Fort Adams and the Historic Preservation Movement 1950 - 2009

Bacon 1
Road to Restoration:
Fort Adams and the Historic Preservation Movement
1950-2009
Allison Bacon
Undergraduate Thesis
University of Rhode Island
April 29, 2009

Bacon 2
Introduction
As the War of 1812 approached, a tiny fort at the entrance of Narragansett Bay was
described as “the rock on which the storm will beat.”1
It protected Newport and the rest of Rhode
Island from any British invasion. However an invasion never came and this small fort of twenty
guns was rebuilt to become one of the largest and most complex fortifications in the United
States. Construction lasted 33 years and brought in over 500 Irishmen to erect its massive granite
walls. When it was first garrisoned in 1841, Fort Adams became the rock that would be pressed
with the duty of protecting the East Passage of Narragansett Bay through the early twentieth
century. New batteries were built in addition to the fort proper, as well as multiple houses for
officer housing. This included what was known as the Eisenhower House, the former
commander’s quarters turned summer White House for President Dwight D. Eisenhower. But as
military technology advanced, the fort became obsolete and eventually was decommissioned in
1950. A new phase in the fort’s history began, as members from the community rallied to save
the fort from the storm of development and neglect. Symbolically guarding Narragansett Bay,
Fort Adams has become a popular tourist attraction, hosting the Jazz and Folk festivals and Tall
Ships Festival in past years and serving as home to multiple recreation and tourist organizations.
Fort Adams faced many obstacles in becoming the National Historic Site and state park it
is today. It was located on a beautiful piece of land at the entrance to Newport Harbor, but was
unusable in the 1950s due to major safety hazards and restricted access by the Navy. Decaying
buildings made the peninsula very dangerous while the Navy only allowed authorized personnel
on site. Slowly but surely the future of Fort Adams became a state issue as citizens pondered its
fate. After the state acquired the land and its buildings in 1965, the plans to convert it into a state
park took many years to implement. Once it did open as a state park, the destiny of the fort

Bacon 3
proper looked dim as no one wanted to find the time or funds to restore the decaying buildings.
The first major steps to restoration began only in 2001, but the efforts of local groups and
citizens that began in 1950 would be crucial in ensuring that Fort Adams became a public topic
until it gained the attention it needed to get on the road to restoration. Who were the people who
helped save Fort Adams? Why did they want to save this decaying building? And were they able
to achieve this? It was the work of state, federal, but especially local people who secured Fort
Adams as a historic site and aided in the first restoration projects of the fort proper.
The following paper will address these questions and more about the movement to save
Fort Adams and the historic preservation movement in general. It will begin with an overview of
the historic preservation movement in America. The first recognized act of preservation dates
back to the efforts to save Mount Vernon in 1853. Preservation slowly gained speed at the turn of
the twentieth century as the federal government passed acts to aid in the idea of preserving the
country’s history. This culminated in the Historic Preservation Act of 1966 that put federal
regulations on historic sites to help preserve them. Following this will be a historiography
section that will address the question of why historic preservation significantly developed in the
1960s. It will end with a discussion of the social movement to save Fort Adams after it was
decommissioned. It took many people to defend the fort and save it from complete disrepair in
the late twentieth century.
The Development of the Historic Preservation Movement
The historic preservation movement has been one of dedication and perseverance. From
the first efforts by citizens to save their local structures in the mid-nineteenth century to the
federal legislation enacted throughout the twentieth century, the movement has been dependent
on people looking to find America’s heritage. As the country grew in age, preserving its past

Bacon 4
became a more prominent issue, beyond the local initiatives. Federal interest and acceptance led
preservation to establish methods and ethics that became vital to the field currently. Through
these developments, historic preservation was able to become a respected field of study and
practice.
Though small acts of preservation did happen through the early nineteenth century, the
first group to organize with the specific goal of preservation was in 1853. Ann Pamela
Cunningham formed the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association of the Union to save George
Washington’s plantation in Virginia. This private organization consisted of women who traveled
the South to raise funds for preservation. They convinced donors that their contributions showed
their patriotism to the nation. Cunningham created a well organized private organization that
became the model for most historical societies and preservation groups in the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries. She was able to raise the funds to save Mount Vernon from
development and decay. Her efforts became the method for preservation in America. It was
assumed that preservation was the work of private citizens, not the federal government, and that
only sites associated with significant historic figures or events should be saved. Buildings and
sites were only saved if they were seen as shrines to the past, leaving many historic places
vulnerable to the expanding development of the Unites States.2
At the turn of the twentieth century, preservation was still driven primarily by private
interests and run mostly by women. However, as more nationally significant sites like Civil War
battlefields and national parks were deemed worth saving, the federal government slowly began
enacting legislation that became the basis of preservation regulation in America. The first
historic preservation act was the Antiquities Act of 1906. It was passed by Congress in response
to vandals stealing artifacts at federal sites in the Southwest. It banned the unauthorized removal,

Bacon 5
excavation, or destruction of any antiquity found on federal U.S. property, with failure to abide
by the policy resulting in strict penalties. It also allowed the president to declare federal lands to
be historic sites, which in turn transferred preservation activities from Congress to the executive
branch. Preservation was placed under the Secretary of the Interior which permitted it to be
better managed and organized. The Antiquities Act was the first step in getting the federal
government involved in preservation in America.3
The next development in creating the historic preservation field was the establishment of
the National Park Service in 1916. The agency was created within the Department of the Interior
to run and protect sites, like national parks, that were too large for private preservation efforts to
deal with. The agency started small, but today has grown to become one of the main sponsoring
agencies for preservation programs.4
Through the work of its first director, Stephen Mather, the
agency was organized and became important in environmental conservation, which later join
with preservation planning. He fundraised privately in addition to the small budget he received
from the federal government in order to assure that the agency could form the way he wanted.
This allowed the National Park Service to survive and aid in the development of the preservation
field.5
One of the first actions of the National Park Service was to create the Civilian
Conservation Corps (CCC) in 1933. Its work was to help develop the national parks and provide
work to people during the Great Depression. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s approval of using
federal emergency funds for cultural development helped to excite private organizations’ interest
in pushing for more government involvement in preservation. It also raised a consciousness of
preservation in the public throughout the U.S. The National Park Service was gaining
momentum and respect in America.6

Bacon 6
The successes of the National Park Service brought about the beginning of the Historical
American Buildings Survey (HABS). Its creation in 1934 led to an increased participation of the
federal government in preservation. The HABS was charged with the task of documenting
historic structures to be put in a national archive in the Library of Congress. This program
documented hundreds of thousands of buildings no matter how historically important they were.
A sister program was developed in 1969 under the American Society of Civil Engineers. The
Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) documented things like bridges and canals
while the HABS documented endangered buildings. They proved vital to preservation efforts,
providing preservationists with some of the best historical records to date.7
These studies have
been important to the subject of this paper, as the HABS teams have done two studies at Fort
Adams due to its massive size. These studies during the summer of 1972 and 1973 are still used
when looking at the future restorations of the fort.8
Following the HABS were two events that paved the way for the establishment of the
National Trust for Historic Preservation. The first was the Historic Sites Act signed by President
Roosevelt on August 21, 1935. It allowed the Secretary of the Interior to establish a basis of
preservation, have the ability to operate and maintain historic sites, and to be able to interpret
these sites for heritage. This paved the way for more legislation that created a general planning
policy for preservationists.9
The second event was the gathering of several influential private
preservationists who established the National Council for Historic Sites and Buildings in April
15, 1947. This organization took on the task of petitioning Congress to charter a national trust for
preservation. They were crucial in making sure the national trust would be “a separate but
government-allied organization,” which would help it to be able to make its own decisions on
difficult issues without federal interference.10

Bacon 7
On October 31, 1949, the National Trust for Historic Preservation was officially created.
The former council dissolved and became part of the new trust. Through the 1950s, the Trust
organized and began incorporating the changes happening in the historic preservation movement.
Local citizens with little knowledge of preservation practices were no longer taking the lead in
the movement. More qualified and educated men and women emerged with experience in
planning and preservation. These people were beginning to be paid for their work, and would
really help to develop the field.11
The Trust set out to help identify national preservation issues,
strengthen preservation efforts and expand private and financial resources for preservation
activities. It also worked on gaining interest in those groups who would be crucial to the future of
historic preservation efforts. It helped to merge private preservation efforts with the National
Park Service and the federal government.12
The next major event that shaped the preservation movement into what it is today was the
passage of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The act was created in response to a
report by a committee under Lady Bird Johnson’s White House Conference on Natural Beauty
titled With Heritage So Rich. The 1966 report drawn up by National Trust staff called for greater
preservation efforts through a federal government program. The report asked for a survey of
significant historical sites, cooperation between local, state, and federal governments with the
creation of state preservation commissions, and financial incentives for preservation.13
It was so
influential that not only did it help raise awareness about preservation, but many of its
recommendations became the basis for the Preservation Act of 1966.14
The Preservation Act of 1966 set up the guidelines for federal involvement in the
preservation movement. It was an environmental act that restricted the federal government from
destroying historic sites in the face of urban renewal. It broadened the federal definition of a

