St. Mary's College of Maryland Preservation Master Plan

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master Plansubmitted toTHE GETTY FOUNDATIONsubmitted byST. MARY’S COLLEGE OF MARYLANDin conjunction withHISTORIC ST. MARY’S CITYAND TRINITY EPISCOPAL CHURCHprepared byJOHN MILNER ASSOCIATES, INC.FEBRUARY 2008

Preservation Master PlanforSt. Mary’s College of Marylandin conjunction withHistoric St. Mary’s CityandTrinity Episcopal ChurchPrepared By:JOHN MILNER ASSOCIATES, INC.West Chester, PennsylvaniaKimberly BaptisteLori AumentLaura Knott, ASLAKatherine L. FarnhamDonna SeifertDawn ThomasFebruary 2008

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008AcknowledgementsThe funding for the St. Mary’s College Preservation Master Plan was provided through a generousgrant available from:The Getty FoundationCampus Heritage Grant ProgramLos Angeles, CaliforniaThroughout the planning process John Milner Associates, Inc. was supported by members of thePreservation Master Plan Steering Committee who gave generously of their time and expertise. Thesteering committee represented St. Mary’s College of Maryland, Historic St. Mary’s City, and TrinityEpiscopal Church.Katherine B. Meatyard, Project Director, St. Mary’s College of MarylandThe Rev. John Ball, Rector, Trinity Episcopal ChurchChip Jackson, Facilities Manager, St. Mary’s College of MarylandJulie King, Associate Professor of Anthropology, St. Mary’s College of MarylandJoan Poor, Associate Professor of Economics, St. Mary’s College of MarylandJoe Storey, Trinity Episcopal ChurchMartin Sullivan, Director, Historic St. Mary’s CityLynn Williamson, Trinity Episcopal ChurchSpecial thanks and acknowledgement are also extended to the following individuals who providedinvaluable assistance, insights, and knowledge throughout the duration of the planning process:Anne Grulich, Assistant to Katherine Meatyard, St. Mary’s College of MarylandLarry Hartwick, Capital Project Manager, Office of Facilities, St. Mary’s College of MarylandJanet Haugaard, Executive Editor and Writer, St. Mary’s College of MarylandMichelle Marsich, Student Assistant, St. Mary’s College of MarylandCarol Moody, Archivist, Historic St. Mary’s CityEd Morasch, Office of Facilities, St. Mary’s College of MarylandLynda Purdy, Secretary, Trinity Episcopal ChurchFrancis Raley, Office of Facilities, St. Mary’s College of MarylandKat Ryner, Archivist, St. Mary’s College of MarylandDerek Thornton, Office of Facilities, St. Mary’s College of Maryland

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008Table of ContentsST. MARY’S COLLEGE OF MARYLANDPRESERVATION MASTER PLANExecutive SummaryChapter 1: Background and Purpose ............................................................................1-1OVERVIEW of the plan .................................................................................................. 1-1The College, The City, and The Church ............................................................................ 1-2The Study Area ................................................................................................................. 1-4How the Plan is Organized ................................................................................................ 1.5preservation CONTEXT ................................................................................................ 1-9The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards ......................................................................... 1-9Preservation Treatments ................................................................................................. 1-14Chapter 2: History of St. Mary’s College of Maryland ...................................................2-1INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 2-1HISTORIC PERIODS ............................................................................................................ 2-1Early Colonial Settlement .................................................................................................. 2-1The Growth of St. Mary’s City ........................................................................................... 2-5The Founding of Trinity Church ......................................................................................... 2-8St. Mary’s Female Seminary ........................................................................................... 2-16Historic St. Mary’s City .................................................................................................... 2-33The Tercentenary Commission ........................................................................................ 2-35The Replica State House ................................................................................................ 2-36Suburbanization and Preservation .................................................................................. 2-37Chapter 3: Relevant Historic Contexts ..........................................................................3-1INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 3-1HISTORIC THEMES ............................................................................................................. 3-1Classicism and College Planning: 1820-1860 ................................................................... 3-1Mythmaking and Commemoration: 1820-1861 ................................................................. 3-4Romanticism and Design: 1850-1890 ............................................................................... 3-6Colonial Revival Design: 1890-1965 ................................................................................. 3-7Statement of Campus Significance ................................................................................... 3-8

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008Chapter 4: Planning, Interpretation, and Management .................................................4-1INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 4-1PLANNING IN THE HISTORIC SECTOR ............................................................................. 4-1Past Planning Documents ................................................................................................. 4-1Current and Future Planning ............................................................................................. 4-4MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE ................................................................................. 4-7Facilities and Maintenance Staff ....................................................................................... 4-8Policies and Procedures ................................................................................................... 4-8General Maintenance Recommendations ......................................................................... 4-9Management Recommendations .................................................................................... 4-10PROGRAMMING AND INTERPRETATION .........................................................................4-11Interpreting History ...........................................................................................................4-11Programming and Interpretive Recommendations .......................................................... 4-12Chapter 5: Existing Conditions - Cultural Landscapes ..................................................5-1INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 5-1Landscape Context ........................................................................................................... 5-1Landscape Methodology ................................................................................................... 5-3Archeological Methodology ............................................................................................... 5-4Precincts and Character Areas ......................................................................................... 5-5LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS AND ASSESSMENTS ............................................................. 5-7College Precinct ................................................................................................................ 5-9Trinity Precinct ................................................................................................................. 5-29State House Precinct ...................................................................................................... 5-39Riparian Precinct ............................................................................................................. 5-51Chapter 6: Landscape Treatment Guidelines ...............................................................6-1INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 6-1Chapter Overview ............................................................................................................. 6-1Preservation Goals and Issues ......................................................................................... 6-2LANDSCAPE TREATMENT GUIDELINES ........................................................................... 6-6General Guidelines ........................................................................................................... 6-6Spatial Organization .......................................................................................................... 6-7Land Use ........................................................................................................................... 6-8Topography ....................................................................................................................... 6-8Circulation ......................................................................................................................... 6-8Vegetation ....................................................................................................................... 6-10Buildings and Structures ..................................................................................................6-11Views and Vistas ............................................................................................................. 6-12Small-scale Features ...................................................................................................... 6-12Monuments and Memorials ............................................................................................. 6-13Archeology ...................................................................................................................... 6-15New Construction ............................................................................................................ 6-15Accessibility ..................................................................................................................... 6-16

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008Health and Safety ............................................................................................................ 6-16Environment .................................................................................................................... 6-16Energy Efficiency ............................................................................................................ 6-16Chapter 7: Landscape Treatment Recommendations ..................................................7-1INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 7-1SPECIFIC TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 7-2College Precinct ................................................................................................................ 7-2Trinity Precinct ................................................................................................................... 7-9State House Precinct ...................................................................................................... 7-13Riparian Precinct ............................................................................................................. 7-17Chapter 8: Existing Conditions - Historic Buildings .......................................................8-1INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 8-1Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 8-1HISTORIC DISTRICTS ......................................................................................................... 8-3Calvert Hall ........................................................................................................................ 8-5St. Mary’s Hall ................................................................................................................. 8-18Trinity Church .................................................................................................................. 8-26State House .................................................................................................................... 8-36OTHER BUILDINGS IN HISTORIC QUADRANT ............................................................... 8-42Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 8-42Methodology .................................................................................................................... 8-42Other Historic Buildings ................................................................................................... 8-44Chapter 9: Architectural Treatment Guidelines .............................................................9-1INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 9-1Applying Historic Preservation Standards ......................................................................... 9-1Architectural Overview ...................................................................................................... 9-2ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT GUIDELINES ................................................................... 9-4Site Drainage .................................................................................................................... 9-4Concrete ............................................................................................................................ 9-7Masonry ...........................................................................................................................9-11Metals .............................................................................................................................. 9-30Exterior and Structural Woodwork ................................................................................... 9-32Roofs and Drainage Systems ......................................................................................... 9-41Doors ............................................................................................................................... 9-51Windows .......................................................................................................................... 9-54Stucco ............................................................................................................................. 9-61Paint ................................................................................................................................ 9-64Interiors ........................................................................................................................... 9-69

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008Chapter 10: Building-Specific Preservation Recommendations .................................10-1INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 10-1Recommendation Format ................................................................................................ 10-1Special Provisions for Historic Buildings ......................................................................... 10-2CALVERT HALL .................................................................................................................. 10-5Level 1: Life Safety and Deteriorated Elements .............................................................. 10-5Level 2: Required Work ................................................................................................... 10-6Level 3: Maintenance Level Work ................................................................................... 10-9New Work ...................................................................................................................... 10-10ST. MARY’S HALL ..............................................................................................................10-11Level 1: Life Safety and Deteriorated Elements .............................................................10-11Level 2: Required Work ................................................................................................. 10-12Level 3: Maintenance Level Work ................................................................................. 10-14New Work ...................................................................................................................... 10-15TRINITY CHURCH ............................................................................................................ 10-16Level 1: Life Safety and Deteriorated Elements ............................................................ 10-16Level 2: Required Work ................................................................................................. 10-16Level 3: Maintenance Level Work ................................................................................. 10-18New Work ...................................................................................................................... 10-18STATE HOUSE ................................................................................................................. 10-20Level 1: Life Safety and Deteriorated Elements ............................................................ 10-20Level 2: Required Work ................................................................................................. 10-20Level 3: Maintenance Level Work ................................................................................. 10-21New Work ...................................................................................................................... 10-22Chapter 11: Guidelines for New Construction Projects ...............................................11-1INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................11-1OTHER CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES ............................................................................11-1Exterior Addition and Adaptive Reuse Projects ................................................................11-1New Buildings and Construction ......................................................................................11-4Barrier-Free Access .........................................................................................................11-6Sustainable Design Opportunities ....................................................................................11-7Works Cited .................................................................................................................12-1AppendicesAPPENDIX A: HISTORIC LANDSCAPE TIMELINE

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008Executive SummarySt. Mary’s College of Maryland, Historic St. Mary’s City, and TrinityChurch cumulatively have a long and interwoven history that isdeeply rooted in the origins of Maryland. Located on a neck ofland that extends into the St. Mary’s River, these three institutionsstand on adjacent properties and share three centuries of history.Before the college and church were formed, the land on whichthey stand was a part of the site of Maryland’s first capital city.As a liberal arts college, the location of St. Mary’s College on asite that is connected to the principles of religious toleration andfreedom from ignorance and prejudice is particularly meaningful.Today, much of the historic sector of the St. Mary’s College ofMaryland campus is listed as a National Register Historic Districtdue to the large quantity of archeological remains dating back tothe seventeenth century.In 2006 the College was awarded a Campus Heritage Grant byThe Getty Foundation to develop a Preservation Master Plan toaddress preservation issues and building concerns for two collegebuildings – Calvert and St. Mary’s Halls, as well as two neighboringbuildings, the 1934 State House which is owned by Historic St.Mary’s City, and the nineteenth century Trinity Episcopal Church.Due to the sensitive archeological resources associated with thesesites, archeological research and landscape documentation andrecommendations were identified as key aspects of the planningprocess. The Preservation Master Plan is to provide a tool to thevarious entities regarding how to better care for and maintain theirhistoric resources into the future.In the Summer of 2006, John Milner Associates, Inc. (JMA) wasselected by the College and its project partners to prepare aPreservation Master Plan that was considerate of and sympatheticto the needs and objectives of the College, City, and Church. ThePlan is intended to help each entity manage change and protectextant resources, and to foster ongoing relationships between eachinstitution so they can continue to work together cooperatively topreserve their shared histories. Together, the institutions can pooltheir resources to tell the story of Maryland and the significanceof their special place in that history.The overall plan for the institutions is broken down into three primarysections: Preservation Master Plan, Landscape Management Plan,and Historic Building Management Plan. The Preservation MasterPlan provides the framework and basis for subsequent sectionsand includes discussions on general administrative topics, suchas planning, programming, interpretation, and management. AHistorical Overview which describes the history and significanceof the study area and each institution is also included. TheLandscape Management Plan looks at existing conditions of

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008landscape features within the study area and provides generalguidelines and recommendations for caring for and maintainingthose features into the future.The Historic Building Management Plan looks closely at thefour primary historic buildings within the designated study area:Calvert and St. Mary’s Halls, the State House, and Trinity Church.Each was carefully studied to identify issues and recommendedprojects. General treatment guidelines and recommendationswere developed that could be applied to any historic buildingowned by each entity to ensure proper maintenance and upkeepof the historic fabric.The Preservation Master Plan should play a direct role in futureplanning and development efforts for St. Mary’s College ofMaryland, Historic St. Mary’s City, and Trinity Church. The Planwill be used as an informational tool by decision-makers as optionsare presented for building modifications and new constructionprojects on the site of Historic St. Mary’s City. Properly caring for,preserving, and enhancing the irreplaceable resources of the siteis the overarching guiding principle for the development of thisPlan and is reinforced throughout the document with thoughtfuland sensitive recommendations for preservation into the future.The Preservation Master Plan is intended to supplement othercampus planning initiatives that have been undertaken by theCollege in collaboration with Historic St. Mary’s City and TrinityChurch. The Preservation Master Plan is the natural next step forthe entities to come together and can be seen as a component ofthe development of the Maryland Heritage Project in 2000. Thisjoint program, like the Preservation Master Plan process, ensuresthat the College, City, and Church will have the opportunity towork together to advance scholarship, study, and interpretation inthe historic sector of the campus. While other campus planninginitiatives focus on growth and expansion, the PreservationMaster Plan provides recommendations for how to accommodatethat growth in a sensitive and sympathetic manner within thehistoric sector. While the Preservation Master Plan does notdiscourage change and evolution, understanding that change isto be expected over time, it does provide the guidance to ensurethat change is accommodated in a manner that is consistent withthe historical significance of the study area.

