret that, you know, one of the reasons the lincoln administration to the legislation and supported it congress did too was out a political obligation in the memory of king and lincoln was entering. we get into this in the book lincoln was entering the 1864 presidential race to get reelected and support from california republicans was important for that. but you've got a point and it should be answered, which is the 1865 report. it was not implemented at yosemite valley. right. the state park commission suppressed it. what that has led to is another myth. if i give you forgive me, one of the change that that that the report disappeared and therefore had no influence. how could how could olmstead been responsible for the national ideas behind, the national park system when this report he wrote disappeared in a really well it didn't disappear. it stayed with him and went back to brooklyn. in fact, with him in the 1880s. and it was used when he was working niagara falls. they quote from it. it was used by olmstead jr when the hetch hetchy controversy came at yosemite and it was used by jr when he does the legislation for national park service. so the idea that the report disappeared entirely is also wrong goes ideas never disappear but they don't that isn't what the state commission does at yosemite valley. they let people build hotels and. they start, you know, plowing up the meadows. they do all the things that olmstead told not to do, essentially. and that's why teddy roosevelt and john muir were discussing the recession of yosemite valley in 1903, because the state mismanaging it so badly they wanted state to give it back to the federal government so it could become part of a larger yosemite national park. so it's a little bit complicated. thank you again, ladies and gentlemen, the honorable nancy pelosi, speaker of the united states house of representatives. good morning, everyone. as speaker of the house, it is my privilege to welcome you to statuary hall. as we celebrate an american who personifies the dare, ing and determined spirit of our nation. amelia earhart. on behalf of the congress, thank you all to the leaders who