Bacon 8
historic site to consider any building or site that had historical significance, whether it was local,
state, or national. It established a federal definition of the word “district,” allowing funds to be
allotted to historic districts to rehabilitate housing in their respective areas rather than destroying
the existing housing as urban renewal permitted. It created the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation which consisted of select presidential cabinet members and private individuals to
judge if certain federal sites could be open for destruction and new development or if they were
to be considered cultural property and listed on the National Register of Historic Places (which
was created by the act). It supported the creation of State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs)
and enabled Congress to pass legislation to fund preservation efforts. The Historic Preservation
Act opened up preservation to all of society and helped to create a field of study supported by
many organizations and scholars across America.15
Historic preservation continued through the twentieth century, but no legislation passed
that measured up to the importance of the 1966 act. With the creation of the SHPOs in 1966,
states took on a greater role in preservation, taking over some of the duties that used to be under
the Secretary of the Interior. On May 13, 1971, President Richard Nixon issued Executive Order
11593 which ordered all federal agencies to survey their property to find any cultural property
and then to take steps to help preserve it. It was needed to get all federal agencies to take interest
in preservation. Tax reform acts were passed in 1976, 1981 (Economic Recovery Tax Act), and
1986. These allowed for tax incentives to those who rehabilitated properties rather than
beginning new construction projects. All these developments after 1966 increased preservation
efforts throughout the United States.16
The historic preservation movement went from a little known effort to preserve
America’s heritage, to a federally recognized cause with a developed field and method. Many

Bacon 9
have benefitted from its development, whether it is children taking a field trip to a local historic
site or an adult couple living in a rehabilitated home in a historic district. The amateur
preservationists were able to raise public awareness and get the federal backing they needed to
really get the preservation movement recognition. Through their efforts, historic sites like Fort
Adams have been able to follow the established procedures to be saved. The movement has made
preservation important to many Americans over the past century.
Why did preservation significantly develop during and after the 1960s?
By the 1960s, historic preservation had asserted itself as a legitimate movement to many
Americans. It had grown from an exclusively amateur and private venture to a publicly
recognized and more widely accepted field. Yet the movement expanded and transformed within
the next decades. The next section of this paper will address why preservation significantly
developed during and after the 1960s. Some historians believe that the spike in preservation was
due to the 1966 Historic Preservation Act that acknowledged preservation as a worthy national
cause. Others believe that the transformation of the Academy in the 1960s and 1970s aided in its
expansion as the growth of preservation coincided with the rise of social and urban history.
Preservation was becoming an acknowledged academic discipline and profession as well. Other
scholars see the easier access to funding, through new tax incentive programs and grants, as the
increase. This also allowed preservationists to experiment with the economical use of buildings,
making parts of the field more business oriented. These new markets for rehabilitated buildings
became crucial in facing the threat of urban renewal in the 1960s and 1970s. The adaptation of
the movement to these three developments allowed historic preservation to thrive through the
second half of the twentieth century.

Bacon 10
The passage of the Historic Preservation Act of 1966 was one of the great successes of
the historic preservation movement. Historians William J. Murtagh and Norman Tyler discuss
the importance of the legislation in their respective books. They argue that the act helped to
establish historic preservation as a legitimate field with a solid method that is still for the most
part followed. Murtagh describes how the act broadened what was considered important because
it dealt with not only national sites, but state and local sites too. It also aimed at curbing urban
renewal by allowing preservationists to secure funds through the Secretary of the Interior for
rehabilitation of existing housing, rather than new construction funds through the Department of
Housing and Urban Development.17
This meant that preservation could expand now that smaller
state and local organizations could get federal funds for restoration and preservation. It also
inhibited the tearing down of historic buildings due to new construction by allowing
preservationists the ability to secure funding to save these buildings. Tyler goes on to discuss the
importance of the National Register of Historic Places established under the 1966 act. Buildings
placed on the register were encouraged to be preserved and were able to get more consideration
for the allotment of funds. The act also defined what a historic district was by acknowledging
that a district could include a group of buildings and the area that they were located in.18
This
allowed more places to get consideration for funding, expanding the movement. The passing of
the Act organized the movement, encouraged the cultivation of America’s heritage, and made
federal funds more available to preservationists which helped to expand the movement.
Other historians look beyond the Historic Preservation Act of 1966 to explain
preservation’s growth in the 1960s. Daniel Bluestone argues that because the first historic
preservation programs in universities emerged in the 1960s, a new type of preservationist was
created. Preservationists were no longer amateur women looking to be patriotic, but now men

Bacon 11
who were focused more on the aesthetics of a historic site.19
This allowed the public to see
preservation as more than a movement by women, but as a real field of study. What most likely
kept the field from growing further though, Bluestone argues, is the attitude of architectural
historians who saw the field as inferior because of its association with woman groups.20
Some
older male historians were less receptive to recognize a field developed by women since women
were now entering the Academy, sometimes challenging their scholarship. Bluestone feels this
kept the field from growing even faster.
Historian Richard Longstreth looks at another branch of the Academy and argues that the
new approaches to history and the new acceptance of consulting methods from other fields
helped to develop the historic preservation movement. Anthropology, folk life, and social
history’s emergence in the academy aided the developing historic preservation field, as scholars
in these new areas found preservation a worthy field to consider.21
Unlike Bluestone, however,
he also sees architectural historians as crucial to the professionalization of the field. Their
participation was vital to survey programs of the twentieth century, like the Historic American
Buildings Survey, helping to create a still widely used preservation record.22
He also discusses
the need for history to become a more inclusive field by consulting relating fields like
archeology as well as the new belief that preservation could be used as a way to merge history
and architecture.23
However, he too points out that many academics see preservation as a less
important field due to its short history, and that more could be accomplished currently if scholars
allowed the field to expand like it did in the 1960s, rather than narrowing it by becoming less
receptive of its new methodologies and other fields.24
Some historians believe that preservation developed in the 1960s because it entered and
adapted to business markets. Preservationist Kathryn Welch Howe argues that by making

Bacon 12
economical use of historic buildings, preservation created housing, offices, and other spaces that
the country was in need of after World War II.25
Historic districts and national historic landmarks
were still critical in saving buildings, but she believes that by encouraging market-based
developments at the state and local level, more sites could be saved constructively.26
She
believes that the better planning of land and greater reuse of older parts of towns was helpful
along with the development of the smart growth movement that emerged in the 1960s.27
Smart
Growth is an anti-sprawl movement that looks to create healthy communities in cities and towns
through smart development. Because of the first tax credit program for preservation in 1976, the
National Park Service and Internal Revenue Service were able to guide private investors through
the process to receive these credits and preserve buildings.28
The cooperation between the private
and public sectors and the involvement of experienced developers and lenders also were crucial
in allowing preservation to expand in the 1960s.29
To add to this theory, Charles E. Fisher argues
the importance of easements to the movement. An easement is a voluntary agreement that an
owner enters into with an organization dedicated to historic preservation. The organization
agrees to work toward preserving the site while the owner receives considerable tax benefits.30
Fisher believes that easements were beneficial to many sites, saving them from ruin.31
Creating a business-oriented field is further shown in preservationist J. Myrick Howard’s
essay on nonprofits. He argues that nonprofits were important to the development of the
movement, especially after the 1960s when they became more organized and business-like.32
The
problem with nonprofits was that they could be very successful or quite dysfunctional depending
on the staff and how easily they could obtain funding. Those which were successful tended to be
run by a paid staff.33
Nonprofits became more successful after the 1960s, helping to keep the
preservation movement viable at the local and state levels.