PRESERVATION MASTER PLAN

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008Chapter 1:Background and PurposeOVERVIEW of the planSt. Mary’s College of Maryland is a four-year liberal artscollege which was founded in 1840. The college campuslies along the St. Mary’s River, partially occupying the site ofSt. Mary’s City, Maryland’s 17 th century capital.In 2006, St. Mary’s College applied for and receivedfunding from The Getty Foundation’s Campus HeritageGrant Program to develop a Preservation Master Plan for aspecified study area within the historic sector of the Collegewhich includes lands owned by the College, Historic St.Mary’s City, and Trinity Episcopal Church. The need forsuch a plan was in response to the College’s recognition ofthe fragility of its historic campus and surrounding lands andnatural features.The Preservation Master Plan will assist St. Mary’s Collegeand its project partners – Historic St. Mary’s City and TrinityChurch - in addressing existing planning gaps as theyrelate to historic resources and improving stewardshipof the existing resources. The Preservation Master Planprovides the involved entities with a means to augmentand complement the 2006 Campus Master Plan which hasrecommended changes within the historic sector of the St.Mary’s campus.The Preservation Master Plan for St. Mary’s Collegelooks holistically at the campus and adjacent lands withinthe study area. Using the past as a framework, the planprovides guidance for stewardship and decision-makingas it relates to preserving, protecting, understanding, andinterpreting the collective stories of the past and resourcesassociated with them. The heart of the plan can be foundin the recommendations and guidelines sections whichprovide the tools and solutions necessary to effectively makedecisions pertaining to historic resources. The guidelinesare intended to inspire creative and thoughtful solutions asproblems or issues arise.Page 1-1

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008The College, The City, and The ChurchSt. Mary’s College of Maryland, Historic St. Mary’s City, andTrinity Church are three unique entities that share a past,present, and future. With historic resources that lie adjacentto one another within the historic sector of the campus,the College, City, and Church physically and functionallyhave a long-standing relationship. The entities have joinedtogether to define a vision for the future of the historicsector with respect to land use, development, and facilityimprovements.Historic St. Mary’s City is an AAM-accredited museum ofhistory and archeology that is legislatively affiliated with theCollege in an effort to preserve and protect the NationalHistoric Landmark District. The 850-acre commemorativelandscape has been the site of historical and archeologicalresearch and study for more than thirty years. The City isgenerally regarded as one of the country’s best preservedarcheological laboratories.Trinity Church was consecrated in 1829 and has served thespiritual needs of the local community at this location sincethe 17 th century.The Preservation Master Plan is another step in the processto foster cooperation and arrive at a joint consensusregarding the appropriate future for the study area. Together,the three entities have determined that a plan is neededto augment their other planning efforts which focuses onaddressing issues associated with cultural landscaperesources and historic buildings. The College, City, andChurch have selected four buildings and their adjacentlandscapes to serve as the focus of this planning effort. Theselected buildings represent the oldest and most historicallysignificant buildings and landscapes within the historicsector:Page 1-2• Calvert Hall (1924) replaced the original 1845 buildingwhich was destroyed by a fire and was the first structureto be built in association with the establishment of theCollege.• St. Mary’s Hall (1906) was the original Music Hall andis still used as auditorium space. It is the oldest originalCollege building.• State House (1934) is a reconstruction of the originalState House and was built to commemorate the 300 thanniversary of the settlement of Maryland’s first capital.• Trinity Church (1829) was built to replace an existingchapel and was consecrated as a chapel of ease for St.Mary’s Episcopal Parish in 1831

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008St. Mary’s College of Maryland Preservation Master Plan Historic Sector Study Area,boundaries outlined at lower left.

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008The Study AreaThe study area addressed within the Preservation MasterPlan is partially located within the St. Mary’s City NationalHistoric Landmark District and includes properties ownedby the College, Historic St. Mary’s City, and TrinityChurch. The Landmark District serves as an archeologicalcommemoration of Maryland’s colonial-period history, butdoes not include the standing structures belonging to thethree institutions.The preservation plan’s study area, which includes Calvertand St. Mary’s Hall, the State House, and Trinity Church,lies within the boundaries of what is known, for planningpurposes, as the historic sector of campus. The historicsector contains academic, administrative, residential, andrecreational facilities associated with the college, as well asthe Church and related support buildings, the State Houseand the Historic St. Mary’s City Post Office. The historicsector is roughly triangular in shape and lies between Rt. 5and the St. Mary’s River. Old Brome’s Wharf Rd. and OldState Rd. intersect at its center.The Planning ProcessThe Preservation Master Plan was developed througha collaborative effort between the Steering Committee,including representatives of St. Mary’s College of Maryland,Historic St. Mary’s City, and Trinity Episcopal Church,and the outside preservation planning consultant JMA.The JMA project team met with the Steering Committeebefore initiating fieldwork and background research toform establish the boundaries of the study area, whichwas restricted to the historic sector. Team memberscarefully studied past documentation on the sites andassessed the existing conditions of the landscape and thebuilt environment, including the status of archeologicalinvestigations within the historic sector. Backgroundresearch helped to assess the overall historic significanceof various resources. Based upon fieldwork and evaluationof existing conditions, recommendations for the futuremanagement of the landscape and the built environmentwere formulated and presented. Periodic presentationsand draft report submissions were reviewed by the SteeringCommittee. Their comments and concerns are reflected inthe final Preservation Master Plan.Page 1-4

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008How the Plan is OrganizedThe planning process for St. Mary’s College of Marylandresulted in a planning document that is divided into threeprimary sections: 1) Preservation Planning Strategies;2) Landscape Management Plan; 3) Historic BuildingManagement Plan. Together, the three sections comprisethe Preservation Master Plan for St. Mary’s College ofMaryland.Preservation Planning Strategies includes the overviewsections of the Preservation Master Plan, as well asrecommendations and guidelines for planning, management,and administration as they generally relate to historicresources within the study area. Preservation PlanningStrategies includes five chapters:• Background and Purpose• History of St. Mary’s• Historic Contexts for St. Mary’s• Programming, Interpretation, and Planning• Management and AdministrationThe Landscape Management Plan consists of three chaptersthat focus on the cultural landscapes associated with thedesignated study area. The chapters included within thissection are:• Existing Conditions: Cultural Landscapes• Landscape Treatment Guidelines• RecommendationsResourcesfor Cultural LandscapeThe Historic Building Management Plan covers specifictopics related to historic buildings in, and around, the studyarea. The chapters included within the Historic BuildingManagement Plan are:• Existing Conditions: Historic Buildings• Architectural Treatment Guidelines• Building Specific Recommendations• Guidelines for New ConstructionSpecific information and topics included within each chapteris included below to serve as a reference regarding theorganization and contents of the full Preservation MasterPlan document:Page 1-5

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008Chapter 1: Background and PurposeChapter 1 discusses the background which led up to theplanning process and why it is important and meaningful tothe three entities involved: St. Mary’s College of Maryland,Historic St. Mary’s City, and Trinity Episcopal Church.Previous planning and preservation efforts and an overviewof the preservation context and approach are included withinthis chapter. Chapter 1 is intended to lay the frameworkfor the significance of the plan, the goals of the planningprocess, and how the plan can be used to enhance theresources within the study area.Chapter 2: History of St. Mary’sChapter 2 explores the rich history of the College, the City,and the Church, identifying significant events associated withtheir development and how their histories are intertwined.The history is divided into significant periods and provides abasis for understanding the significance of the buildings andlandscapes covered in the Preservation Master Plan.Chapter 3: Historic Contexts for St. Mary’sHistoric contexts provide a framework for understanding thedevelopment of the study area as it relates to events andtrends that were occurring on regional and national levelsand how they influenced and impacted planning, design,and development within the study area.Chapter 4: Planning, Interpretation, and ManagementThe rich history of the study area is an important asset andresource that should be preserved and protected for futuregenerations to enjoy and learn from. This chapter includesgeneral recommendations and ideas for telling the storyof St. Mary’s. General planning recommendations whichlook at the general viability and needs of the College andsurrounding entities are also discussed in Chapter 4. Currentreview and decision-making procedures for the College,City, and Church, as well as the relationship between eachof the entities as it relates to collaboration and joint decisionmakingfor projects impacting historic buildings, landscapes,and resources, is summarized.Page 1-6Chapter 5: Existing Conditions: Cultural LandscapesChapter 5 includes an inventory and assessment of thecultural landscape resources within the defined studyarea. In order to get a better understanding of the differentlandscape characteristics, the study area was brokendown into four character areas with similar attributes, andspecific landscape elements are discussed for each area.The character areas include: the College Precinct (Calvert,

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008St. Mary’s, and Kent Halls); Trinity Precinct (Church andcemetery); State House Precinct (State House area); andRiparian Precinct (Church Point and waterfront).Chapter 6: Landscape Treatment GuidelinesThe treatment guidelines for landscapes address specificlandscape resource issues and opportunities as identified inthe existing conditions analysis. The guidelines are formattedsimilar to the existing conditions chapter and are brokendown by character area and specific landscape categories,such as views, landscape structures, and vegetation.Chapter 7: Recommendations for Cultural LandscapeResourcesThe recommendations for landscape resources providea “broad-brush” overview on caring for, maintaining, andpreserving historic landscape features. The generalizedrecommendations could be applied not only to the studyarea, but to features found throughout the College, City, andChurch landholdings.Chapter 8: Existing Conditions: Historic BuildingsChapter 8 includes two distinct sections. The first containsdetailed assessments of existing conditions of the fourbuildings specifically identified for the project: Calvert Hall,St. Mary’s Hall, Trinity Church, and the State House. Thisassessment covers exterior and interior conditions andtouches on additional topics such as life-safety and internalsystems. The second component includes a summary ofexisting conditions and historical significance statementsfor nine other historic buildings located just outside butadjacent to the boundaries of the historic sector.Chapter 9: Architectural Treatment GuidelinesGeneral treatment guidelines for specific architecturalmaterials and features commonly found on the buildingsincluded within this report are provided in Chapter 9. Theguidelines address conditions specific to the study areabut can also be applied to buildings outside of the studyarea to address maintenance and repair concerns. Thetreatment guidelines cover various building elements suchas concrete, masonry, windows, doors, roofs, and paint.Chapter 10: Building Specific RecommendationsChapter 10 provides detailed recommendations, organizedinto three levels of importance, for work necessary at eachof the four historic buildings: Calvert Hall, St. Mary’s Hall,Trinity Church, and the State House. Recommendations arebroken down first by building, then by level of importance,Page 1-7

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008and then by building elements. The recommendations areintended to help guide future capital improvement decisionsand prioritize building improvement projects.Chapter 11: Guidelines for New ConstructionChapter 11 discusses guidelines for incorporating newconstruction projects within the historic sector in a mannerthat does not detract from the historical significance ofsurrounding buildings and resources. Additional guidelinesand considerations for incorporating barrier-free accessand environmentally sensitive design solutions are alsoincluded.Page 1-8

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008preservation CONTEXTThe purpose of the Preservation Master Plan is to assist theCollege, City, and Church in preserving and protecting thehistoric integrity of resources which symbolize the history andevolution of religion, politics, and development in Maryland.The legacy of colonial Maryland lives on in St. Mary’s Cityand is reflected in the buildings and landscapes withinthe project study area. Preserving those resources todayensures future generations will also have the opportunityto enjoy those resources and that the history of the studyarea will continue to live on, even as it may also continue tochange and evolve.This section is intended to provide a basis for understandingthe Preservation Master Plan for St. Mary’s College ofMaryland. Understanding the history of preservation atSt. Mary’s City and how it has evolved and contributedto the changes associated with resources will help to laythe framework for later recommendations and guidelines.Understanding the basic principles of good preservationpractice , known as the Secretary of the Interior’s Standardsfor the Treatment of Historic Properties, will provide decisionmakerswith the tools necessary to make sensitive andinformed decisions. Understanding the intent and meaningof different preservation treatments will assist decisionmakersin treating historic resources in an appropriatemanner.The Secretary of the Interior’s StandardsThe Secretary of the Interior established the Standardsfor the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards) aspart of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. TheStandards provide a philosophical framework to promoteresponsible preservation practices and are intended tohelp inform communities, institutions, and individualsabout professional standards for historic preservation. Itis recognized that all preservation efforts, whether throughthe federal government, a local government, or throughprivate efforts, can be informed and enhanced by use ofthe Standards. Because they articulate the basic underlyingprinciples that are fundamental to historic preservation,they are often incorporated into preservation plans, zoningordinances, and regulations that govern historic districts orproperties.The Standards were intentionally written to be broad so thatthey can be applied to virtually all types of historic resources,including buildings, landscapes, roadways, structures,objects, and archeological sites. The intent of the StandardsPage 1-9

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008Page 1-10is to assist in the long-term preservation of a building, site, orresource. However, the Standards are general in character,and not principles which can be used to make decisionsabout what features of any specific building, landscape, orsite should be saved or replaced. Case-by-case decisionsrequire additional direction which goes above and beyondthe framework provided in the Standards; it is best to lookat the Standards as an approach to sensible preservationplanning, not as the only solution. Although updated fromtime to time, the basic principles of the Standards haveremained consistent and are a testament to the soundnessof their language (Weeks and Grimmer 1995).The specific language of the Standards can be found inthe United States Department of the Interior, National ParkService, 36 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations), Part 67.Hard copies of the document are available as publicationsdistributed by the United States Department of the Interior,National Park Service or online at http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/tax/rhb/stand.htm.The philosophy behind the recommendations and treatmentguidelines for buildings and landscapes included in thePreservation Master Plan for St. Mary’s College is based onthe Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation,which are a component of the Standards for the Treatment ofHistoric Properties. Because the Standards are applicable toanticipated projects at St. Mary’s College, Trinity Church, andthe State House, they have been used as the philosophicalframework for this document.The ten preservation principles which comprise theStandards for Rehabilitation are identified below. To assistusers of this document in understanding the standards, theyare followed by a short discussion of how the standard shouldbe interpreted when undertaking a historic preservationproject.Standard 1A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placedin a new use that requires minimal change to the definingcharacteristics of the building and its site and environment.Standard 1 encourages property owners and decisionmakersto consider and find uses for historic sites thatenhance the historic character, not detract from it. Thisstandard is directly applicable to reuse projects and advisesthat such projects should be carefully planned to minimizeadverse impacts to the historic character. Destruction ofcharacter-defining features should be avoided.

