Jefferson National Expansion Memorial in St. Louis has a new name, but that has quite a few folks scratching their heads over the change/NPS
What exactly is a "Jefferson National Expansion Memorial"? That apparently is one of the reasons there's a new "national park" in the National Park System, Gateway Arch National Park in St. Louis. But even that name is raising some eyebrows.
Does that name alone evoke images of the country's Western expansion, of the gateway St. Louis served for Lewis and Clark and other explorers and fur trappers who ventured into the Western landscape to see what was there and try to seek their fortune? Or does it make you wonder why a manmade stainless steel arch is being called a "national park"?
The new name has more than a few travelers scratching their heads.
"We set a goal as a family to visit all 59 national parks and visit about 4 a year," one reader wrote us. "Recently I did a Google search for the newest national park and the Jefferson Memorial came up. The new name is Gateway Arch National Park. Now, I am a novice at the national park names, but after our goal to see all 59, I’ve learned a few things and one is that it’s an 'official' national park when it’s in the name. But I also understand it must protect natural lands and this is man made.
"So, is the Jefferson Memorial what now is the Gateway Arch National Park, the 60th? Or is there something I’m missing?," he added.
Even National Park Service guides that explain the nomenclature attached to units of the National Park System -- national park, national monument, national recreation area, national historical park, national seashore, national lakeshore, etc. -- seem to suggest that simply renaming Jefferson National Expansion Memorial does not make it a "national park."
Generally, a national park contains a variety of resources and encompasses large land or water areas to help provide adequate protection of the resources.
Designated as a memorial back in 1935, this unit covers a bit more than 192 acres (91 acres federal, 101 non-federal) in St. Louis. According to the Park Service, "(V)isitors can ascend the 630-foot arch and see exhibits on American Indians, Thomas Jefferson, Lewis and Clark, and others in the underground Museum of Westward Expansion. In the nearby Old Courthouse, enslaved Dred Scott sued for his freedom in 1846."
Not exactly a "national park" in the sense as Shenandoah, Great Smoky Mountains Acadia, Zion, or Yellowstone.
In announcing the name change the other day, the Park Service release said:
“Gateway Arch National Park helps visitors connect the Arch to the National Park Service,” says Mike Ward, Superintendent at the Gateway Arch National Park. “The mission of the park remains the same regardless of the park’s name. The stories of Thomas Jefferson and his vision of westward expansion are woven throughout the new Museum at the Gateway Arch, which celebrates its grand opening on July 3, while Dred Scott and his freedom suit are showcased at the Old Courthouse.”
Legislation to change the park’s name was introduced in the U.S. Senate last summer. It was passed by the U.S. Senate on Dec. 21, 2017, and by the U.S. House of Representatives on February 7, 2018. President Trump signed the bill into law on Feb. 22, 2018. The bipartisan legislation was sponsored in the Senate by Sens. Roy Blunt and Claire McCaskill, and in the House by Reps. William Lacy Clay, Ann Wagner and Blaine Luetkemeyer.
“The name ‘Jefferson National Expansion Memorial’ was established long before the Gateway Arch was envisioned, and has simply never been adopted by our millions of visitors,” says Ward. “We hope this new name will best reflect the magnificent renovations and visitor experience we will unveil in a few months.”
Not everyone is embracing the name change. Comments that landed on the park's Facebook page included the following:
"Well, that's just dumb. Call it Gateway Arch if you want, but 'national park? As if this little city park shoved next to a freeway is on the same level as Yellowstone or Yosemite? Way to water down the brand. Does this make this little patch of pavement and grass the nation's 60th national park?" -- Clint Hadden
"So we celebrate an arch, but not the western expansion it represents? Still a cool place, but don't get the name change." -- Gary Walsworth
"The people of St Louis didn’t just sit around and suggest throwing up a big hunk of metal in the middle of the riverfront just for the literal impact of being shiny, they were building a monument to the city’s historical significance, which was based upon expansion into the Louisiana Territory. Calling the land Gateway Arch National Park turns that logic on its ear and says we’re primarily celebrating the big hunk of metal. Knowing the cynical people at work in the current government, both legislative and administrative, I wouldn’t be surprised if this does turn out to be a ploy to water down national park designations." -- Clinton Rice
"A national park for the Arch? I like the Arch as much as anybody. But, this is where Jefferson's westward expansion initiative started. What a stupid thing to do. Let's not educate people what this is all about. Let's change the name so it's easier for the ignorant." -- Dave Largent
"Sorry, this should not have happened. Before this there were three national parks less than 30,000 acres: Congaree at 26,000, Virgin Islands at 15,000, and Hot Springs at 5,500. Now we have one at 91 acres that was built in the 1960s. At this point Congress should pass a bill making all 417 National Park Service areas 'national parks' and get rid of the 20 plus other designations. Many are more deserving of that designation than the Arch." -- Jim David
"A manmade structure, no matter it's significance, does not deserve the name 'national park.' It reeks of a desperate grab for tourist dollars. The NPS should be better than this, especially at a time when budgets are stretched incredibly thin for the existing park units." -- Joshua Caleb Hengel
As we explained to the reader who contacted us on the name change, "there long have been efforts by local groups, usually concerned about tourism dollars, to convert national monuments, national historic sites, national recreation areas, etc, into “national parks.” Hands down, the reason is economic. Besides Gateway Arch 'National Park,' there’s long been an effort to turn Golden Gate NRA into a 'national park.' For years, in fact, it’s been referred to locally as “Golden Gate National Parks.”