Bacon 13
Briann Greenfield looks at for-profit organization to argue that these organizations were
responsible for the acceleration of preservation. Her study of the Providence Preservation
Society (PPS) reveals that the pro-growth group used for-profit organizations to develop and
save historic homes on Benefit Street in Providence as a way to keep them from demolition by
the local colleges.34
PPS allowed pro-market groups to buy houses to restore and resell to
homeowners. For example, the Burnside Company in 1956 bought seventeen houses in one area
to restore and resell successfully. This in turn raised the real estate values in the College Hill
district and encouraged more companies to invest in the area. Allowing these pro-market groups
to invest in historic buildings was a way to get capital for preservation, even though the houses
were not necessarily significant historically.35
It also showed how preservationists were looking
into new ways to expand preservation by using business tactics.
Another reason the field was able to develop through the 1950s and 1960s was that city
populations were growing with little room to expand. Preservationist J. Myrick Howard
discusses why urban renewal was prevalent at the beginning of the 1950s. When discussing the
demolition and new construction of this time he writes, “Progress, not preservation, was the
national obsession.”36
The Internal Revenue Code encouraged demolition and urban renewal
during this time and it was not until new preservationists emerged in the late 1960s that the code
changed. These preservationists were interested in saving whole neighborhoods and were able to
help professionalize local movements due to their degrees in marketing, law, business and
planning.37
Other studies have looked into the link between urban planning and historic preservation.
Karolin Frank and Patricia Peterson argue that since the 1960s, preservation and planning have
teamed up to create successful historic districts in the United States. Starting in the 1950s,

Bacon 14
municipal officials were trying to figure out where cities were going economically and socially.
The urban renewal movement emerged to help make more space for parking and work places as
many people fled to the suburbs to escape the city. One way to keep the city from falling into
ruin was creating historic districts, which also were helpful in boosting a city’s tourist draw and
revenue.38
This was common through the 1970s. Frank and Petersen also suggest that the civil
rights legislation of 1964 and 1965 may have “reawaken[ed the] consciousness of the American
people when it came to history and architecture, though they unfortunately do not discuss this
idea further.39
Their argument focuses on the historic district and preservation, saying that
through it, the cities of the 1950s and 1960s were able to deal with all the economic and cultural
problems being forced upon them. To solve suburbanization, lack of heritage awareness, lack of
available parking and the need for urban infrastructure, urban planners were able to work with
preservationists to save and reuse buildings that were already in the city.40
This was good for the
cities and helped to turn urban planners from an urban renewal approach to a more useful
approach of rehabilitating buildings.
Judy Mattivi Morley agrees with Frank and Petersen. She looks at Dana Crawford, an
upper class woman in Denver and her efforts to save a block of buildings in an area of Denver
called Skid Row from the Denver Urban Renewal Authority. To stop the Authority from
destroying older areas of Denver, Crawford created the Larimer Square Associates and
convinced the city that creating a “Historic Denver” would be more beneficial than tearing down
the old parts of town. She preserved her block, making it a great tourist draw for the city. In
response to this, the city decided to restore more parts of Skid Row and develop their tourism
industry more. Declaring these areas historic districts meant the Authority could not demolish

Bacon 15
them and had to change their plans.41
Therefore, Morley argues that historic preservation
developed in the 1960s because it was used as a city planning strategy to curb urban renewal.42
Historic preservation became prominent because of the events in the 1960s. It became
what it is today because of the federal legislation that legitimized it as important and made
funding available. The professionalization of the field was crucial in producing educated men
and women to see to the state of the field. These people acted on the opportunities they saw to
expand preservation through pro-market initiatives and tourism development. Their innovation
allowed preservation to survive through the twentieth century through the professionalization of
the field.
The movement to save Fort Adams touches upon many of these issues. The state of
Rhode Island moved to acquire the fort in May of 1965, as heritage awareness was growing in
the country and local citizens urged action be taken to save the fort. Not much was accomplished
for years, however, since the state did not have the funds to develop the area into a park and the
Fort Adams Foundation was not being very active or organized. When the Fort Adams Trust was
founded in 1994 as a nonprofit organization, it slowly organized as funds and grants were
acquired and a paid staff hired. The creation of the corporation reflected the developed business
approach to preservation that was popular. By working with the state, who owned the fort and
park, the Trust opened the fort for tours in 1995 and increasingly established itself as a
significant tourist draw for the city of Newport, especially with the jazz and folk festivals.
Though these steps were taken in the 1990s, they were easily taken since the procedures had
been established in the 1960s and 1970s by prior preservation groups. With restorations that
began in 2001, the Trust continued to thrive through its business-like structure. The following
analysis shows how the Fort Adams movement achieved success in the 1990s due to a developed

Bacon 16
field, business management, and the involvement of other professionals in the area. It fits into the
scholarship by showing the increasing awareness of the need to preserve buildings by the 1960s,
while it provides one more case study of how the movement developed uniquely yet eventually
resulted to a nonprofit organization to really get the movement going.
“By Hell or High Water”
In a city known for its summer cottages and colonial history, Fort Adams stands as a
massive structure representing not only Newport’s military history but its immigrant history as
well. Its location between the east passage of Narragansett Bay and Newport Harbor also makes
it one of the most beautiful locations on Aquidneck Island. After being decommissioned in 1950
by the army, however, the future of this area of Newport looked unclear. It was not long before
local groups and citizens emerged to voice their support for action to be taken on the peninsula to
save both it and the fort from disrepair. Who were the people who helped save Fort Adams and
why did they want to save this decaying building? Were they able to achieve this goal? Although
it took many years, the first major restorations of the main fort were completed in 2001 and have
continued since. It took the work of state, federal, but especially local people to secure Fort
Adams as a historic site and to begin work on restoration of the fort proper.
The peninsula on which Fort Adams stands has had a long history of military
significance. The peninsula the fort was built on was called “old Brenton’s Point,” after an early
land owner named William Brenton.43
In 1739 a watchtower was ordered to be erected and by
the outbreak of the American Revolution in 1775, work had begun on a small earthwork at the
site to protect the fifth largest city in the colonies. The few guns at old Brenton’s Point combined
with more earthworks at Rose Island, Goat Island, and Jamestown, however, did not stop the
British from invading Newport on December 7, 1776. They would occupy the city for most of

Bacon 17
the war and destroy any chance it had to become a major port again.44
By 1793, the United States
realized it needed to protect its coasts’ in case there were future wars and constructed the First
System of Fortifications. Newport was chosen to be fortified due to its deep natural harbor that
made it a safe place to store ships during storms. This also made it a prime location for siege by
an enemy fleet. The East Passage that connects to the harbor is also the easiest way for ships to
enter Narragansett Bay to sail to Providence, as opposed to the West Passage or the Sakonnet
River. As a result, the first Fort Adams was built on old Brenton’s Point to protect the harbor and
East Passage. It was dedicated on July 4, 1799, to President John Adams, the second president of
the United States.45
This fort of twenty guns never saw action and had become “worse than
useless” after the War of 1812, when new fortifications were needed to protect the country from
the technological advances of war.46
When the Third System Board of Fortifications was created, Frenchman Simon Bernard
recommended that a fort be built at old Brenton’s Point where the old fort had been leveled. The
design of an irregular pentagon to fit on the peninsula was carried out by Lieutenant Colonel
Joseph G. Totten, the supervisor of construction until 1838. To construct the massive walls,
which also include an impressive redoubt to the south, mason and Newport resident Alexander
McGregor was chosen to oversee the granite stonework.47
More than five hundred Irishmen were
sent over from Ireland to perform the work and many settled in Newport, creating a strong Irish
community in the city.48
Construction began in 1824 and finished in 1857, creating one of the
largest coastal fortifications in America that could hold 468 cannons and 2,400 soldiers.49
Despite being a “magnificent feat of engineering”, Fort Adams never saw battle.50
The
fort was never fully armed and quickly became militarily obsolete with the development of new
technology. Parts of the fort proper were converted into living quarters, and a small redoubt on

Bacon 18
the east side of the fort was made into a jail to house unruly soldiers. During the Civil War, the
Naval War College relocated from Annapolis, Maryland to the fort to escape the fighting near
the city, later staying in Newport.51
At the turn of the twentieth century, the Endicott Board was
created by Congress to reevaluate costal defenses in 1885. They ordered more modern artillery to
be built across the East Coast for better defenses. Six batteries were built at Fort Adams, helping
to keep the fort vital to the defense of Newport and its harbor.52
Yet by the end of the First World
War, coastal defense was seen as useless with the development of efficient aircraft and new
warfare.53
Despite being obsolete, Fort Adams served as a training post during the world wars.
Upwards of three thousand men were stationed here before and after they were deployed
overseas. Known as the “Country Club of the Army,” soldiers had access to a nine hole golf
course, a baseball diamond, a bowling alley, and a social director that kept them busy after the
four hours of drills a day.54
This all came to an end, however, when the army decommissioned
the fort in 1950 and handed the land over to the navy. A newspaper article dated August 3, 1953
reported that only two soldiers remained on site, with the Rhode Island National Guard using a
very small portion of the 446 buildings for storage and the navy using some for housing. Most of
the buildings were vacant and quickly deteriorating, with the price of the fort set at $1,820,000.55
Citizens knew that the fort was part of Newport’s identity and watched from a distance as the
navy neglected the peninsula. Slowly the need to do something about the fort and the peninsula
became a public issue.
The first attempt to do something about the fort came from Ralph Earle, Jr. rear admiral,
commander of the naval base in Newport. On August 23, 1956, he wrote a letter to the Newport
Historical Society to inform it and the citizens of Newport about possible developments at the