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008Standard 2The historic character of the property shall be retained andpreserved. The removal of historic materials or alterationof features and spaces that characterize a property shall beavoided.Standard 2 emphasizes the importance of preservingthe historic materials and features which define a historicproperty. In an effort to retain the historic character of aproperty, efforts should be made to repair historic features,as opposed to allowing them to be removed.Standard 3Each property shall be recognized as a physical record ofits time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense ofhistorical development, such as adding conjectural featuresor architectural elements from other buildings, shall not beundertaken.Standard 3 acknowledges that historic resources are reallya “snapshot in time,” and therefore discourages combininghistoric features from various properties or constructingnew buildings that falsely read as historic. Reconstructionof lost resources, or specific features, should only beundertaken when detailed documentation is available andwhen a resource is of such significance that it warrantsreconstruction.Standard 4Most properties change over time; those changes that haveacquired historic significance in their own right shall be retainedand preserved.Standard 4 recognizes that few buildings remain unchangedover a long period of time, and that many of these changescontribute to a resource’s significance. Understanding thecumulative history of a resource, and how it has evolved, isas important as understanding the origins of the resource.This standard should be kept in mind when consideringtreatments for buildings that have undergone changes.The evolution of a resource can usually be identified andsignificant, so contributing changes should be retained.The changes that have occurred to the resource are aninteresting way to learn more about, and communicate,the parallel changes that may have occurred in a largercommunity context.Page 1-11

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008Standard 5Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques orexamples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall bepreserved.Standard 5 recommends preserving the distinctive qualitiesof a resource that are representative of its overall historiccharacter and integrity. When undertaking a preservationproject, it is important to identify the distinctive features,materials, construction type, floor plan, and details thatcharacterize the property. Every effort should be made toretain these distinctive features in their original form.Standard 6Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather thanreplaced. Where the severity of deterioration requiresreplacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall matchthe old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and,where possible, materials. Replacement of missing featuresshall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorialevidence.Standard 6 focuses on the importance of repairing features,as opposed to replacing them, to the greatest extentpossible. Looking at options and opportunities for repairinga feature should always precede a decision to replacethe feature. In instances where severe deterioration or amissing feature makes repair impossible, new featuresshould match the original as closely as possible. Before anexisting feature is removed for its replacement, it should becarefully documented and photographed as a reference toassist in future decision-making.Standard 7Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, thatcause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surfacecleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken usingthe gentlest means possible.Standard 7 warns that harsh cleaning alternatives canseverely damage historic fabrics by destroying the material’sphysical properties and speeding the deterioration process.This standard is intended to emphasize the importanceof considering cleaning alternatives, and choosing thegentlest available cleaning method in an effort to protectand preserve the historic fabric.Page 1-12Standard 8Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall beprotected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed,mitigation measures shall be undertaken.

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008Standard 8 addresses the importance of historic andprehistoric archeological resources which exist below groundlevel. This is particularly important for new constructionprojects which involve excavation. All new constructionprojects, particularly in areas of likely archeologicalresources, should be assessed for archeological potential.When archeological resources are identified, mitigation maybe required.Standard 9New additions, exterior alterations, or related new constructionshall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property.The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shallbe compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architecturalfeatures to protect the historic integrity of the property and itsenvironment.Standard 9 identifies the potential for new additions,alterations, and new construction to negatively impacthistoric features of a property. This standard emphasizes theimportance of identifying potential impacts and mitigatingthem before they become problematic. All new work isexpected to be compatible with existing resources, thoughit should never replicate the existing historic resource. Aviewer should be able to clearly distinguish new work fromthe original.Standard 10New additions and adjacent or related new construction shallbe undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future,the essential form and integrity of the historic property and itsenvironment would be unimpaired.Standard 10 stresses the importance of sensitive additions,alterations, and new construction. Sensitively designedadditions, alterations, and new construction should bereversible, and should not destroy existing historic fabricand features. This standard reiterates how smart planningcan protect the historic integrity of a building or resource(Weeks and Grimmer 1995:162).Page 1-13

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008Page 1-14Preservation TreatmentsThere are four historic preservation treatment approaches,defined in the Standards, which are widely accepted inthe field of historic preservation today – Preservation,Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction (Weeksand Grimmer 1995:2).• Preservation treatments require the retention ofthe greatest amount of historic fabric.• Rehabilitationtreatments acknowledge the need toalter or add to a property to meet current needs, whilestill maintaining the historic character. Rehabilitationassumes that the property is deteriorated andtherefore provides more latitude with respect toretention and repair of historic features.• Restoration focuses on the retention of materialsfrom the most significant period in a property’shistory, while allowing the removal of materials fromother periods.• Reconstruction provides limited opportunitiesto re-create a non-surviving structure, landscape,building, or object with new materials that replicatethe original, historic materials.Definitions for each of the preservation treatments havebeen included below for reference.PreservationPreservation is defined as the act or process of applyingmeasures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity,and materials of an historic property. Work, includingpreliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property,generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repairof historic materials and features rather than an extensivereplacement and new construction. New exterior additionsare not within the scope of this treatment; however, thelimited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, andplumbing systems and other code-required work to makeproperties functional is appropriate within a preservationproject.Preservation stresses the protection, maintenance, andrepair of historic fabric and features, and should be thebaseline treatment for all historic resources under theoperation of the College, the Church, and the City.

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008RehabilitationRehabilitation is defined as the act or process of makingpossible a compatible use for a property through repair,alterations, and additions while preserving those portions orfeatures which convey its historical, cultural, or architecturalvalues.Often referred to as adaptive reuse, the key to a rehabilitationproject is to avoid adverse impacts to the historic fabricwhen expanding, modifying, or upgrading facilities. Whenundertaking rehabilitation projects, all entities should takecare in retaining the greatest possible amount of historicfabric.RestorationRestoration is defined as the act or process of accuratelydepicting the form, features, and character of a propertyas it appeared at a particular period of time by means ofthe removal of features from other periods in its historyand reconstruction of missing features from the restorationperiod. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical,electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-requiredwork to make properties functional is appropriate within arestoration project.When undertaking restoration projects, the extensivecollection of archived historical images and documentationavailable through the College, Church, and City, shouldbe referenced to ensure the restoration work is historicallyaccurate.ReconstructionReconstruction is defined as the act or process of depicting, bymeans of new construction, the form, features, and detailingof a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, orobject for the purpose of replicating its appearance at aspecific period of time and in its historic location (Weeksand Grimmer 1995:2).Although reconstruction has previously been utilized in thestudy area with the 1934 State House project, and HistoricSt. Mary’s City has numerous reconstructed buildingson exhibit, it is not anticipated that this is a preservationtreatment that will be used again within the historic campussector.Page 1-15

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008Chapter 2:History of St. Mary’s College ofMarylandINTRODUCTIONThis neck of land projecting into the St. Mary’s River at MillCreek is host to three institutions: Trinity Episcopal Church,St. Mary’s College of Maryland, and Historic St. Mary’s City.The histories of these neighboring and overlapping entitieshave been intertwined since Trinity Church first beganusing the abandoned State House in the early eighteenthcentury, and later sold land to establish the school in 1844.Both church and college have grown to their present sizesin the knowledge that they stand upon the historic site ofMaryland’s first capital city.The following chapter is arranged chronologically todocument the colonial-period history of the St. Mary’s Citypeninsula, followed by detailed histories of Trinity Church,St. Mary’s Seminary/St. Mary’s College of Maryland, andHistoric St. Mary’s City.HISTORIC PERIODSEarly Colonial SettlementThe shores of the southern Chesapeake were first exploredby English traders in the early 1600s. Of greatest significancein the history of St. Mary’s City were the explorations ofCaptain Henry Fleet (1600-1660), a native of Kent. Fleetfirst arrived in the New World in 1621, initially visiting theJamestown settlement in Virginia before traveling north toexplore the Potomac region. In 1623, he was captured byAlgonquians and spent the following four years living withthe Nacotchtank tribe, where he gained great understandingof local dialects and cultural practices. Aware that Englishmerchants had a great demand for furs, and that theIndians had an increasing desire for European goods, Fleetfacilitated the beginnings of a fur trade in 1627-1632. Hedealt frequently with the Yaocomico tribe, who lived in villagesalong the St. Mary’s River, making him the first Englishmanknown to have resided in the area. With his brothers, Fleetsoon had a successful trading venture that exported beaverpelts, maize, and fish out of southern Maryland and importedPage 2-1

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008European goods for the native tribes (Fausz 1990:11-12).Fleet’s knowledge of local tribes and skill in dealingdiplomatically with the native inhabitants quickly brought himto the attention of Governor Leonard Calvert, who arrivedin the New World in 1634 with 150 colonists on the shipsArk and Dove, to establish a Maryland colony. While thecolonists camped temporarily at St. Clement’s Island, Fleetassisted Calvert as an interpreter and was instrumentalin locating a site for the new colony and negotiating itspurchase. The site was part of the Yaocomico lands, andthis small tribe was eager to sell a parcel to the English inexchange for goods and the promise of protection againstthe Susquehannocks. Calvert purchased “thirtie miles” ofprime land from the Yaocomicoes in exchange for a quantityof English goods, namely hatchets, axes, hoes, and clothing.According to legend, the transaction was conducted beneatha large mulberry tree which stood on the bluff near ChurchPoint until 1883. A monument to the memory of LeonardCalvert in the Trinity Church cemetery marks the site of themulberry tree (Fausz 1990:12).Governor Leonard Calvert’s arrival to establish a Marylandcolony was the culmination of many years of efforts byhis father, George Calvert (ca. 1580-1632), the first LordBaltimore, and his older brother, Cecilius Calvert, thesecond Lord Baltimore, to found a colony in the New World.George Calvert’s wealthy family was repeatedly persecutedby the Anglican government during his youth for practicingCatholicism. The Calverts appear to have renouncedCatholicism for a time, and both George and his fathersubsequently rose to political office, a privilege denied topracticing Catholics. In 1624, George publicly announcedhe had become a Catholic and resigned his position asSecretary of State. Despite this, King James made himBaron of Baltimore, and Calvert turned his attention towardestablishing a new colony in America. His nine-year attemptto found a settlement at Avalon in Newfoundland proveddisastrous, and in 1629 he abandoned the project andremoved his colonists to Virginia before returning to England.Although the Calvert colonists, as Catholics, were greetedcoolly in Virginia, Calvert explored unsettled areas of theChesapeake and liked what he saw. Upon his return home,he petitioned King Charles I for a land grant north of Virginiaand, drawing upon lessons learned in Newfoundland, drewup a charter, but died before it was executed (Hammett1990:1-3).Page 2-2George Calvert’s eldest son Cecilius, or Cecil, inherited histitle and received the Maryland charter from the King in June1633, two months after his father’s death. The charter gavethe second Lord Baltimore title to millions of acres, but Cecil

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008Calvert was forced to attract investors to make the venturea success. He drew up Conditions of Plantation to specifywhat colonists would be granted in return for their effortsto bring workers and families into the colony. Potentialcolonists were also given a letter of instruction, designedto ensure peace in the colony and diplomatic relations withother colonies. On November 22, 1633, two ships, the Arkand the Dove, sailed toward the New World. Cecil Calvertdispatched his younger brother, Leonard, to accompanythe colonists and serve as the first Governor (Hammett1990:3-5; Miller 2003:225).Detail, George Alsop map of Maryland, ca. 1666 (Fausz 1990:13).The new Maryland colony was a promising site, featuringfields already planted with corn by the Indians and barklonghouses for shelter. Two bays, a good water supply,and a defensible high bluff were desirable geographicfeatures. The Yaocomicoes relocated to Pagan Pointnearby, and the friendly relations between the colonists andthe local tribes begun by Henry Fleet endured for years tocome. The mutual respect shown by these seventeenthcenturyMarylanders and the Piscataways was an early andsignificant example of enlightened liberal thought and openmindedness,and reflected the principles of tolerance desiredby George Calvert. The deliberately nonsectarian colonyat St. Mary’s was a daring attempt to create a society thatPage 2-3