Not too many years ago, Pinnacles National Monument was transformed into Pinnacles National Park.
There are efforts underway now to create an "Indiana Dunes National Park" and a "White Sands National Park" out of Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore and White Sands National Monument. There also has been talk about turning Colorado National Monument into, we suppose, Colorado National Park, and Cedar Breaks National Monument into “national park.” No doubt there are others.
That said, we do believe there are places in the National Park System where the “national park” brand is deserved, but not bestowed. Foremost is Dinosaur National Monument.
Thoughts, travelers?
Comments
Looking over some of these comments, a few issues are raised concerning other national parks that may not be worthy of the name. Perhaps I can shed some light on this.
Hot Springs became, and still is, a national park because of one man, Stephen Mather, the first director of the National Park Service. He liked the area and lobbied for national park status. At the time we were still in the formative era, trying to figure out what we wanted our national parks to be. So in that context, it wasn't such a bad idea. Now, employees of NPS have so much reverence for Mather that it borders on worship. Mather's opinions still guide their management phylosophy. NPS will not do anything Mather would disapprove of. And Congress will not change the designation unless NPS is on board.
I do not know why Cuyahoga Valley was re-designated. I have tried to find out, but my sources don't say. Even the ones that go into excruciating detail explaining other aspects of the area's history. In a vacuum, people are left to let their imaginations run wild. Okay, here is the cynical explanation my imagination came up with. Mike DeWine (currently governor) was a Senator from Ohio at the time. He faced re-election in 2000 and it was looking like he could lose. He was unpopular with the environmental community. Suddenly, out of nowhere, Ohio got a national park a couple of weeks before the election. Sen. DeWine was re-elected by the skin of his teeth. Do you think there could be a connection there?
There have been other national parks in the past that sound like Gateway Arch. I attribute their creation to general confusion in the early days. After we Americans invented the national park (Yellowstone in 1872) it took us decades, as a people, to decide what we wanted them to be. And Congress did some things that nowadays we think of as being errors.
Mackinac, Michigan, 911 acres, 1875 - 1895, because a senator wanted a national park in his state
Sully's Hill, North Dakota, 750 acres, 1904 - 1931, because of jealousy between states; N. Dak. had to have a park because S. Dak. got one
Platt, Oklahoma, 912 acres, 1906 - 1976, good reason (for a change), to protect mineral springs from being trampled out of existence
Abraham Lincoln, Kentucky, 114 acres, 1912 - 1939, because the owners of Lincon's birthplace weren't making money off it and wanted to dispose of it
Fort McHenry, Maryland, 43 acres, 1925 - 1939, historic importance
Wilson's Creek Battlefield, Missouri, 1,750 acres, 1960 - 1970, a mistake. Congress wanted to create Wilson's Creek National Battlefield Park. A mistake at the printing office transposed a couple of words and no one caught it
General Grant, California, 1890 - 1940, was the other abolished national park. This one was a decent park. It had natural significance and 2,560 acres. It was merged into Kings Canyon when Kings Canyon was created.
I made a mistake. Abraham Lincoln was established in 1916, not 1912.
My husband and I have been to all 62 National Parks. We started in 1977 and completed the current list in 2019. Several we visited before they became National Parks, but we still count them. One of those was Gateway Arch NP which we visited in 2012 when it was Jefferson National Expansion Memorial. It's definitely a worthwhile stop, but deserving to be called a National Park -- No. Talk about watering down the "brand." We've heard it dubbed a "phony baloney" national park in our travels. I bet the folks at Hot Springs NP are glad their park is no longer the smallest one. Yes, Hot Springs should probably be a NHP, but it is preserving a natural feature (hot springs) along with the historical buildings and it was designated a Federal Reservation long before Yellowstone. Curious to see what #63 will be.