Bacon 19
fort. He denied the fort could ever be considered as a national shrine or park, and wanted to let
the city know that the familiar granite structure they knew was proposed to be dismantled to
make a breakwater in Coddington Cove. He believed it was a good solution to removing the
hazard that was Fort Adams and reusing the stone for the city.56
His proposal was not a surprise
to Newporters, who knew the navy was ignoring the fort and allowing it to be vandalized.
Citizens in Newport were outraged at the plan. The Providence Journal described the
reaction by the citizens as one not ordinarily seen in Newport. What created an even bigger
storm was that the Chamber of Commerce backed the admiral on his proposal. The city council
denounced their actions and people continued to voice their disgust for the project.57
The story
even made regional headlines, as The Boston Globe wrote “Navy Razing Fort Adams, ‘Country
Club of Army.’”58
The “flood of protests” from the public led the navy to back down, while it
also realized the difficulties with actually taking the structure down.59
Many now felt that the
best action to be taken with the fort was to make it state property.
The support of U.S. Senator Claiborne Pell was important in saving the fort from the
Navy. He repeatedly pressured the Navy to stop its mismanagement of the fort and tried to get
them to agree to give the property to the State of Rhode Island.60
“These are the people who are
destroying our history,” Pell told the senate as recalled by activist Frank Hale. Working with
Newport State Senator Erich O. D. Taylor, Pell was able to submit a bill to Congress in 1961
with U.S. Senator John Pastore that gave over most of the land at Fort Adams to the state.61
When the news of the bill surfaced in Rhode Island, many people wrote to Pell in support.
William D. Metz, a member of the Rhode Island Civil War Centennial Commission and
Chairman of the Fort Adams Committee stated that the commission fully supported the
acquisition and believed that it would make a great place for a museum as well as a recreational

Bacon 20
area.62
Others wrote about their hopes that the fort could become useful to the citizenry or host a
monument and park.63
Though the bill did stall in the Committee for Armed Services, the act
passed and most of Fort Adams was transferred to the State of Rhode Island. The navy deeded all
land, besides a small section that they reserved for a naval housing project, over on May 21,
1965, costing the state nothing.64
The fort was safe from the navy’s neglect and the hopes for its
future were high.
To receive the fort at no cost, the state had to agree that it would develop the area
according to the Department of the Interior’s Outdoor Bureau regulations. The state agreed to
develop the site as a historic site, rather than a recreational area. If the state had stated its intent
to develop the park as a recreational area it would have had to pay half the appraised value.65
William H. Cotter, Jr., Division Chief of the Division of Parks and Recreation discussed the
state’s hopeful goals at the possible park in 1964. After explaining how they planned on placing
strong historical emphasis on the fort in accordance with the pending deed, he pointed out the
first projects they planned to begin once it was transferred. These included demolition of
hazardous buildings, road and walkway construction, landscaping and docking facilities; all of
which, he stated, could take years to find the funding for.66
The projects had nothing to do with
creating a historic site. It can be deduced that the state had no immediate plans to develop the
fort historically, despite what was stated in the beginning of the article. The “historical purposes”
issue soon became a hindrance in obtaining funding for the new state park, since the State
Department of Natural Resources sought to create a more recreational facility.
Though it was now state property, it took years before Fort Adams was opened to the
public as a state park. On April 26, 1967, it was noted that the engineering plans to construct an
entrance to the fort were completed and had to be approved by the navy, since they still had their

Bacon 21
naval housing project at the fort. However, it was a few more years before the fort could be
opened as a state park, as many of the hazardous buildings had to be removed and that could
only be done once enough funds were raised. The Rhode Island Department of Natural
Resources, charged with the task of raising funds and developing the park, was looking for
federal assistance to help fund the project.67
By the summer of 1969, the project looked bleak
due to the lack of funding. When a woman inquired about being buried at the site of her parent’s
graves (the Fort Adams cemetery) and how she wished the fort to become a beautiful historical
park, Pell responded by telling her that an early restoration did not look possible due to money
woes.68
Again, people worried the fort would stand useless forever.
By 1969, it was becoming apparent that because the property had been deeded to the state
for “historical purposes,” the Department of Natural Resources was having difficulty raising
monies for the project. In a letter to inform Governor Frank Licht about the project, Jack
Thompson, chief of the Division of Planning and Development wrote that the wording of the
deed limited state development and federal funding. There were also small land transfers that
needed to be negotiated with the navy to make access in the park more convenient. In order to
solve these issues, the Governor’s office, Federal General Services Administration, local and
federal representatives from the U.S. Navy, a R.I. member of Congress, and the Federal Bureau
of Outdoor Recreation had to agree on the new terms.69
It was suggested that a federal act be
passed to change the word “historical” to “recreational” in order to resolve the problem.70
The
deed also threatened the America’s Cup Races, which were to be partially held at the fort.
Charles S. Soliozy , Newport Planning Board Chairman worried that the Bureau of Outdoor
education would only fund 25% of the races instead of 50% due to the wording of the deed. He
urged that action be taken to help solve the deed issue so that the Department of Natural

Bacon 22
Resources could start taking bids on the entrance project.71
It also was known that any decisions
to be made at the fort affected the residents in its area, and the Governor’s office wanted to stay
informed about the project.72
It was not long until the citizens of Newport voiced their dismay
about the delay in creating the state park.
The waste of such a beautiful and useful area was troublesome to many citizens. People
wanted to see the fort become useful again as a recreational and historical state park and with
some looking to locate their clubs at the park. In April of 1970, Newporter Robert F. Hoskins
wrote to Governor Licht to encourage the state to get the park open since, “…only on paper
[was] it a state park,” and that the happiness of the people of Rhode Island was worth providing
the funds to get the entrance to the fort built.73
In May of the same year, John Springett of the
Newport County Saltwater Fishing Club, Inc. wrote to Governor Licht asking to obtain a
building at Fort Adams to make their clubhouse, agreeing to repair and maintain it year round.
He also added that the organization benefitted tourists as well.74
Letters like these helped to keep
the Governor’s office involved and in contact with the Department of Natural Resources,
directed by John L. Rego. The responses stated that the requests were premature as the hazardous
buildings still had to be demolished and public access created through a better entrance to the
park.75
These could not be done until the “historical purposes” issue was sorted out.
In order to get the issues solved and the project moving, Senator Pell took action. On
September 8, 1970 he held a clambake at his house in Newport and invited everyone who needed
to sign off on the historical issue and the small land transfer with the navy.76
Activist Frank Hale
recalled that Pell gathered all the representatives in his office and locked them in until the
problems were solved.77
The meeting included Senator Taylor and State Representative Robert J.
McKenna who were prominent activists within the local community along with Pell and Hale.

Bacon 23
Also attending were representatives from the Naval Base, the city of Newport, the Newport
Music Festival, the federal General Services Administration (GSA), the Department of the
Interior78
, and the National Park Service. The first issue brought up was whether the federal Land
and Water Conservation Fund could be used to help fund the project in accordance with the deed
and titles which the representative from the GSA agreed was in scope with the deed. It was
agreed that until the fort was restored, that the outside area had to be the main draw and the funds
could be used for recreational purposes. The land exchanges with the navy also were agreed
upon, since the money from the Land and Water Fund could only be used on state property. All
of the needed papers were signed and the state was finally able to obtain the money needed to
make Fort Adams a state park.79
This was a major step in allowing restorations of the fort to be
possible in the future.
With the deed issue solved, the Department of Natural Resources was able to start the
projects. The state appropriated $200,000 for the project that was matched through the federal
Land and Water Fund. The tasks were to construct the entrance to the park, a 400 space parking
lot, a picnic area and boat basin, and remove most of the excess buildings outside of the main
fortification. These were all part of phase one of the project, with the second phase being planned
as a restoration of the main fort.80
Phase one did not begin until the end of 1971, as easements
had to be granted to the state from the navy and approved by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
before any work began.81
The state had to continually remind the navy to follow through with the
process after the Pell meeting in September.82
The final funding from the Land and Water Fund
was boosted to $300,683.83
As the state worked on getting the park opened, others focused on
what was not happening to the deteriorating fort proper.