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008Page 2-4separated church from state, given that most of the westernworld believed that governments should dictate religiousbeliefs. Although Maryland was conceived as a sanctuaryfor Catholics, Protestants were also welcome, and indeedmade up over 80% of the first arrivals. The two groups wereinstructed in Calvert’s letter to refrain from imposing theirbeliefs unduly upon one another through public worship orproselytizing (Fausz 1990:12-14; Miller 2003:225-227).The settlers at St. Mary’s City initially inhabited the dwellingsleft by the Yaocomicoes as they constructed a large fort toprotect themselves from hostile Indian tribes and Virginiansopposed to the Maryland colony. This fort provided shelterfor the first three years while the colonists farmed thesurrounding land. By late 1636, things were more stableand the colonists left the fort and developed dispersedfarm plantations raising tobacco. Lord Baltimore initiallyattempted to develop the colony on a hierarchical manormodel, with major investors receiving large tracts and thetitle of manor lords, while those of lesser means were theirtenants. Though there is some evidence that this patternwas followed briefly, conditions in Maryland did not favorsuch development and a more flexible, less stratified societyarose (Miller 2003:225-228).Unfortunately, the colony was soon plagued by hostilitiesfrom further afield. A rival of Henry Fleet, Captain WilliamClaiborne, Secretary of State of Virginia, had establisheda beaver pelt trading operation at Kent Island in 1631. Heattempted to disrupt Fleet’s trading activities before theCalvert colonists arrived, and beginning soon after theirarrival, he battled with Gov. Calvert over control of KentIsland and key beaver territories to the north. Claiborne wasallied with the Susquehannocks and the Protestants, andinitiated a decade-long war against the Maryland colony,beginning in 1642 (Fausz 1990:12,14). England’s CivilWars (1642-1649) only exacerbated the instability of thecolony, and though Gov. Calvert regained some control in1646 with assistance from Virginia mercenaries, he died in1647 before full order was achieved. His death heightenedtensions once again. In the wake of his death, his executrixMargaret Brent, a wealthy colonist who had patented over1,000 acres, made a memorable attempt to restore calm tothe colony by appearing at the General Assembly in January1648, requesting an Assembly seat and a vote as LordBaltimore’s attorney. Although her request was denied, shetook matters into her own hands, selling Calvert’s cattle topay off and thus disperse lingering mercenary troops, andearning grudging respect from the Assemblymen for herefforts to bring peace to the colony (Fausz 1990:14).

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008In the meantime, an influx of Protestants from Virginia,coupled with the flight of some Catholics from Maryland,meant that Protestants remained in the majority among thecolony’s population. In 1649, Lord Baltimore persuaded theAssembly to pass “An Act concerning Religion,” which legallyestablished a policy of freedom of religion for all Christiandenominations, and protected the rights of the Catholicreligious minority. This act made Calvert and his colony amagnet for further hostilities from their enemies. In March1652, William Claiborne and Parliamentary allies raided St.Mary’s City, where they quickly deposed the Calvert leadersand replaced them with Puritans in an effort to enforceloyalty to England’s Puritan sovereigns. The TolerationAct of 1649 was voided, and both Catholics and Anglicanswere persecuted for their beliefs. Maryland’s capital wasmoved north. Tensions culminated in March 1655, whenformer Maryland officials and others loyal to Lord Baltimoreengaged in open warfare with the Puritans in the Battle of theSevern. The horrors of this event prompted a review of thesituation by Oliver Cromwell, who upheld Lord Baltimore’scharter rights over those of Claiborne and his supporters.Lord Baltimore signed a peace treaty with his Virginiaadversaries, and reaffirmed the Act of Tolerance, providingsanctuary and religious freedom to Quakers, Catholics,Anglicans, and Puritans alike (Fausz 1990:15-17).The Growth of St. Mary’s CityBy 1660 the colony was entering a time of relative peaceand prosperity, and St. Mary’s City, restored to its positionas the capital, grew into a thriving small settlement. It neverbecame a major city or port, but did experience a periodof sustained growth. Prior to 1660, only two substantialpermanent buildings are known to have been constructed:Leonard Calvert’s house (ca. 1635-1636), later called “theCountry’s House,” and “St. John’s” (ca. 1638), the home ofJohn Lewger, Secretary of State. Government businesswas conducted in these houses, which were expensivetimber-framed structures with stone foundations (Miller2003:232-234). Other early buildings, including an inn, mill,forge, common chapel, and several dwellings, were framepost-in-ground structures that eventually fell victim to fireor rot. The city was incorporated in 1668 by Cecil Calvert,and after this point, a number of more permanent buildingsarose, including inns, businesses, and public buildings. Themost impressive structures were constructed of brick andincluded a Catholic chapel (ca. 1672), a prison (1676), theState House (1676), and a school (1677) (Fausz 1990:17-18).The chapel, a cruciform brick structure believed to be the firstmajor brick building in Maryland, was located on the east sideof Rt. 5 at the site of an earlier chapel, and was surroundedPage 2-5

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008by hundreds of unmarked human graves believed to dateback to the 1630s. It is currently being reconstructed on itsoriginal site (Miller 2003:243-245). The prison was locatedin the vicinity of present-day Kent Hall, and the State Housestood within Trinity Church’s graveyard. In 1678, a brickmansion house called St. Peter’s was built for Philip Calvert,and was located south of the college on the west side ofRt. 5. St. Peter’s was destroyed in a gunpowder explosionin 1695 and not rebuilt. Most other buildings in the townwere earthfast frame buildings, including wood dwellingswith wattle-and-daub chimneys, as well as numerousoutbuildings. These buildings were widely dispersed withinthe Town Lands, with only a few areas of concentrateddevelopment (Miller 2003:232,240-241,248).Revised 1988 map of St. Mary’s City, showing known lots, buildings, and roads based on documentary and archaeologicalevidence (Miller 1988:63).Page 2-6

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008Map of St. Mary’s City showing Baroque geometric plan layout, with and without road outlines (Miller1988:66).Lord Baltimore’s half-brother Philip (1626-1682) arrivedin 1656 and served in a variety of official capacities at St.Mary’s City. Undoubtedly one of the wealthiest citizens ofthe early city, he built and occupied St. Peter’s until hisdeath in late 1682. He, his first wife Anne Wolsey, and anunidentified child, were buried in rare lead coffins withinthe transept of the Catholic chapel after they died. Philipwas supported by Cecil’s son Charles (1637-1715), whoserved as Governor after arriving in 1661 and became thethird Lord Baltimore upon his father’s death in 1675. Duringthis period, Maryland’s population tripled from over 7,000 in1660 to 22,000 in 1689. St. Mary’s City was at its colonialzenith during the early 1680s. Its geometric town plan,which symbolically placed the State House at one end andthe Catholic chapel at the other, forming two triangles withhomes and lesser structures in the middle, is regarded as thefirst example of an English Baroque planned city in the world(Fausz 1990:17-19; Miller 1988:66-67; Historic St. Mary’sCity [2007]). St. Mary’s City was also the first incorporatedcity in the English colonies in America (Miller 2003:243). Atits peak before 1694, the town contained some 60 buildings,including over 30 dwellings (NRHP 1975).The prosperity of St. Mary’s City changed in July 1689,when a group of 700 Protestant colonists marched on St.Mary’s City and overthrew the Calvert government, endingits influence for a final time. Anglicanism was instated asthe sole legal religion in the colony, taxes in support of thePage 2-7

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008Anglican Church were imposed on everyone, and a RoyalGovernor, Sir Lionel Copley, arrived in 1692. Under Copley,Anglicanism became the official religion of the colony, andCatholics were forced to conduct services and schoolingin secrecy. St. Mary’s County was split into two parishes,King and Queen Parish in the upper half of the county andWilliam and Mary Parish in the lower half of the county.St. Mary’s City was located in William and Mary Parish.Copley died in 1693 and a new Royal Governor, FrancisNicholson, took his place. Not long after Nicholson’s arrival,the new government decided to move the capital to ArundelTown (now Annapolis), placing the capital in an areawhich had historically been anti-Catholic from the earliestdays of English settlement (Fausz 1990:19-20; Hammett1990:44-46; Miller 2003:228-229; NRHP 1975).St. Mary’s City, abandoned as the capital, soon languished.The Catholic chapel was closed in 1704 and demolished ca.1705. Though its grounds were used as a cemetery until ca.1730s, and the 1680s graves of Philip Calvert and his familylay within the north transept’s foundation, eventually the siteand its hundreds of burials were forgotten until 20 th centuryarcheological excavations revealed their presence onceagain (Forman 1938:250; Miller 2003:243-245; St. Mary’sCity Commission 1970:17). The county seat was movedto Leonardtown in 1708, hastening the town’s decline andreversion to a quiet agricultural landscape. Ironically, thisabandonment and rapid decay resulted in the undergroundpreservation of much of the site’s seventeenth century past,which would yield important discoveries centuries later(Fausz 1990:19-20). In 1720, the government of Marylandrelinquished the State House, set on the bluff overlookingthe river, to the vestry of the Anglican William and MaryParish for use as a church (Hammett 1990:46). By 1787,little remained of St. Mary’s City except for the old StateHouse. The former city site had become farmland. In1829, the State House was demolished and only buriedfragmentary remnants of the town and its buildings survived(Miller 2003:229; NRHP 1975).Page 2-8The Founding of Trinity ChurchThe first Trinity Church was reportedly a simple log structureerected ca. 1638 on Trinity Creek, a few miles south ofSt. Mary’s City (Innis 1971). Sometime after 1642, thischurch was dismantled and moved within the boundariesof St. Mary’s City, although its exact location is not known(Innis 1971). The Anglican Church became the officialdenomination of the colony in 1692 (Hammett 1990:44). In1695, after the capital of the colony was moved to what isnow Annapolis, the State House at St. Mary’s City became

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008the county courthouse. The same year, a law was passedthat permitted Anglican religious services to be held incourthouses, and, reciprocally, courts to be held in churches.This made the State House available to Trinity Church,which in its early years was a “chapel of ease” servicedby traveling pastors from the parish. At some point in theearly 1700s, the Trinity congregation began using the StateHouse for worship, and after the county court was movedto Leonardtown in 1708, the State House was used as achapel (Fletcher 1992; Hammett 1990:53; Sullivan 2007).The grounds around it began to be used as a cemeteryupon the death of Sir Lionel Copley, the Royal Governor andan Anglican, in 1693. He and his wife were interred in anunderground brick vault near the State House ca. 1694. By1710, other burials were beginning to occur as well (Sullivan2007).In April of 1720, the old State House was sold to the Vestryof William and Mary Parish and converted to an Anglicanchurch for the people who remained in the area of the formercounty seat. At the time, the old cross-shaped building hadsuffered from neglect since its abandonment by both thecolony and the county governments in 1694 and 1706,respectively, and was described as “all most gone to ruin” inthe sale deed (Maryland General Assembly 1720). Repairsand alterations were needed to retrofit it for sacred use asa “chappell of ease.” The Vestry met in May 1720 and hiredJoshua Doyne and the parish undertaker, Francis Hopewell,to make repairs. A year later, they contracted with Doyneto make the following alterations to the building: “to makethe door in the middle of the back building and to place theCommunion Table, in the place where the door now stands,the vacancy being built up with brick work, in the place ofthe two large windows in the porch where the CommunionTable is to stand, to be placed two windows eight foot highand 22 inches wide in the clear.” Doyne and Hopewell werepaid for their work in tobacco (Innis 1971). The surroundinggrounds continued to be used as a cemetery after 1720(Sullivan 2007), though no above-ground markers survivefrom its early years. During the 1700s and early 1800s,Trinity Church and St. George’s Church in Valley Leeconstituted the whole of William and Mary Parish of theMaryland Diocese (St. Mary’s Parish 1988).The former State House continued to be used as a churchuntil 1829, at which time it was deteriorating badly and takendown. Although this action has been regretted by manysince, at the time the reuse of the brick was seen as the bestmeans to preserve the old State House and meet the needsof Trinity Church. Bricks salvaged from the old State Housewere used to construct a new Episcopal church at a site aPage 2-9