Bacon 24
Concern for the historical integrity of Fort Adams arose after news of phase one hit the
press. The historic importance of Fort Adams to Newport was one of the reasons why citizens
wanted it preserved. On October 30, 1970, the Rhode Island Foundation for Historic Archeology
voiced its dismay that most of the buildings outside of the main fort were set to be demolished in
a ewport Daily ews article on October 27, 1970.84
The organization wanted the chance to
photograph and survey these buildings before they were destroyed. They were working with the
developing Rhode Island Historic Preservation Commission (RIHPC) to try to record Fort
Adams long heritage.85
Also, as work began many local leaders did not like choices being made
during construction, which led to the formation of the Fort Adams Committee in November of
1971.86
Members included representatives from state and local historical societies and
organizations interested in saving the historic fort.87
Not long after being formed, the committee
Chairman, Senator Taylor, began to oppose the Department of Natural Resources’ plans to use
the funds obtained to create a 400 space parking lot and picnic area. He called for the funds to be
used for immediate restoration of the decaying fort, instead of “very elaborate picnic facilities.”88
His opposition to the project stalled it until February of 1972, when only after reading a letter
from the director of the RIHPC, Antoinette Downing, did Taylor agree to allow the project to
continue as planned.89
Another committee member, Representative McKenna wrote to Governor
Licht on December 6, 1971, urging the Governor to support work to begin on the walls of the
fort itself, which needed round the clock security to keep vandals out. He hoped that funds could
be used mostly for the fort as many saw it to be important to the economic development of the
area.90
The Fort Adams Committee soon evolved into the Fort Adams Foundation in 1972. It
was created by the Rhode Island General Assembly to initiate, plan, and facilitate efforts to

Bacon 25
restore the fort structure.91
It became the main organization to help preserve Fort Adams.
Members included many people from the former committee, including McKenna, Hale, and
Taylor. The first action taken by the Foundation was to have the fort surveyed as part of the
Historical American Buildings Survey (HABS) being conducted through the National Park
Service.92
The overall goal of the HABS was to document historic sites across America to be put
in an archive in the nation’s capital; however their surveying and assessment of the fort was the
first step in figuring out how the foundation should go about restoration. The first survey was
scheduled for the summer of 1972 and was funded by the Department of Natural Resources. It
sent five archeologists and additional student interns to inventory the fort.93
At the conclusion of
this study, it was determined that HABS wanted to come back the following summer to record
even more data due to the fort’s large size. An evaluation of the research, created by Professor
Willard Robinson of Texas Tech University, stated that Fort Adams had the potential to become
one of the “finest and spectacular attractions in America,” and that ending the survey in
September of 1972 would be detrimental to creating a bright future for the fort.94
It was noted
though, that efforts to restore the fort meant finding a varieties of ways to raise and save
money.95
A follow up HABS survey was conducted during the summer of 1973, including an
archeological assessment by University of Rhode Island professor of sociology and anthropology
John A. Senulis. Senator Pell wrote to the new director of the Department of Natural Resources
that he believed the fort could provide “a unique perspective in one portion of our history.”96
The
second report on the fort was a continuation of the first one, and compiled again by Robinson.
He noted the need for a master plan to be developed so that buildings could be stabilized for
more public amenities and allow for self guided tours to be developed.97
He also supported a

Bacon 26
local archive to be created with manuscripts and artifacts dealing with the fort’s history.98
Senulis’ report, conducted under the RIHPC, recovered more than one thousand artifacts at the
fort and called for more research to be done to uncover living evidence at the fort.99
Eventually
another survey was approved in August of 1974, and Robinson was hired by the RIHPC to draw
up the first master plan of the fort by 1978.100
The master plan recalled the historical significance of the peninsula and suggested actions
to be taken to help save the fort. The fort, showing the strength, architecture, and technology of
the defenses of Narragansett Bay, had great potential for physical and historical recreation.101
Additionally in 1976, the fort gained National Historic Landmark status through the National
Park Service.102
Starting in 1974, the state offered tours of the fort at a small fee through the
Rhode Island Department of Community Affairs.103
The report called for more groups to locate
in the park to increase tourism, in addition to the America’s Cup Museum that was planning to
establish itself at one of the buildings outside of the fort.104
Robinson also suggested that some of
the asbestos filled buildings be cleared to create open space and parking areas, opening of the
Eisenhower House to the public, and fences and walkways created for self-guide tours.105
He
emphasized that any actions taken at the park should complement the historical integrity of the
fort in order to increase visitation and justify the money to be spent on projects.106
He lastly
noted that the Fort Adams Foundation should be reactivated to help efforts. When the
Foundation was formed, it had acted more like a club than a foundation, and Robinson suggested
that it should be reorganized to act like a real foundation.107
The master plan seemed to be the
next step towards restoration.
Yet, even with a clear path to restoration laid out, activism on behalf of the fort died
down by the beginning of the 1980s. The death of Erich Taylor left any hopes of the foundation

Bacon 27
being reformed dead.108
A new director of the Department of Natural Resources, now renamed
the Department of Environmental Management (DEM), relocated all funds flowing into Newport
and Aquidneck Island to the Northern part of the state.109
With less money to maintain the fort,
tours ended in 1983, as the fort had become too dangerous to let people inside.110
For at least ten
years the fort proper stood decaying, while the recreational park activities continued in other
sections of the park. Being left out of the public limelight, the fort was all but forgotten by many
people in the state.
During this period, local activists met to assess the fort’s situation and came up with a
plan to save it. By the early 1990s, seventies activists Frank Hale and Edwin Connelly realized
that something needed to be done about the DEM management of the park and met with Newport
Representative Paul Crowley for help. It was decided that a restructuring of the Fort Adams
Foundation, which Hale and Crowley sat on, was necessary to make it more active. This was
needed since a number of current named members had either died or were not interested in the
project anymore. With the help of Crowley and State Senator Theresa Paiva Weed, a former tour
guide from the 1970s, new bills were introduced to their respective houses to reactivate the
Foundation. The bills passed easily as the local activists had visited the state house multiple
times to raise awareness for the group and the Foundation was reorganized to include new
members interested in the cause by 1995.111
The next step the Foundation realized they needed to take was to raise money for the
cause. They did this by becoming friendly with the local organizations and citizens in Newport.
Some supporters of the project were preservationist and member of Newport Society Countess
Anthony Szapary and Keith Stokes of the Newport Chamber of Commerce. Many local residents
and friends of the Foundation donated their time and trucks to clear out the fort from years of

Bacon 28
being neglected. The foundation also called upon Senator Pell to speak to the Admiral at the War
College about children in the navy housing section who kept breaking in and vandalizing the
fort. The RIHPC only had one member who helped the fort out, but most people in Newport
were receptive of the new interest in saving Fort Adams.112
To better finance the money being raised, the Foundation decided to create a corporation.
This became known as the Fort Adams Trust. Hale filled out all the appropriate forms with the
help of Paiva Weed to make the corporation a nonprofit organization. These were easily
approved with the help of Senator Pell’s office and the Trust was now set to move forward with
the Foundation with its 501 (c) (3) organization status. In its early years the Trust and
Foundation worked closely together, and decided to rent out an office in the Eisenhower House
at $250 from the Rhode Island Heritage Commission.113
This showed how the movement had
developed, as it now was running a business organization.
In the beginning, it was decided that the Foundation was to be in charge of the planning
the restorations due to its broad membership. Along with the usual activists, the foundation had
representatives from DEM, Department of Administration, and the Chamber of Commerce as
well as many local legislators, and the mayor of Newport. The Trust was created to deal with the
task of raising money for the restorations and was led by Frank Hale and Ed Connelly. The task
of raising money turned out to be harder than expected, as many citizens and organizations did
not want to donate to a state owned park.114
The City of Newport promised to send $1,500 a
year, but only after being reminded by letter did they send their donation.115
Funding was
difficult, leading the Trust to look for congressional support to help obtain federal funds and
private grants.

Bacon 29
While the Trust was organizing itself after its creation, the Army Corp of Engineers spent
six months clearing out the fort and stabilizing different areas. Lead paint was removed from
walls, important areas were unearthed, and one entrance to the fort was made handicapped
accessible in the $1.5 million project. The project was paid for by DEM and the Army Corp of
Engineers. It was the first major project to be done on the fort proper itself since the seventies.
Due to it, the Trust planned to start giving tours to the public in May of 1995.116
Additionally, a
lease was signed between the Foundation and the state. Passed in February of 1995, it allowed
the Foundation to use the money it raised to enter into contracts at the Fort for restoration
purposes. The state was still charged with maintaining, operating, and developing Fort Adams as
part of the park system and was responsible for the liability insurance when the Foundation
granted access into the fort.117
Maintenance and preservation duties were later transferred from
DEM to the Foundation which allowed the Foundation to conduct tours and hold events for the
purpose of funding restoration projects.118
This new freedom for the Foundation helped it to plan
an appropriate restoration plan and showed that the state and Foundation were working together.
Another action the Trust attempted was to gain the support of local and federal
legislators. In December of 1994, Ed Connelly sent a letter to U.S. Senator John Chafee inviting
him to visit the fort. After being informed by the National Park Service that the fort was eligible
to receive funds administered by the Committee on Environmental and Public Works, the Trust
asked Chafee for his support in Congress. The funds could be used to clean up the fort and open
more of it up for tours, a goal of the newly created organization. Connelly also asked if they were
eligible to apply for the Department of Defense’s “Purple Legacy Proposal.”119
Chafee informed
them in January of 1995 that they were eligible for the Purple Legacy project, and also agreed to
look into getting work done in the Southwest bastion.120
The Foundation and Trust drew together