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008short distance north of the old building (Hammett 1990:46;Innis 1971; Wollon 1993:1). No photographs exist showingthe 1829 Trinity Church, but an old oil painting shows a sideview of a simple front-gabled, two-story building, two bayswide and three bays long, with a square steeple (Russell1939:5). The building occupied the same footprint as today’sTrinity Church nave, and also had a 12 by 12 foot vestryroom. The brick walls were likely covered with whitewashon the exterior to give them a more consistent appearance,and a belfry topped the south gable end, where the entrancewas located. The entrance gable end had two doors, andeach side wall had three windows. The interior reportedlyhad two aisles corresponding to the two entrance doors,and a full two-story nave interior with a gallery on threeUnattributed, undated oil painting of 1829 TrinityChurchsides of the second floor. The north end, where the altar (orCommunion Table) and pulpit were located did not have agallery. The windows had rectangular panes of clear glass.The only known change made to this building during themid-1800s was the addition of an architectural chancel ca.1855, which was consistent with an increasing emphasison the Eucharist and on medieval English ecclesiasticalarchitecture. At this time, the pulpit was probably moved fromits original location centered above and behind the altar toa location to the side, which became a typical configurationfor Episcopal churches (Wollon 1993:2-3).In 1844, the Vestry of William and Mary Parish sold a sixacreparcel of its landholdings to the State of Maryland,upon which St. Mary’s Female Seminary was founded. Theproceeds of this sale were later used to construct a newchapel-of-ease, St. Mary’s Chapel at Ridge, completedin 1857. Trinity Church and St. Mary’s Chapel-of-Easebecame part of St. Mary’s Parish of the Diocese of Maryland(Innis 1971; Irvin [1957]:2; St. Mary’s Parish 1988). TrinityChurch was now a church in its own right with a permanentrector, no longer a chapel-of-ease for a geographically largediocese. St. Mary’s Chapel was later destroyed by fire andrebuilt in 1884, and has been served since 1857 by therectors of Trinity Church (Irvin [1957]:2).Page 2-10By the 1880s, the 1829 Trinity Church building was decriedas unworthy of its historic site by various critics, including itsown rector, the Rev. John B. Gray, and his wife. An 1883appeal printed in the Baltimore Sun asked contributionstoward the construction of a new Memorial Church onthe original site of the State House, or at least significantremodeling of the present “unchurchly and unsightly building”(Gray [1883]). In a diary entry dated May 28 th , 1883, Mrs.Rose Stettinius Gray, wife of Rector Gray, notes that “Johnleft in the boat this afternoon to attend the Convention inBaltimore. He has issued an appeal & hopes he will be able

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008to get funds to build a new church on the site where LordBaltimore’s Colony landed in place of the unsightly buildingwhere we now hold service” (Gray 1883:1). Although Rev.Gray left Trinity before his work was done, others clearlyshared his desire to build a statelier house of worship, andin 1889, Trinity Church was significantly reconstructed.The degree to which the old church was demolished hasnot been firmly established, but it appears that it wasdemolished down to the first floor, possibly as low as thewindowsills, and rebuilt completely above that point. Therebuilt Trinity Church was Gothic Revival in appearance,rather than Colonial Revival or Georgian, and very typicalof a Victorian-period picturesque Episcopal church. Again,this reconstruction was seen as a veneration of historyrather than demolition. The side walls were lowered toaccommodate a steep, front-gabled roof with wide eaves,and three small gabled side dormers formed a clerestoryof sorts. Crossed interior trusses of dark wood supportedthe ceiling. The square steeple was rebuilt with an openhexagonal belfry, and the side windows were rebuilt withlancet-shaped Gothic openings and stained glass memorialwindows. The round window above the entrance and thewindow above the altar date from this period, and the twooriginal entrances were closed up to create a single centerentrance with a gabled vestibule and corresponding centerinterior aisle. The altar was centered in the old chanceladded in the 1850s, the present carved wood pews wereinstalled, and a small, shed-roofed sacristy addition wasmade on the east side of the north end of the nave. Theinterior walls had wainscoting at the bottom, which was laterremoved (Wollon 1993:4). The Rev. Millard Minnick, the twosenior wardens, and eight vestrymen conveyed the rebuiltTrinity Church to the Bishop of Maryland on July 12, 1893for consecration (Diocese of Maryland 1893).Trinity Church, ca. 1890s (Fausz 1990:27).Postcard view of Trinity Church interior, ca.1920 (Trinity Church Archives).In 1895, further diocesan reorganization occurred, and St.Mary’s Parish, along with other southern Maryland parishes,became part of the new Diocese of Washington (Innis 1971;Irvin [1957]:2). In 1910, using funds donated in memoryof the late George Thomas, Trinity Church extended thesacristy addition further east with a new gabled wing toaccommodate a small baptistery and vestry meeting room(Vestry Minutes 1909:35; Wollon 1993:5). The kerosenelighting was replaced with electric lights, fueled by a Delcogenerator, in 1926 (Fletcher 1992; Vestry Minutes 1926).The Gothic Revival incarnation of Trinity Church lastednearly 50 years before the Maryland Tercentenary focusedattention on its deficiencies. Yet again, it was seen as anoutdated, architecturally inappropriate edifice that did notPostcard view of Trinity Church exterior, ca.1920 (Trinity Church Archives).Page 2-11

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008View of Trinity Church following 1930s renovations,1947 (Courtesy of SMCM Archives).reflect the history of its location. The Washington, D.C.,architectural firm of Peaslee and Cole, which had designedthe Replica 1676 State House for the Maryland Tercentenary,was retained to “restore” the church. A parish committee,later called the National Committee of Trinity Church, raisedmoney and accepted gifts of new furnishings. This workundid much of the late Victorian detail of the building,making it much plainer in appearance. Remodeling of theroof resulted in the removal of the peaked side dormers andwide eave overhangs, and changes to the interior trusswork.The belfry was enclosed as well. Changes to the interiorincluded replacing the old wood floor with slate, removal ofwainscoting and the chancel ceiling trusswork, installationof new electric lighting with cylindrical chandelier fixtures,and construction of a new pipe organ. The 1889 wood altarwas moved to St. Mary’s Chapel at Ridge and replaced witha new sandstone one given by a Miss Kibby (Milburn 1988;Vestry Minutes 1937:185-186, 1938:192; Wollon 1993:4-5).Other work during the twentieth century focused on theoutdoor setting of the church and cemetery. In 1922, theMaryland Society of Colonial Dames erected a monumentabove the Copley vault in the cemetery, which had recentlybeen rediscovered. Sir Lionel Copley, the first RoyalGovernor of Maryland, who died in 1693, and his wife arebelieved to be among the first burials in the cemetery. Moreburials followed around the State House after it becamean Anglican church. In 1926, Seminary students and theD.A.R. laid stones to outline the footprint of the originalState House, which once stood in what is now the TrinityChurch cemetery, and in 1932, the D.A.R. planted boxwoodshrubs and a memorial tablet at the site of the old StateHouse entrance (Haugaard et al. 2007:13). Over the years,several graves had been placed within this boundary (Clarke1995). A new pair of gates was installed as an entrance tothe church property in 1934 by the Ark and Dove Society(Maryland Tercentenary Commission 1934). The brickgateposts were built by a Baltimore bricklayer (Clarke 1995).In 1969, the point of land below the church was landscapedby parishioners as public park space for outdoor worshipand recreation. A large wooden cross was erected tomemorialize the colonists who arrived with Leonard Calvertand founded the first Trinity Church, and the site was namedChurch Point (Innis 1969).View of Trinity Church, 1968 (Courtesy ofSMCM Archives).Page 2-12As the congregation grew during the mid to late twentiethcentury, plans were made to create additional functionspace by building a new hall off the sacristy wing of thechurch, but none of these ideas were ever implemented.However, other changes to the building were made over thelast three decades:

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008• A modest, hip-roofed rear addition to the sacristywing was constructed in 1972, just after the churchwas placed on the Maryland Register of HistoricProperties by the Maryland Historical Trust (Shannon1972:C-1,C-8).• A new pipe organ was installed in 1983 and airconditioning was installed in 1986 (Milburn 1988).• In 1986, Trinity applied for and received a $1,000matching grant from the National Trust for HistoricPreservation to study the feasibility of restoring thebelfry to its open pre-1930s appearance. The studywas performed in 1990, and the church’s architecturalconsultant, James Wollon, recommended againstreopening the belfry due to concerns aboutauthenticity and a need to similarly recreate theformer roofwork from 1889.• Further consultation with Wollon and the MarylandHistorical Trust was made to discuss plans forpreserving the brickwork, painting the exterior, andreconfiguring the south entrance to accommodateboth steps and a long, curving ramped walkway.• In 1990, the ivy and foundation shrubs were removedand the brickwork was repointed and painted.• In August 1991, the original front walkway was dugup, archaeologists from Historic St. Mary’s Cityconvened to perform investigations, and the newwheelchair-accessible walkway, designed by Wollonand built by Raymond J. Cannetti and Johnny Cook(who had performed much of the earlier rehab), wascompleted in late 1991. The new entrance had apatterned-brick walkway that resembled brickworkat the nearby State House, new iron railings andoutside lighting, and new landscaping, including atree and boxwood hedges.• A new railing was also installed on the Sacristy stepsin the early 1990’s (Burwell 1991:1-4).In recognition of the sensitive and careful work done topreserve the church’s appearance while making it moreaccessible, the St. Mary’s County Committee of theMaryland Historical Trust presented the church with ahistoric preservation project award in 1992 (The Enterprise20 May 1992:A-2).According to parish legend, part of the altar rail, the crosseson the ends of the pews, and certain other objects in thechurch were carved from the wood of the famed greatmulberry tree that stood in the Trinity Church cemetery until1883, when it was so decrepit that it was cut down on order ofthe rector, Rev. John B. Gray (Fletcher 1992). Although thetiming of the tree’s cutting in 1883 would make the creationPage 2-13

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008of furnishings for the 1889 church possible, the type of woodused in these particular furnishings has not been verified.The mulberry tree’s wood was apparently used to carve allkinds of trinkets and other objects that were sold in at leastone Baltimore shop as souvenirs to finance the building of anew memorial church (The Sun 21 June 1889:n.p.).The Old Mulberry Tree as drawn by MissPiper, a Seminary student, in 1852 (Fausz1990:30; original in possession of St. Mary’sCity).Old Rectory (1898-1918) on site of currentRectory, ca. 1903 (Trinity Church Archives).Page 2-14Other Parish BuildingsIn February 1860, John M. Brome and his wife Susanconveyed five acres of land on what is now Rosecroft Roadto the Vestry of Trinity Church for use as a rectory (St.Mary’s County Land Records JTB#3:321). The first rectorywas built at that time near where the Historic St. Mary’s Citylaboratory now stands. It burned in 1898 (Fletcher 1992).A new rectory was constructed in 1899 in late VictorianCarpenter Gothic style across Brome’s Wharf Road from thechurch, much closer than the old one had been. This site,which became the permanent home of the Trinity ChurchRectory, was also owned by the Brome family. In 1907,Trinity Church sold the Rosecroft Road property back to JohnThomas and Emma Brome in exchange for $250 and the1.47-acre parcel near the church on which the 1899 rectorystood (St. Mary’s County Land Records EBA#7:59). Thisrectory too caught fire in early January of 1917, sparked bywhat was believed to have been a defective flue. These twofires destroyed many parish records and the belongings ofthe rectors (The St. Mary’s Beacon 11 January 1917:n.p.).The current Rectory was built in 1917-1918 on the samesite as the 1899 rectory (Fletcher 1992; Vestry Minutes1917-1918). Probably due to the history of disastrous fires,the new rectory was constructed of “hollow tile” masonryinstead of frame. The plans were accepted at the February24 th , 1917 vestry meeting, at which time it was estimated thatthe new building would cost $4,000. It had four bedroomsand a bathroom. When St. Mary’s Seminary caught fire in1924, the Rev. Whitmore became the only casualty of thenight when, in his attempts to prevent the rectory roof fromcatching fire, he fell to the ground and injured himself. Inthe immediate aftermath of the fire, the Rectory becamea temporary base of operations for Principal France, theSt. Mary’s Seminary trustees, and various governmentofficials as they worked to rebuild the school, with the strongsupport of the Whitmores. In the months after the fire, MissFrance and 24 of her students were housed in the Rectoryalong with Rev. Whitmore and his family of five (Fausz1990:63-64; Whitmore and Keen 1981:9-11). Students atthe Seminary in the early twentieth century were requiredto attend church at Trinity or the local Catholic or Methodistparishes, depending on their denomination (Fletcher 1992).The Rectory was wired for electricity from its own Delco

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008plant in 1926 (Vestry Minutes 1926). After the church wasrenovated in the 1930s, unwanted elements, including theold chandeliers and dormer windows, were stored in the atticof the Rectory. Two of the chandeliers were later installed inthe Rectory’s living room and master bedroom. In 2002, theRectory was rented to St. Mary’s College and is now usedas office space (Ball 2007; Ryner 2007).In 1928, the Parish House was built along the road behindthe Rectory to serve as a space for parish functions. It wasexpanded with a new kitchen in 1954, and further additionswere made in 1958 (Fletcher 1992). A ca. 1962 churchbrochure shows that the Parish House had multi-light steelcasement windows, which were probably installed duringthe 1950s renovations. More recently, most of the windowswere replaced with double-hung modern sash, althoughsome of the steel windows survive.It is not clear from archival materials how Trinity Churchcame to own a post office serving St. Mary’s City. Thefirst post office was established at St. Mary’s City in 1874and operated out of the basement of the original Seminarybuilding, with Francis Goddard as the first postmaster. Hewas succeeded by Mr. James R. Thomas in 1876. Mr.Thomas’ wife, Jeannette, was the St. Mary’s SeminaryPrincipal from 1872 until her death in 1881. Miss AnnieElizabeth Thomas (later Lilburn) was postmistress from1885-1895, and then Miss Laurel Langley from 1895 through1900. Both of these women were principals at the Seminaryduring their time handling the mail. The connection betweenthree successive Seminary principals and the post officesuggests that the post office was housed at the Seminaryprior to 1900 (Fausz 1990:47-48; Hammett 1990:152,208).A small frame outbuilding on church property behind theRectory, which existed into the 1930s but no longer stands,may have been an early overnight house for the mail carrierswho delivered mail to St. Mary’s City from the post officesat Great Mills or Ridge. By 1920, the St. Mary’s City postoffice was still located in the basement of the Seminary.When Calvert Hall burned down in 1924, the small buildingbehind the rectory was temporarily used as a post officeuntil Calvert Hall was rebuilt (Burwell 1996). Apparentlythere was desire among local citizens to have a post officeseparate from the school building. Mrs. Ethel Goddard hadassumed the job of postmistress in 1923. The vestry minutesof 1933 mention that Mrs. Goddard had asked permissionto put a post office “across the road on church property”(Vestry Minutes 1933:180). This location was probably inthe vicinity of the present White House and Parish Hall. In1929, James and Ethel Goddard had obtained the Lilburnparcel along Brome’s Wharf Road, where the White HouseTrinity Church Rectory (constructed 1918, ca.1920 (Trinity Church Archives).Parish House (1928) ca. 1962, following1950s renovations.Page 2-15

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008now stands (Haugaard 2007; St. Mary’s County LandRecords 1929, JMM6:483; 1935, J9:146; Whitmore andKeen 1981:10). The Goddards formally sold part of thisproperty to the Seminary on February 25, 1935, and on thesame day the Seminary leased a tiny parcel to the MarylandBoard of Public Works for the Freedom of Consciencemonument. A plat made at this time shows a small detachedpost office located across the road immediately northwestof the piece of land leased to the state (St. Mary’s CountyLand Records 1935:J9:146-147; 158-159). This post officewas still on land owned by the Seminary, so it is unclearwhen Mrs. Goddard’s original arrangement with the churchworked out, but at a later date the small building was movedto the site of the current post office on church propertyfacing Rt. 5. This change may have occurred ca. 1935.Mrs. Goddard was the postmistress at St. Mary’s City until1962. In 1965, Trinity built the modern St. Mary’s City PostOffice on the same site, and still rents the building to theU.S. Postal Service (Fletcher 1992; Hammond 1990:208;Haugaard et al. 2007:18).The last building to be erected on church property inrecent times was the Mulberry Shoppe, located betweenthe Rectory and the Parish House. This one-story framebuilding is a former tobacco stripping shed. It was originallylocated at Cross Manor, near St. Inigoes, and was donatedto the church in 1978 to use as a new colonial-themed giftshop. The building was moved to its current site on theback of a wagon pulled by a tractor, and parishioners andother volunteers converted it to a shop and landscapedthe area around it with an herb garden. Today, local craftsSt. Mary’s City Post Office, ca. 1947 (Courtesy and products are sold during part of the year. Among theof SMCM Archives).items displayed at the shop in 1990 was a tree root foundin the rectory attic. State forestry experts believe the rootwas from the long-vanished giant mulberry tree beneathwhich Leonard Calvert and the local tribes made their firstland transaction. The tree was cut down by the parish in1883, and its site is now marked by the Calvert Monument(Sandidge 1988; Thomas 1990).Page 2-16St. Mary’s Female SeminaryFormal education in Maryland’s first two centuries wasgenerally a privilege enjoyed only by children of thewealthy, and only rarely by females. Although Jesuitschools had existed during the Calvert period in the 1600s,the primary educational institutions after 1700 were smallprivate academies and colleges for male students of elitebackground. King William’s School, founded at Annapolisin 1696 to provide a classical preparatory education to thesons of the Anglican gentry, eventually served as a model

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008for regional “free schools” in different Maryland counties.These schools were publicly funded but charged tuition,and were established under an act passed in 1723. After anew law was passed in 1728, public funding came from theproceeds of a poll tax on “All Negroes” in Maryland. Sincenearly all blacks in the colony at this time were enslaved, thistax presumably was paid by their owners (Fausz 1990:26;Hammett 1990:294; Moody 2007). The St. Mary’s CountyFree School merged in 1774 with its counterparts in Charlesand Prince George’s Counties to form the Charlotte HallSchool in northern St. Mary’s County. Charlotte Hall School,which operated until 1976, was an important precedent forother institutions, for it evinced strong moral and financialsupport from its board of wealthy trustees, it successfullyemployed a boarding-school model for the first time in itsregion, and it demonstrated that even a rural, remote areacould support a public institution of higher learning. Still,institutions to educate females were rare and, in the South,usually affiliated with a religious denomination. A Catholicrenaissance in Maryland led to the establishment of ahandful of Catholic schools for females as well as males inthe early 1800s, but these were not in St. Mary’s County.Public institutions offering education for female studentsdid not exist at all in the United States until Massachusettsestablished its first female public normal school in 1839(Fausz 1990:25-28).St. Mary’s County in the 1830s was a remote, rural,economically depressed region, too poor to support evenone financial institution and largely overlooked by the stategovernment. Maryland’s Bicentennial in 1834 passed withno commemoration of St. Mary’s City as the birthplace of thestate, and what little remained of the old city was forgottenby most. In 1838, however, things changed when JohnPendleton Kennedy published a popular novel, Rob of theBowl: A Legend of St. Inigoe’s, a fictional account of life incolonial St. Mary’s City, which cast new light on the Calvertsand the history of Maryland’s founding. Kennedy’s work,drawing on rare historic documents, generated considerableinterest statewide in the St. Mary’s City site and what littleremained of the first city (Fausz 1990:28-29).In early 1840, the three St. Mary’s County representatives tothe Maryland Assembly, Col. William R. Coad, Col. James T.Blackistone, and Dr. Joseph F. Shaw, capitalized on this newattention in an attempt to stimulate progress and improveeducational opportunities in the county. They introduceda bill proposing the establishment of a state-funded publicfemale seminary at St. Mary’s City to serve as a livingmonument to Maryland’s founders and their achievements,with a keen awareness of history and an aim to provide aPage 2-17

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008reportedly constructed from old State House bricks. Dailyexercise and summertime swims in the river were partof the school routine, and the students’ activities wereclosely monitored by the teachers and principal (Fausz1990:33;36-38).Although the building was complete, the school was notyet organized or staffed. The three original trustees, Col.Cornelius Combs, Dr. Caleb Jones, and John White Bennett,selected ten additional men to join them as school trustees.By and large, the group was made up of prominent and wellto-dogentlemen of St. Mary’s County. Subcommittees wereestablished to formulate operational policies and rules forgovernance of the Board of Trustees. The Board convenedin early 1846 at a meeting which is remembered as one ofthe most important in the school’s history. Along with makingplans for furnishing the school, hiring a faculty of three,and determining tuition rates, fees, and coursework, thetrustees determined the school’s basic mission and values:to provide an excellent liberal-arts education in competitionwith the finest female seminaries in the state; to make thiseducation available to as many students as possible bykeeping tuition lower than at other schools; and to espousethe practice of religious tolerance and nonsectarianism,although the practice of Christianity was “encouraged.” Notlong afterward, the tolerance principle was interpreted intoa policy that called for an equal distribution of Catholics,Episcopalians, and Methodists among the teachers andtrustees (Fausz 1990:33-35).Side view of Seminary showing early twentiethcentury secondary portico, 1923 (Courtesyof SMCM Archives).St. Mary’s Female Seminary formally opened in earlyOctober 1846 with three teachers and no more than tenstudents. As with many fledgling educational institutions,its early years were difficult. The school was apparentlyclosed for three academic years in 1855-1858, and in late1857, the remaining trustees asked the General Assemblyto close and sell the school (Fausz 1990:40-41).St. Mary’s Seminary was saved only through the interventionof the General Assembly, which passed an Act to Preservethe Existence of the St. Mary’s Female Seminary onFebruary 24, 1858. Fourteen new trustees were appointedto reorganize and reopen the school. Although records oftheir proceedings were lost to fire, it is known that the schoolreopened in fall 1858, and that the trustees unsuccessfullyattempted to relocate a French school from Baltimore to St.Mary’s City to boost enrollment and prestige. Somewhatexaggerated advertising in the next years trumpeted theschool’s group of accomplished faculty, although in realitystaffers were few and turnover of principals occurred almostyearly. Little is known of how the school fared during thePortrait of Theodora Anderson Norris, a studentat St. Mary’s Seminary in the early 1850s(Fausz 1990:25).Page 2-19

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008Civil War years, although it apparently did hold classesduring some of that difficult time (Fausz 1990:41-44).View of Seminary and frame Annex on left,1898 (Courtesy of SMCM Archives).View of Seminary and School Building, 1923(Courtesy of SMCM Archives).In the late 1860s, as part of the creation of Maryland’s publicschool system, the State made appropriations to relievethe Seminary from debt and make needed repairs, butmost importantly, began providing $2,500 annual fundingin 1868, thus ensuring its financial stability and continuedexistence. This decisive movement finally set the schoolon its permanent course, and assurance of its solvencyallowed it to come into its own at long last. The student bodybegan to expand due to the state funding, which providedten full three-year scholarships, and attendance rose from33 students in 1871 to 50 in 1899. During this same period,the faculty rose from four to six. The first formal diplomawas issued in 1874, and in subsequent years, increasingnumbers of students completed a full course of study andwere officially graduated (Fausz 1990:44-48; Hammett1990:340).Two decades of stability and progress resulted in the firstexpansions of the physical plant since the school’s initialconstruction. Initial efforts during the late 1880s includeda new roof, furnace, and exterior paint for the Seminary;repairs to the outbuildings; a new artesian well; and terracingof the riverbank. By 1890, it was clear that more space wasneeded for student activities, and the trustees obtained anappropriation of $1,000 from the General Assembly to build anew frame hall on the river side of the Seminary. This building,called “the Annex,” was the school’s first assembly hall, tobe used for athletics and events, and was first used for theJune 1892 commencement ceremony. However, a decadeof continuing rises in enrollment meant that more space wassoon needed. The Trustees sought another appropriationin 1900 and in 1902, were awarded $8,000 to erect a brickbuilding with a first-floor assembly hall and dormitory roomsabove. Due to cost considerations, a scaled-down versionof the building was ultimately constructed, and the frameAnnex was moved 100 feet west so that its site could be usedfor the new two-story brick building. Known as the SchoolBuilding, the new structure housed a study hall and threeclassrooms on its first floor, with dormitory rooms upstairs.Designed by architect George Corbitt of Washington, D.C.and completed in 1903 by local builder Elias C. Milburn, itstood directly against the riverfront end wall of the Seminary.At the same time, the brick portals that front on the roadwere added, and an iron gate was installed between themin 1905 (Fausz 1990:50-52; Hammett 1990:341-342). Awindmill had been added in 1900 to pump water from thenew artesian well (Hammett 1990:342).Page 2-20

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008Ruins of Seminary, January 1924 (Courtesy ofSMCM Archives).Frame T-Barracks brought from Ft. Meade tohouse Seminary students in 1924 (Courtesyof SMCM Archives).Miss France was at the midpoint of her first year when theoriginal Seminary building, caught fire on the evening ofSaturday, January 5, 1924. The school was in recess, andthe fire was first spotted by Rev. C. W. Whitmore, rector ofTrinity Church. Despite the efforts of Rev. Whitmore andtwo school maintenance workers, the fire spread from thebasement furnace room and engulfed the building. Thefire was fought by local citizens, who had been summonedby the Whitmore family . Other volunteers attempted toremove what furnishings, books, and records they couldfrom the first floor. Rev. Whitmore was injured, but therewere no deaths or other injuries. By morning, the oldSeminary was a smoking shell, and most of its contents hadbeen lost. The books and furnishings retrieved from thebuilding were moved into the Music Hall, and Miss Franceand the trustees met to discuss their next moves, uncertainwhether the State would allow the school to rebuild andcontinue. Fortunately, Gov. Albert Ritchie soon authorizedconstruction of temporary housing on campus, and all 60students returned a few weeks later to complete the year.Thirty students were housed in a crude wooden buildingcalled The Barracks, which also contained the kitchen,dining hall, and bathroom facilities. This building wasactually a repurposed temporary frame T-shaped militarybarracks from Fort Meade, which was brought in by bargeand erected near the vegetable garden (Fausz 1990:62-66;Haugaard 2007). The remainder of the students boardedwith local families, including former principal Mrs. AnnieElizabeth Thomas Lilburn and Rev. Whitmore, who housedMiss France and 24 students in the Trinity Church Rectorythroughout the spring semester. Community and politicalsupport coalesced to help the school survive the crisis, andnot one student left the school (Fausz 1990:62-66; Haugaard2007; Whitmore and Keen 1981:9-11).Front of Barracks, 1924 (Courtesy of SMCMArchives).Page 2-22By the end of January, a $100,000 state appropriation,approximately half of what was needed, had been approvedto rebuild Calvert Hall on its old foundations. A $20,000insurance payment provided additional money, and afundraising campaign spearheaded by alumnae andprominent Baltimore citizens helped to raise the remaining$100,000 needed. Nostalgia and patriotic fervor to restorethe Monument School in time for the state Tercentennial,as well as the clever idea to offer donors the opportunityto furnish dormitory rooms for $200 apiece in honor ofloved ones, made the fundraising campaign a success.As fundraising proceeded, the St. Mary’s trustees securedthe services of Stanislaus Russell, a Baltimore architect,to design the reconstruction, and Hastings and Parson ofSalisbury was chosen as the general contractor. Work beganin June to clear the site and salvage bricks for reuse. The