Bacon 30
the legacy project through the beginning of 1995, creating a plan to establish a Coastal and
Defense Interpretive Center that focused of the defenses to Narragansett Bay.121
Their
application was not approved and the need for a master plan was realized once more. Pursuing
the proposal though, showed that the Trust and Foundation were becoming more organized and
active in its efforts.
The tour program began again on May 15, 1995 after a fifteen year hiatus. This was a
great achievement because it meant that people were able to visit inside the fort again and see the
need for preservation. The tour program also provided the Trust and Foundation with a small
source of income to help with running the Trust and the creation of a master plan. The tour,
developed by Hale and Connelly, cost $4 for adults and $2 for children over six years old and
were offered three times a day throughout the summer. The tour focused on Newport’s military
history, a piece of history often overlooked in Newport. It opened the door for more people to
visit the fort and see its deteriorating condition, and raise awareness for the needed restorations at
the site.122
The tours were at first set to be run out of the jail outside the east entrance of the fort
once it was renovated to make it safe. However the funds needed to do this were difficult to
obtain, leaving the tours to be run out of the DEM owned visitor center next door to the
jailhouse.123
With the tour program developed and running, the need to create a master plan took
precedent. On October 27 through October 29 of 1995, a Fort Adams Strategic Planning
Workshop was held. Representatives from preservation agencies across Rhode Island and New
England met to discuss how the fort could be developed and suggested plans to make this
happen. The program was sponsored by DEM, the Fort Adams Trust and Foundation, and
RIHPC. A summary of the workshop suggested that the fort be marketed toward families

Bacon 31
through its military, social, living, and architectural histories. The relationship between the Fort
Adams Trust, Fort Adams Foundation, and DEM was discussed, as it was decided that DEM
needed to be more open with the Trust and Foundation and work with them to achieve success.
In theory, restorations should have been the job of the state since they owned the property, with
the Trust running the fort as an attraction, and the Foundation renting out the fort for special
events to raise funds. It was decided that it was “imperative that the owner, the state of Rhode
Island, visibly [support] the Fort and Trust.”124
The Foundation was also urged to meet regularly
like normal foundations do. Restorations were to be planned as a series of short projects in order
to not scare off supporters. Volunteer work, donations from local groups and businesses, ticket
surcharges on events, tours, congressional support and grants were all seen as sources of labor
and funds for the forts development.125
The workshop helped create an idea of how all the groups
could work together at the fort and set the basis for a new master plan.
By 1996, the Trust was able to really focus on finding the funds to keep the fort open and
stabilize it for restorations. A lease agreement between the Trust and Foundation was created to
establish the terms between the two organizations.126
Board member Senator Theresa Paiva
Weed stated in March that the Trust needed to take a bigger role in raising funds and creating
educational programs.127
At this point, the Board of Directors was in charge of applying for
grants, though most were not trained grant writers.128
It was agreed that they needed to hire an
executive director in order to move forward with the Trust.129
Subcommittees were created
within the Board of Directors showing how the Foundation had become a much more active
organization. They asked Virginia Hesse, representative from RIHPC to write a report on the
Robinson reports from the seventies to learn of prior restoration goals and funding efforts in a
step towards a master plan.130
Access to the fort was made easier; with the park entrance fee

Bacon 32
being eliminated in all R.I. state parks after a movement was started by Frank Hale to get it
removed.131
The idea of creating a ticket surcharge on the music festival tickets and hiring a
special events director was also introduced. Much had been done due to the cooperation between
the Trust and Foundation.
The interests at Fort Adams cooperated more smoothly by 1997, and other local
organizations aided with events at the fort. In March a meeting was held between DEM, the
Foundation, Sail Newport, the Museum of Yachting, the Eisenhower House, Festival
Productions, and the Navy Housing Association to discuss the upcoming busy season and how
they could work together.132
At this meeting, it was suggested that DEM could give a piece of
their budget from the Festival Productions events to the Foundation to equal that of a ticket
surcharge.133
The issue was solved later in 1999, when the state properties committee approved
$30,000 from the music festivals to go to the Foundation for use towards the restorations of the
fort.134
The Trust also was a member of CONGO, an organization of local nonprofits. Like the
Trust, the other organizations were struggling to stay viable and they helped each other out as
needed. This was a way for the Trust to find not only volunteers to help out at the fort, but to find
support with others who were in the same situation.135
By the end of the 1990s, it was clear that the Trust needed a paid staff to be successful
due to the amount of events it now planned and the needed fundraising efforts. The Trust director
throughout this time was Frank Hale, who was in charge of planning the events, running the tour
program, and some fundraising. Efforts to hire an executive director from 1997 to 1999 were
constantly stalled due to lack of funds. At the end of 1998, Hale urged the board to hire a staff
member to help run the Trust.136
By January of 2000, the board was able to hire Anthony M.
Palermo to serve as its Executive Director, who took over most of the responsibilities of Hale.137

Bacon 33
Under Palmero, Fort Adams soon saw the first major restorations that people had worked
towards for over 40 years and the Trust developed into the organization that it is currently. This
was an important step in moving from a volunteer organization to a more professionalized one.
The master plan project was finally realized in 1997, after a grant was awarded to the
Foundation from the Prince Charitable Trust. The Prince Charitable Trust was an organization
with grants available to projects that benefitted the residents of Newport.138
The three five-year
plan included time to raise money to match state grants to be awarded to the Trust for
restoration.139
Palmero helped to create a special events program that brought in more money for
operating and restoration needs to meet this.140
He also pushed the need to increase membership
in the Trust, which went from 200 in 1997 to 1,100 members by January 2000.141
The first major
restorations to fix the fort proper began in August of 2000 under the workmanship of Newport
Collaborative Architects.142
The task was to fix the leaky roof in the Northeast bastion, a small
section of the fort, but still an achievement for all those who had contributed to the current effort
to save the fort.143
Later in July of 2001, the state awarded the Trust a $350,000 grant which
went to erecting a double-mast lighted flagpole, installing interpretive signs to aid in guided
tours, and building a wooden overlook at the Southwest bastion.144
Palmero hoped that the
restorations could generate federal interest and funds to continue efforts at the fort. Additional
grants after the restorations in 2002 and 2004 also helped pay off the contractors for their
work.145
The completion of the first restoration project was celebrated on October 28, 2001.146
The work of federal, state, and local groups and individuals to save Fort Adams may have
taken decades, but the results have been invaluable to Newport and the State of Rhode Island.
Following the first phase of restoration, much more has been done. From 2002 to 2006, the roof
above the North and East walls was repaired to allow work to commence within. The North wall

Bacon 34
was restored to allow special events to be held there, and a Naval War College exhibit to be
displayed. Work began in 2007 on youth overnight barracks in the east wall to sleep up to 40
people such as boy scouts and re-enactors. This year also saw the installation of lighting along
the parade and bathroom facilities built along side the youth barracks. Restoration of the old jail
began in 2008, which is to be the new home of the Fort Adams Trust, which now employs three
full time staff members.147
An Executive Director, Director of Special Events, and Director of
Visitor Services all work together to make Fort Adams a great tourist draw for the city of
Newport. Though less than 20% of the fort has been restored, the work that has been done
contributes to the hope that one day, full use of the fort will be possible again.
Conclusion
Spanning over fifty years, the movement to preserve Fort Adams most certainly showed
dedication and perseverance. Though there were many road blocks, the persistence of all state,
local, and federal groups involved brought about the more organized movement of the 1990s and
the first restorations. The Fort Adams movement shares traits with the national movement, as it
showed the new awareness of heritage and history that was building by the 1950s. With the
creation of the National Park Service and the Historic Preservation Act of 1966, efforts to save
sites like Fort Adams were able to obtain federal backing and support. This allowed for early
activists to seek out federal grants for funds. Citizens of Newport saw Fort Adams as part of their
landscape, and the chance it could disappear was not acceptable. The “historical purposes” issue
could have stalled the project for decades, but through the work of Senator Pell and the local
activists, federal funds were able to be obtained. The lack of communication between groups and
the still deteriorating condition of the fort left its future unknown by the 1980s, as activists
passed away or lost interest in the movement. As a new movement developed in the 1990s,

Bacon 35
activists used new business tactics developed by preservationists to form a more organized
movement with the Trust. The developed field also was helpful as preservationists were now
thoroughly trained in saving historic sites.
By looking at the Fort Adams movement, it was possible to see how a state owned
historic property could be restored. Since the State of Rhode Island owned the property, it was
much harder for any preservation to be done in the 1960s and 1970s. The amount of work needed
to do this was too much for the State Department of Natural Resources, as they dealt with all the
state parks in R.I. It later proved not a problem though, as the state realized it could pass the duty
of restoration to the Fort Adams Foundation. The creation of the Fort Adams Trust helped to
organize efforts and the groups were more open to working together to save the fort by the mid
1990s. This allowed for better restoration plans to be made and also pleased the state. The
movement shows how a state, who does not have the time and money to pursue efforts, could
work together with other organizations to preserve a historic property.
Preserving Fort Adams was important because of what it meant to the city of Newport. It
guarded the city for over a hundred years and through many wars. The Irish builders of the fort
settled in Newport to form a strong Irish community that is still present to this day. Saving the
fort also kept commercial and residential ventures out (as of 2009), something many citizens in
Newport saw as important in order to preserve the beauty and integrity of the fort. For other
historic sites, Fort Adams has set an example for other abandoned military forts across America.
It has aided in making Newport a premiere tourist destination in New England and has
broadened the scope of its history. Though still a work in progress, the restorations that have
been done are used by people of all ages. Fort Adams shows preservationists how one historic
site can serve many different services, from weddings to reenactments. It can be used in the