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008cornerstone of the new building was laid on August 3, 1924,but the students, faculty, and staff endured another year oftemporary facilities while construction went on. The newbuilding was completed, and promptly occupied, just twoweeks before the end of the spring term in 1925. Standinga full three stories tall atop an English basement, thereconstructed Calvert Hall had all the modern conveniencesand was furnished by generous donors with a number ofvaluable antiques and artworks. The riverfront wing wascompleted a few years later, in 1929 (Fausz 1990:66-71;Whitmore and Keen 1981:9-11).Following the fire, the remains of the old stable behindCalvert Hall soon became the new site of an Alumnae Lodge.Constructed of brick salvaged from the stable, some of whichreportedly had come from the old State House of 1676, theColonial Revival-style Alumnae Lodge was paid for by a$2,000 gift from the Alumnae Association and dedicated inJuly of 1924 (Fausz 1990:68,71). The alumnae graciouslyloaned the building to the current Seminary students duringthe 1924-1925 school year, to alleviate the housing crunchuntil Calvert Hall was rebuilt (Fausz 1990:68; Whitmoreand Keen 1981:11). The temporary Barracks that hadhoused the students and dining hall during the rebuildingperiod was dismantled and its lumber recycled to build aone-story frame cottage for the Seminary caretaker and hisfamily. The cottage was originally located between CalvertHall and the Alumnae Lodge, with a mulberry tree growingnearby (Fausz 1990:80-82; Haugaard 2007; Haugaard etal. 2007:12, 14). At the bottom of the hill were a new pumphouse, chicken coop, and garage, also built from the surpluslumber. These frame buildings were all documented witha map and photographs in a 1931 insurance policy on theSeminary (Henry M. Warfield-Roloson Co. 1931).With rebuilding behind them and debt once again hoveringover the Seminary, Miss France and the trustees hit upona radical new direction for the struggling institution: raise itsstandards to incorporate a junior college level. In the fall of1926, St. Mary’s Female Seminary offered a Junior CollegeDivision, placing it at the forefront of a nationwide juniorcollege movement. It was the first junior college in Maryland,and the only public, all-female junior college in the country.The new division promised aspiring freshman women theopportunity for an excellent and relatively inexpensive juniorcollege education in a congenial setting with individualizedattention and guidance. This move eventually proved thekey to ensuring the Seminary’s long-term survival. Already,it had outlasted most female seminaries of its peer group.By the fall of 1928, the renamed St. Mary’s Seminary-JuniorCollege was fully operational. The first four women toFurnished memorial dormitory room in CalvertHall, ca. 1925 (Fausz 1990:69).Rebuilt Calvert Hall, 1931 (Courtesy of SMCMArchives).Riverfront wing added in 1929, view from1968 (Courtesy of SMCM Archives).Page 2-23

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008receive degrees graduated in 1930 (Fausz 1990:73-76).Alumnae Lodge, following completion in 1924(Courtesy of SMCM Archives).The school now offered two separate high school curriculumtracks (a general curriculum and a college preparatorycurriculum), a one-year secretarial studies program for highschool graduates, and an associate’s degree program.. Withina decade, 95 different junior college courses were availableand students could group them into concentrations, withconcentration choices depending on whether they intendedto go on to complete a B.A. elsewhere or to complete theireducation with an A.A. Courses offered included an arrayof liberal arts subjects, as well as more practical subjectslike home economics and business, as was offered at manyjunior colleges. The expansion of the school’s academicofferings intensified the need for highly qualified instructorsto teach more advanced courses, and most teachersrecruited after this time had at least some graduate trainingif not a master’s degree. The influx of instructors with highcredentials resulted in St. Mary’s Seminary’s high schoolprogram finally receiving formal accreditation from theAssociation of Colleges and Secondary Schools of theMiddle States and Maryland in 1930. In 1931, the highschool program was ranked as a First Class, First GroupHigh School by Maryland’s Department of Education (Fausz1990:73-76).Rare 1931 view of Caretaker’s Cottage on itsoriginal site near Garden of Remembrance;this building was moved in 1935 and is nowknown as the White House (Courtesy ofSMCM Archives).View of frame outbuildings that stood nearsite of current Boathouse in 1931 (Courtesy ofSMCM Archives).Page 2-24As the 1934 Tercentenary of Maryland’s foundingapproached, St. Mary’s Seminary was a key part of theplanning, and a number of improvements were made to thecampus with this event in mind. Anticipating large crowds,unprecedented publicity, and belated recognition of thehistoric significance of the school’s location, the schoolgeared up to present its best face to the visitors. In 1927, thesenior class of the high school gave a cast-iron arched signthat was mounted over the gates by Calvert Hall. In early1929, the school trustees finally secured an appropriationto build the planned perpendicular riverside wing of CalvertHall, which was completed as the school year began. TheMaryland seal and the white paint treatment on the mainportico were added at this time as well, and the new wingwas fortunately finished just six weeks before the stockmarket crash of October 24 th , 1929 plunged the country intothe Great Depression. Beginning in 1923, the Seminaryused a Delco generator, housed in a small brick buildingnext to St. Mary’s Hall, to provide limited electrical serviceon campus. Use of a generator for electricity was standardpractice in rural Southern Maryland at that time. In May of1931, the school was connected to “city current” through theCalvert County lines of the Eastern Shore Power Company.Public electrical service was not available to most St.Mary’s County residents until 1937, when the Southern

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008Maryland Tri-County Cooperative Association was formedas a new public utility, so the Seminary was technologicallyahead of most of its surrounds. The 1923 brick generatorbuilding was remodeled as a chemistry lab (Fausz 1990:81;Hammett 1990:479; St. Mary’s College Catalog 1931:11).A new water tower was built behind Calvert Hall. A finaladdition to the campus was the Garden of Remembrance,a landscaped oasis which the Alumnae Association createdon the site of the school vegetable garden in 1934. Thegarden was designed by Mark Shoemaker of the stateagricultural extension at College Park (Fausz 1990:80-82;Haugaard 2007; Haugaard et al. 2007:16).Despite the fiscal difficulties of a national economic crisis,the school was soon able to make its first new land purchasesince 1845. In the early 1930s, it secured a small parcel ofland, across the Brome’s Wharf Road from Calvert Hall andthe Alumnae House that had belonged to former principalMrs. Annie Elizabeth Thomas Lilburn, who died in 1932.The Lilburn house burned down ca. 1929 and was not rebuilt(Haugaard et al. 2007:9,15; Whitmore and Keen 1981:10),so the lot was unoccupied. James and Ethel Goddard boughtthis half-acre parcel in 1929 and formally conveyed it to theSeminary on February 25 th , 1935 (St. Mary’s County LandRecords 1929, JMM6:483; 1935, J9:146-147), althoughit appears that the school took control of the property asearly as 1932. Part of this property was leased to the StateTercentenary Commission on the same date to provide thesite for the “Freedom of Conscience” monument by HansSchuler (St. Mary’s County Land Records 1935, J9:158).In 1935, after the Tercentenary, this property would alsobe the new site of the Caretaker’s Cottage, later knownas the White House, which was moved across the streetto the former Lilburn lot (Haugaard 2007; Haugaard et al.2007:9,15-18).Gateway arch given by Class of 1927 (Courtesyof SMCM Archives).Detail of Maryland seal on Calvert Hall portico,1967 (Courtesy of SMCM Archives).The Maryland Tercentenary celebration on June 15-16,1934, was two days of pomp, ceremony and excitementas tens of thousands of visitors converged on St. Mary’sCity. Calvert Hall, quickly evacuated of students after finals,was converted to a tourist hotel and the base of operationsfor the organizers and the Governor. The present Route 5alignment was completed in time for the arrival of the crowds(Fausz 1990:86-88). St. Mary’s Seminary-Junior College,assisted by the D.A.R. and other groups, provided most ofthe hospitality and implemented most of the plans made bythe state commission (Haugaard et al. 2007:13-18).In 1935, St. Mary’s Seminary-Junior College followed upon a suggestion made by Mark Shoemaker, the landscapedesigner who had created the Garden of Remembrance,Garden of Rememrance, as seen in 1939(Courtesy of SMCM Archives).Page 2-25

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008to relocate the Caretaker’s Cottage. Shoemaker felt thecottage stood too close to the garden and detracted fromthe view. The school hired a WPA crew to move the houseacross Brome’s Wharf Road to the former Lilburn property.A new foundation was built and the house was rolled downthe hill to its new site over a three-day period in November1935 (Haugaard 2007; Haugaard et al. 2007:17-18).Hans Schuler’s Freedom of Consciencemonument (1934), as seen in 1967 (CourtesySMCM Archives)Aerial view of Tercentenary festivities, June1934 (Courtesy of SMCM Archives)Six years after the Tercentenary, St. Mary’s Seminarycelebrated another major milestone: its own centennialanniversary. A series of special events and exhibitionsstretched the festivities into 1941, capping off the celebrationwith two major gifts from the state. The first was a new$85,000 Gymnasium and Recreation Building behind CalvertHall, designed by Baltimore architect Bernard Evander andcompleted by Enactment Day, March 21, 1941. The secondwas full accreditation of the Junior College division on April17, 1941 (Fausz 1990:86-88).In 1935, St. Mary’s Female Seminary-Junior College wasreorganized as a four-year junior college program, and by1937-1938 was providing instruction for high school juniorsand seniors (Lower Division), and college freshmen andsophomores (Upper Division). St. Mary’s was the onlyfour-year junior college in Maryland and one of only 25 tooffer such a program in the U.S. On April 17, 1941, St.Mary’s Seminary Junior College received accreditationfrom the Maryland Department of Education, affirming thatthe school had cemented its place in the world of moderneducation while still preserving its most cherished traditions.The successful reorganization soon enhanced the school’sreputation, quieted its critics, and made it a higher priorityfor state funding. Since 1937, it has been included inthe regular budget along with all other Maryland publiceducational institutions (Fausz 1990:77-80).Despite the afterglow of the centennial, World War IIplunged St. Mary’s Seminary Junior College into a stretchof difficult years, and the war had surprising impacts on thetiny community of St. Mary’s City. The outbreak of war soonbrought dramatic change to sleepy southern Maryland.In September 1941, the federal government chose 6,400acres of farmland along the Patuxent River as the locationof a new Naval Air Station and 770 acres at St. Inigoes asan auxiliary airfield, known as Webster Field. Both siteswere within ten miles of the Seminary. Construction ofthese major installations began the following April, andnew infrastructure, including a railroad line, countywide busGymnasium completed in 1941; now known asservice, and new paved roads to Waldorf, soon followedKent Hall (Courtesy of SMCM Archives).(Fausz 1990:90-93).Page 2-26

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008The trustees selected Miss Anna May Russell, an energetic,highly qualified young teacher from St. Mary’s County, asthe next President of St. Mary’s Female Seminary JuniorCollege. A graduate of Western Maryland College with amaster’s degree from Columbia and additional graduatework at other universities, May Russell was an experiencedteacher and aviator, and brought enthusiasm, problemsolvingability, and fresh ideas to her new position. Afteraccepting the job in July 1948 and taking up residencein Alumnae Lodge, she immediately set about pursuingshort-term goals of remaking the school as a two-yearcoeducational junior college.Expansion of campus facilities was part of PresidentRussell’s intent from early in her tenure. In her first yearshe proposed remodeling Calvert Hall’s interior to createmore dormitory space and erecting a new classroombuilding, although this did not occur immediately. In May1950 she began preparing for a greater future at St. Mary’sby acquiring the first sizable piece of land since the school’sfounding. A four-acre parcel between Rt. 5 and the TrinityChurch rectory was purchased from trustee J. SpenceHoward and his wife Jeannette, principal heiress of theBrome family landholdings in St. Mary’s City. The schoolsecured a $500,000 appropriation and soon constructed twonew buildings on the parcel. Margaret Brent Hall was built in1951 to provide faculty housing (previously, many teachersresided in Calvert Hall with their students). The much largerAnne Arundel Hall was built in 1954 as the school’s firstbuilding designed exclusively for use as classrooms (Fausz1990:100-102). In 1953, Calvert Hall received its currentname after nearly 30 years of being known as “the mainbuilding” or “the Seminary” (Board of Trustees 1953:March28).In May 1956, St. Mary’s acquired 119.63 acres in the firstof several transactions that were to take place over thefollowing 13 years. This $118,000 parcel, purchased fromthe defunct Slavic Farmers Association of Maryland, waslocated on the opposite side of Rt. 5, over half a mile north ofthe original campus. During the 1959-1960 school year, theschool hired the Olmsted Brothers landscape architecturefirm to design a master plan for the expanded campus.The firm recommended that the school be split into a northcampus and a south campus. The new North Campus wouldcontain a library, a dining facility, an auditorium, an infirmary,up to four new dormitories, and a field house and athleticfields. The existing South Campus buildings would be usedas academic and classroom space (Fausz 1990:107-108).In the meantime, the trustees and President Russellpresented Annapolis with a Ten-Year Development Plan inPortrait of President Anna May Russell, 1969(Courtesy of SMCM Archives).Historical pageant, Birth of Tolerance,” at St.Mary’s Seminary-Junior College, 1950 (Courtesyof SMCM Archives).Historical pageant, Birth of Tolerance,” at St.Mary’s Seminary-Junior College, 1950 (Courtesyof SMCM Archives).Page 2-27