Bacon 36
future to create a venue where history, preservation, and recreation come together in a useful
way for many to experience. Standing on the parade looking at the Northeast corner of the fort, it
could be that the fort has been saved. But once one turns around, the truth is that much more
work needs to be done before one can really deem Fort Adams “saved.”
Notes
1
Theodore L. Gatchel, “The Rock on Which the Storm will Beat: Fort Adams and the Defenses of Narragansett
Bay” ewport History, Newport Historical Society 67 no. 230 (1995), 11.
2
William J. Murtagh, Keeping Time: The History and Theory of Preservation in America, 3rd
ed. (Hoboken: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2006), 14-16; and Norman Tyler, Historic Preservation: An Introduction to Its History,
Principles, and Practice (New York: W.W. Norton& Company, 2000), 33-34.
3
Murtagh, 39; and Tyler, 35-36.
4
Tyler, 36.
5
Murtagh, 39-41.
6
Ibid., 42-43.
7
Ibid., 41; and Tyler, 40-42.
8
Willard B. Robinson, “Masterplan for the Development and Use of Fort Adams State Park Newport, Rhode Island”
for the Department of Environmental Management and Rhode Island Historic Preservation Commission, 1978, Fort
Adams Trust, Newport (Hereby cited at FAT); and “New Fort Adams,” Unknown newspaper, October 22, 1972,
Fort Adams Trust: “Various Articles before during after 1950’s-1960s possibilities of restoration”, FAT.
9
Murtagh, 43-44.
10
Ibid., 26-28.
11
Ibid., 28-30.
12
Tyler, 42.
13
Ibid., 44.
14
Ibid., 44-45; and Murtagh, 49-50.
15
Murtagh, 51-53; and Tyler, 45,48.
16
Murtagh, 56-61; and Tyler, 51-52.
17
Murtagh, 51-52.
18
Tyler, 47-48.
19
Daniel Bluestone, “Academics in Tennis Shoes: Historic Preservation and the Academy,”
The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 55 no. 3 (1999): 302.
20
Ibid., 302-303.
21
Richard Longstreth, “Architectural History and the Practice of Historic Preservation in the United States,” The
Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 58 no.3 (1999): 326.
22
Ibid., 327.
23
Ibid., 329.
24
Ibid., 331.
25
Kathryn Welch Howe, “Private Sector Involvement in Historic Preservation,” in A Richer Heritage: Historic
Preservation in the Twenty-First Century, ed. Robert E. Stipe (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,
2003), 279.
26
Ibid., 280.
27
Ibid., 305.
28
Ibid., 279.
29
Ibid., 281.
30
National Park Service, “Historic Preservation Easements,” http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/tax/easement.htm.
31
Charles E. Fisher, “Promoting the Preservation of Historic Buildings: Historic Preservation Policy in the United

Bacon 37
States,” APT Bulletin 29 no.3 (1998): 8.
32
J. Myrick Howard, “Nonprofits in the American Preservation Movement,” in A Richer Heritage: Historic
Preservation in the Twenty-First Century, ed. Robert E. Stipe (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,
2003), 314.
33
Ibid., 314-315.
34
Briann Greenfield, “Marketing the Past ‘Historic Preservation in Providence, RI’,” in Giving Preservation a
History: Histories of Historic Preservation in the United States, eds. Max Page and Randall Mason (New York:
Routledge, 2004), 163-164.
35
Ibid., 171-173.
36
Ibid., 318.
37
Ibid., 319.
38
Karolin Frank and Patricia Petersen, Historic Preservation in the USA (Berlin: Springer-Verlag: 2002) 7-8.
39
Ibid., 8.
40
Ibid, 174.
41
Judy Mattivi Morley, “Making History: Historic Preservation and Civic Identity in Denver,” in Giving
Preservation a History: Histories of Historic Preservation in the United States, eds. Max Page and Randall Mason
(New York: Routledge, 2004), 284-293.
42
Ibid., 284.
43
Gatchel, 3.
44
Ibid., 5-7.
45
Ibid., 11.
46
Ibid., 16.
47
Ibid., 16.
48
Robinson, 1978.
49
Ibid., 18.
50
Fort Adams Trust, “Fort Adams Tour Script” (2007) 2, FAT.
51
Caspar F. Goodrich, U. S. N., “Address read before the New York commandery on the Naval schools at
Annapolis and Newport and the Modern Navy” in Personal Recollections of the War of the Rebellion Addresses
Delivered Before the Commandery of the State of ew York, ed. A. Noel Blakeman (New York: G. P. Putnam’s
Sons, 1912), 21.
52
Gatchel, 22-25.
53
Ibid., 29.
54
Fort Adams Trust, 7-8.
55
“Densely Populated Newport Contains a ‘Ghost Town’” The Providence Journal Bulletin, August 3, 1953.
56
Ralph Earle, JR. to Newport Historical Society, August 23, 1956, folder “Getting thing started for the FA Trust,”
FAT.
57
H.S. Van Brocklyn, “Fort Adams—Will It Stand or Fall?,” The Providence Journal Bulletin, August 1953.
58
Harold Wade, “Navy Razing Fort Adams, ‘Country Club of Army,” The Boston Globe, September 6, 1956.
59
Redwood Wright, “Fort Adams: Doomed to Live Again?” The Providence Sunday Journal Bulletin, April 20,
1958.
60
In the meantime, President Dwight D. Eisenhower used the commander’s quarters at the fort as his summer
Whitehouse from 1958 to1960. “History of Fort Adams Part Five (1939-Present),” The Fort Adams Unofficial
Website, http://www.geocities.com/~jmgould/adhistpt5.html.
61
Senator Claiborne Pell to George Duval, July 6, 1961, 87th
Congress Box 12, folder 341, “Senatorial Papers of
Claiborne Pell,” University of Rhode Island Special Collections, Kingston.
62
William D. Metz to Senator Richard Russell, August 18, 1961, 87th
Congress Box 12, folder 341, “Senatorial
Papers of Claiborne Pell.”
63
John Nicholas Brown to Senator Claiborne Pell, July 11, 1961, 87th
Papers of Claiborne Pell.”; and The 66th
Artillery Veterans Association was the first motorized regiment to leave
Fort Adams during World War I. George Duval to Senator Claiborne Pell, June 27, 1961, 87th
Congress Box 12,
folder 341, “Senatorial Papers of Claiborne Pell.”
64
“Historic Fort Adams is Now Rhode Island State Property” The Providence Journal Bulletin, May 22, 1965.
65
“State Wants Ft. Adams to be R.I. Historic Site” Paper Unknown, 1963 or 1964, folder “Various Articles before
during after 1950’s-1960s possibilities of restoration”, FAT.
66
Stuart O. Hale. “State Park at Ft. Adams Sought” The Providence Journal Bulletin, May 25, 1964.

Bacon 38
67
John L. Lewis to Louis W. Amaruso, Jr., April 26, 1967, 90th
Claiborne Pell.”
68
Mrs. Alice R. Bye to Senator Claiborne Pell, July 28, 1969, 91th
Claiborne Pell.”; and Senator Claiborne Pell to Mrs. Alice R. Bye, August 5, 1969, 91th
Congress Box 7, folder 194,
“Senatorial Papers of Claiborne Pell.”
69
Calvin B. Dunwoody to Mr. Jack Thompson, September 3, 1969, Series I, box 38, folder 546, “The Records of
Governor Frank Licht.”
70
Jack Thompson to Donald F. Shea, June 8, 1970, Series I, box 38, folder 546, “The Records of Governor Frank
Licht.”
71
Charles S. Soliozy to Governor Frank Licht, May 19, 1970, Series I, box 38, folder 546, “The Records of
72
Jack Thompson to Calvin B. Dunwoody, September 9, 1969, Series III box 179, folder 183, “The Records of
73
Robert F. Hoskins to Governor Frank Licht, April 30, 1970, Series I, box 38, folder 546, “The Records of
74
John Springett to Governor Frank Licht, May 6, 1970, Series I, box 38, folder 546, “The Records of Governor
Frank Licht.”
75
Donald F. Shea to Mr. John Springett, Series I, box 38, folder 546, “The Records of Governor Frank Licht.”
76
Meeting Summation on Fort Adams, September 8, 1970, Series III box 179, folder 183, “The Records of
77
Frank Hale II, interview by author, March 18, 2009.
78
The Department of Interior represented one of its Bureaus, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. Meeting
Summation on Fort Adams.
79
Ibid.; and Frank Hale II interview.
80
“Navy Clears Fort Adams for Development as Park,” The ewport Daily ews, October 27, 1970.
81
Dave Reid, “Park to be Built at Old Fort,” The Providence Sunday Journal Bulletin, October 10, 1971; and
Rolland B. Handley to Senator Claiborne Pell, October 18, 1971, 92nd
82
John L. Rego to Rear Admiral Nevin Schaffer, September 23, 1970, Series III box 179, folder 183, “The Records
of Governor Frank Licht.”; and Handley letter.
83
Reid article.
84
“Navy Clears Fort Adams for Development as Park.”
85
E. Andrew Mowbrany to Mr. John L. Rego, October 30, 1970, Series I, box 38, folder 546, “The Records of
86
“Restoration Due for Fort Adams,” The ewport Daily ews, November 15, 1971.
87
“Fort Adams Restoration,” The ewport Daily ews, November 20, 1971.
88
“Fort Restoration Plan Debated By Officials,” unknown newspaper, November 25, 1971, folder “Various Articles
before during after 1950’s-1960s possibilities of restoration”, FAT.
89
Edward C. Hayes, Jr. to Donald Shea, February 22, 1972, Series I, box 38, folder 546, “The Records of Governor
Frank Licht.”
90
Representative Robert J. McKenna to Governor Frank Licht, December 6, 1971, Series I, box 38, folder 546, “The
Records of Governor Frank Licht.”
91
Rhode Island General Assembly, “Chapter 42-57 Fort Adams Foundation,” State Law, November 8, 2008,
http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/statutes/title42/42-57/42-57-1.HTM (accessed March 25, 2009).
92
Dave Reid, “A Maine Guide to Fort Restoration,” The Providence Journal Bulletin, June 4, 1972.
93
Jack White, “Step is Taken on Restoration of Fort Adams,” The Providence Journal Bulletin, Feb 13, 1972.
94
David H. Atwater, Jr., “Recommendation for the Saftey and Stabilization of State of Rhode Island Property at Fort
Adams Park, Newport, Rhode Island,” Series I box 38, folder 547, “The Records of Governor Frank Licht,”; and
Willard B. Robinson, “Report on the Restoration of Fort Adams,” June 1972, FAT.
95
Jack White, “Fort Adams Report Aired; Restoration Effort Urged,” The Providence Sunday Journal Bulletin,
October 15, 1972.
96
Senator Claiborne Pell to Mr. Denis J. Murphy, Jr., July 20, 1973, 93rd
97
Robinson, 19; and Willard B. Robinson, “Report on the Restoration of Fort Adams II,” June 1973, FAT, 2.

Bacon 39
98
Mrs. George E. Downing to Senator Claiborne Pell, August 1, 1973, 93rd
99
John A. Senulis, “Fort Adams: 1973 Archeological Field Project,” University of Rhode Island Department of
Sociology and Anthropology, Sept 4, 1973.
100
Ernest Allen Connally to Senator Claibourne Pell, August 12, 1974, 93rd
Papers of Claiborne Pell.”; and Willard B. Robinson, “Masterplan for the Development and Use of Fort Adams State
Park Newport, Rhode Island,” FAT.
101
Ibid., 10-14.
102
Ibid., 7.
103
Ibid., 6.
104
Ibid., 23.
105
Ibid., 21-23.
106
Ibid., 15.
107
Ibid, 53; and Interview with Frank Hale II.
108
Ibid., Hale.
109
Ibid., Hale.
110
Christopher Rowland, “A Stone Sentry Revisited: Fort Adams to Offer Tours” The Providence Journal Bulletin,
May 7, 1995.
111
Interview with Frank Hale II.
112
Ibid, Hale.
113
Ibid., Hale; Fort Adams Trust, “Trust Information,” Fort Adams, http://www.fortadams.org/trust.htm; and Rhode
Island Heritage Commission and Fort Adams Foundation, “Memorandum of Agreement,” April 8 1994, folder
“Setting Up the Fort Adams Trust”, FAT.
114
Interview with Frank Hale II.
115
Col. Frank S. Hale II, RIM to Mr. Joel Johnson, August 16, 1994, folder Board Minutes 1994- 1999, FAT.
116
James A. Morocco to Mr. Russell Chaufty, November 22, 1994, folder “Setting Up the Fort Adams Trust”, FAT;
CC. J. Klimczak, “Stepping Back in Time Visitors get first tour of Fort Adams since renovations” The ewport
Daily ews; and Walter K. Schroder, “Engineers, state clear Fort Adams, R.I.” Headquarters Heliogram ewsletter
no. 243, March/April 1995, 5.
117
State of Rhode Island General Assembly, An Act Relating to the Fort Adams Foundation, January session,
February 14, 1995.
118
“Park Use Agreement- Draft,” folder “Getting Things Ready for the FA Trust”, FAT.
119
Edwin Connelly to Senator John Chafee, December 17, 1994, folder “Setting Up the Fort Adams Trust”, FAT.
120
Minutes of the Board Meeting Between the Fort Adams Foundation and Fort Adams Trust, February 1, 1995,
folder “Board Minutes 1994- 1999”, FAT.
121
Edwin Wilmot Connelly to I. Micheal Heyman, July 4, 1995, folder “1995 Photo Essays Things/ Various Letters
and Memos”, FAT.
122
Rowland Article; and Klimczak article.
123
Frank S. Hale, II, RIM to Carolyn Skelly, February 1, 1995, folder “Getting Things Started for the FA Trust”,
FAT.
124
“Summary of the Fort Adams Strategic Planning Workshop”, October 27-29, 1995, folder “Board Meeting
Minutes 1994-1999”, FAT.
125
Ibid.
126
Meeting Minutes Joint Meeting of Fort Adams Trust and Foundation, July 22, 1996, folder “Board Meeting
127
Formation Meeting of the Board of Directors Minutes, March 29, 1996, folder “Board Meeting Minutes 1994-
1999”, FAT.
128
Meeting Minutes of the Fort Adams Board of Directors Meeting, September 10, 1996, folder “Board Meeting
129
Meeting Minutes of Fort Adams Board of Directors, August 5, 1996, folder “Board Meeting Minutes 1994-
1999”, FAT.
130
Meeting Minutes, September 10, 1996.
131
Interview with Frank Hale.
132
Notice of Meeting, March 27, 1997, folder “Fort Adams Trust Board Meeting Minutes 1995-1999”, FAT.

Bacon 40
133
Minutes of Meeting 15 Fort Adams Board of Directors Meeting, April 8, 1997, folder “Fort Adams Trust Board
Meeting Minutes 1995-1999”, FAT.
134
M. Theresa Paiva Weed to Trust/Foundation Member, November 8, 1999, folder “Fort Adams Trust Board
Meeting Minutes 1995-1999”, FAT.
135
Interview with Hale; and Minutes of Meeting 14 Fort Adams Board of Directors Meeting, March 4, 1997, folder
“Fort Adams Trust Board Meeting Minutes 1995-1999”, FAT.
136
Meeting Minutes of the Fort Adams Trust Board of Directors, December 9, 1998, folder “Fort Adams Trust
Board Meeting Minutes 1995-1999”, FAT.
137
Meeting Minutes of the Fort Adams Foundation and Trust, January 10, 2000, folder “2000 Meeting minutes”,
FAT.
138
Prince Charitable Trust, “Rhode Island” http://foundationcenter.org/grantmaker/prince/ri.html.
139
“Battling to save Ft. Adams for History, Tourists” The Providence Journal Bulletin, August 28, 2000.
140
Meeting Minutes of Fort Adams Trust and Foundation, June 5, 2000, folder “2000 minutes”, FAT.
141
Minutes of Meeting 14, March 5, 1997; and Meeting Minutes, January 10, 2000.
142
“Battling to save Ft. Adams for History, Tourists” article.
143
Ibid.
144
Bryan Rourke, “Fort Adams Moves Towards Restorations” The Providence Journal Bulletin, July 5, 2001.
145
Bryan Rourke, “Award Will Help Pay For Fort’s Flagpole” The Providence Journal Bulletin, February 4, 2002;
and Richard Salit, “Good Works Granted—From the Champlain Foundations to East Bay” The Providence Journal
Bulletin, January 21, 2004.
146
Fort Adams Trust, 4.
147
Fort Adams Trust, “Historic Fort Adams Timeline of Restoration,” The Casemates (Fall 2008), 3-4.

Fort Adams and the Historic Preservation Movement 1950 - 2009

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (14)

Similar to Fort Adams and the Historic Preservation Movement 1950 - 2009

Similar to Fort Adams and the Historic Preservation Movement 1950 - 2009 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Fort Adams and the Historic Preservation Movement 1950 - 2009