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008View from East Campus in 1967, showing1950s buildings in backround (Courtesy ofSMCM Archives).Queen Anne Hall, consructed 1964-1965(Courtesy of SMCM Archives).1959, seeking funding to expand the college, with PresidentRussell still harboring the intent to eventually convert theschool into a four-year college. The proposal stagnateduntil shortly after the trustees openly announced their owndetermination to have a four-year public college in SouthernMaryland. Local political support for this idea grew. In acreative political move, President Russell and the schoolconvened a Governor’s Day in Calvert Hall in November1961, at which 100 Maryland politicians gathered to honorGovernor J. Millard Tawes, reflect upon the site’s history, anddiscuss the future of St. Mary’s. Soon afterward, the Tawesadministration made an unexpected allocation of $890,000in the January 1962 supplemental state budget to supportdevelopment on the North Campus, including constructionof one dormitory.However, before the funding was released to the school inJune of the following year, another land acquisition opportunityarose. Jeannette Brome Howard, whose family still ownedmuch of the land around the original campus, offered tosell a 38-acre tract to the school. This key parcel, locatedmostly east of the old campus and Rt. 5, included almostan acre of riverfront property and formed a geographicallink to the North Campus. With the Governor’s support, thefunding legislation was amended to permit construction onthe adjacent East Campus instead of the more remote NorthCampus, and the land purchase was made in July 1963.Gov. Tawes, an ardent supporter of public education inMaryland, also approved a name change on April 17, 1964,to St. Mary’s College of Maryland, although this was not yetan approval of the school’s hoped-for conversion from juniorcollege to four-year college. It did, however, signal that theschool’s future was to be a coeducational college.Construction of Somerset Hall, 1968 (Courtesyof SMCM Archives).Page 2-28Construction began in 1964 on Queen Anne’s Hall, and in1965, a development committee of trustees and PresidentRussell acquired another 93 acres adjoining the previouspurchases. Also in 1964, the school received the giftof a Boathouse from the Alumni Association, which wasconstructed on the new waterfront property and soonbecame the nucleus of a thriving sailing and water sportsprogram. 1965 proved to be a benchmark year as anotherlarge appropriation of $932,000 was granted, the schoolbecame fully coeducational with the first male studentstaking up residence in Calvert Hall, and Queen Anne’s Hallopened as a women’s dormitory on St. John’s Pond, officiallyinaugurating the East Campus.Both money and new buildings were plentiful in the followingyears. Between 1965 and 1970 seven new buildingswere constructed: Dorchester Hall (men’s dormitory)and Charles Hall (student center and dining hall) in 1966,

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008Talbot Hall (infirmary) in 1968, Baltimore Hall (library) andSomerset Hall (gymnasium) in 1969, and two coeducationaldormitories, Prince George’s Hall and Caroline Hall, in1970. The school also made two additional acquisitions. In1969 the Cobb property, at the corner of Fishers Road andRt. 5, was purchased as a new residence for the president.In 1974 the college obtained the Chapman property foradministrator housing. This building later served as studenthousing and became the Admissions Office in 1987 (Fausz1990:108-111,141; Ryner 2007).During this period, new names had been given to olderbuildings on the original campus. Calvert Hall had beennamed in 1953, but the Music Hall and the Gymnasiumhad not. Beginning in 1961, the board of trustees decidedthat assigning names for these two buildings would beappropriate and in keeping with the proposed practice ofnaming new buildings after Maryland counties. In 1963, theMusic Hall was renamed St. Mary’s Hall and the Gymnasiumwas renamed Kent Hall (Board of Trustees 1963: September9; St. Mary’s College Catalog 1964).As buildings rose on the East Campus, school administratorsand a handful of outside consultants carefully plannedthe reorganization of the school’s academic program intoa four-year baccalaureate curriculum, setting policiesand designing majors in art, biology, English, history, andmathematics. Their efforts were rewarded when the statedeemed St. Mary’s College ready for formal approval tobecome a four-year senior college on July 8, 1966. Publicityof the approval was not widely reported until summer 1967,and that fall’s freshman class would be the first to graduatefrom the four-year St. Mary’s College of Maryland.Since the school had graduated its final associate’s degreeclass in 1968, no commencements were held again until 1971.In lieu of commencement, the school trustees sponsored atribute day in the spring of 1969 to honor President Russelland her unforgettable contributions to the college. She hadbegun her tenure in 1948 at a combination high school andjunior college, which had 73 female students, five buildingson eight acres of campus, 16 employees, and an operatingbudget of $66,841. Upon her departure in 1969, she left afour-year, coeducational senior college with 630 students,49 faculty and staff members, 17 buildings on a campusof 285 acres, and an annual operating budget of over $1million (Fausz 1990:112-116).Dr. J. Renwick Jackson was selected as the next presidentof St. Mary’s College of Maryland by the board of trusteesin March 1969. An ordained Presbyterian minister withPage 2-29

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008St. Mary’s College of Maryland Campus Map, 1972 (Fausz 1990:122)a Ph.D. in history, Jackson had experience as a teacher,administrator, pastor, and writer in a variety of settings. Thefirst male to assume the top post since 1846, he was also thefirst college president to bring his family to the school. TheJacksons were the first occupants of the newly purchasedPresident’s House, and the Alumni Lodge, which had housedPresident Russell during her tenure, became the campusguest house once again (Fausz 1990:117-118).Very importantly for the school’s future, Dr. Jackson helpedestablish the first permanent endowment, called TheFoundation, in 1972. Provisional accreditation from theMiddle States Association was attained in 1972, althoughSt. Mary’s was criticized for a lack of direction. By the mid-1970s the political activism of the 1960s student body gaveway to a more conventional atmosphere, and the schoolstabilized. Through these years of change, the school hadclung to its goal to remain a small, affordable, liberal artscollege, and student enrollment and retention increased(Fausz 1990:119-131).Page 2-30During Dr. Jackson’s tenure as President, the Collegedeveloped a working relationship with the St. Mary’s CityCommission, and a number of land-use planning initiatives

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008and cooperative archeological investigations and educationalprograms were undertaken. Beginning in 1966, a few yearsbefore Jackson’s arrival, the College worked closely with theCommission to accommodate some of the first archeologicaldigs on campus and plan for the acquisition and use ofsensitive sites within the campus and surrounding area. ARt. 5 bypass that would avoid the historic areas was jointlyproposed by the College and Commission in 1966, but waseliminated from the state’s Twenty Year Plan in 1976. Whenthe State House was closed in 1969 for renovations, theCommission moved into office space in Calvert Hall offeredby the College. This arrangement continued for five years,and the Commission’s conservation lab also was housedin Calvert Hall beginning in 1970. Meanwhile, PresidentJackson maintained his own office quarters off-campus.The Commission moved to its own buildings in December1974 (Haugaard et al. 2007:22-25). For more details onthe activities of the Commission, please see next section onHistoric St. Mary’s City.The next major building to be constructed at St. Mary’sCollege was a $4 million fine arts center, MontgomeryHall. Completed and dedicated in 1980, it was nicknamed“Kennedy Center South,” and has served as a dynamicvenue for the visual and performing arts. In early 1982,President Jackson resigned. Dr. Richard D. Weigle servedas interim President for the 1982-1983 school year. Hewas followed by Dr. Edward T. Lewis, who served from July1983 until 1996. Dr. Lewis’ priorities included fundraisingand curriculum development, and under his leadership thecurriculum was significantly overhauled and the school’sreputation improved significantly.In 1986, the College submitted a ten-year, $29 million MasterFacilities Plan, which was approved and funded by the state.This plan resulted in renovations to Anne Arundel and KentHalls, and construction of a group of new buildings east ofRt. 5 to accommodate the increased population of students.These included a Townhouse Complex of apartmentstylesuites organized along a green and the Daugherty-Palmer Commons (1987); an elegant new addition to theschool library (1989-1990); and a new science building,Schaefer Hall (1994). The siting of Schaefer Hall becameproblematic when it was discovered that its proposed siteoccupied a sensitive archeological area called GallowsGreen. After further archeological investigation and muchdebate, the building site was moved to the North Campus,and Schaefer Hall was completed in 1994. The St. Mary’sCollege Foundation also experienced its first major growthin the Lewis years with a rise in annual giving and othercontributions, and a Capital Campaign was kicked off in 1990Page 2-31

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008to raise funds for future development (Fausz 1990:136-144,Hammett 1990:348-349; St. Mary’s College 1999, 2006).In 1992, St. Mary’s College of Maryland was designatedas Maryland’s Public Honors College, a recognition of theexcellence in education it has provided to Maryland studentsand a further boost to its reputation. Dr. Jane MargaretO’Brien became President in 1996 and continues in thatposition today. The years since 1992 have seen additionalgrowth and considerable residential construction on theNorth Campus at St. Mary’s College. A new housing facility,Townhouse Crescent, was added in 1994. The CampusCenter adjacent to the previously expanded library wasexpanded and renovated in 2000 (St. Mary’s College 1999,2006).In 1996, St. Mary’s College engaged in a master planningeffort and prepared a ten-year Campus Facilities Plan in 1999.This plan involved construction of several new buildings onthe North Campus and the renovation or replacement of someexisting facilities. Early phases of the plan’s implementationincluded construction of new housing facilities (Lewis Quadin 2001 and Waring Commons in 2003), a new entrance roadfrom Rt. 5 to the Daugherty-Palmer Commons intersection,remodeling of the Calvert Hall basement level to housearchives space, a new water tower off Mattapany Road,construction of a new telecommunications duct bank on theNorth Campus, and renovations in Queen Anne Hall. TheSomerset Gymnasium was renovated and expanded into thenew Athletics and Recreation Center in 2005. GoodpasterHall, a new academic building for the chemistry, psychology,and educational studies departments, was completedin 2007. Construction of the River Center buildings, aprivately funded two-building facility to house the sailingand rowing programs as well as program and storage spacefor the St. Mary’s River began in 2007 to replace the 1964Boathouse. The Waring Commons housing expansionwas completed in 2007, and the same fall, construction ofa new Administration Building was initiated. Other capitalprojects proposed in upcoming years include a new Musicand Auditorium Building and renovations to the theater inMontgomery Hall (St. Mary’s College 1999, 2006, 2007).Page 2-32A supplemental facet was added to this plan in 2000 withthe development of the Maryland Heritage Project, aninnovative joint program between St. Mary’s College andHistoric St. Mary’s. President O’Brien and Martin Sullivan,director of Historic St. Mary’s City, developed the program,which was funded by $65 million in Maryland tobaccobuyout money and approved by Gov. Parris Glendening.The Maryland Heritage Project is intended to advance the

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008study and interpretation of Maryland’s first capital city. Itsaddition to the Campus Facilities Plan created a proposalto replace Anne Arundel Hall and Margaret Brent Hall witha village-scale quadrangle to house a Maryland HeritageInterpretive Center and an academic building housing thosefields of study most relevant to area history, such as history,international languages and culture, and anthropology. Newarcheological facilities for Historic St. Mary’s City would alsobe included in the quadrangle. An additional component ofthe Maryland Heritage Project is a new Student ServicesBuilding, to be constructed on the North Campus. CalvertHall is to be renovated as an interdisciplinary academicfacility to house academic programs relating to interpretationof the history of St. Mary’s City. Within the property heldby Historic St. Mary’s City, the Maryland Heritage Project isengaging in numerous site development projects, includinglandscaping and interpretive facilities for the Town Lands.An exhibit center for the St. John’s House archeological siteis currently under construction (Maryland Heritage Project2000; St. Mary’s College 2006).Today, the College includes a student body of 1,823 menand women and remains true to its roots as a small publicinstitution providing a strong liberal arts and scienceseducation on par with that offered by elite private schools.Steeped in history and surrounded by important artifactsof the past, it continues to educate today’s students in anatmosphere of intellectual rigor and with creative approachesto learning (St. Mary’s College [2007]).Research undertaken for the preparation of this reportrevealed some gaps in the more recent history of the College.Identification of these topics has spawned new interest indocumenting the many changes and planning initiativesof the 1960s onward, which remain largely unwritten. Itis recommended that the College prepare an update orsupplement to the 1990 Fausz history of the College, whichwould further explore the relationship between the Collegeand the Commission/Historic St. Mary’s City, the historyand efficacy of various master plans for both organizationsduring the last three decades of the twentieth century,and the context of St. Mary’s College of Maryland in theincreasingly competitive world of higher education seen atthe present time.Historic St. Mary’s CityThe original State House at St. Mary’s City was perhaps thebest-known of the many vanished buildings that once stoodon the site. Designed by John Quigley, a merchant andbuilder (Hammett 1990:45), the original State House wasPage 2-33

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008a cruciform brick building completed in 1676. A descriptionof its appearance and plan, taken from the highly detailedbuilding specifications of the Act authorizing its constructionin 1674, outlines an imposing edifice with two stories:That there be a state house and Prison built att the Cittyof S t Maries the said state house and Prison to be built ofbrick or stone with lime & sand and to be Covered withSlate or tile laid in Morter ...the Stairecase to have adoor to open out of the hall of the same demensions anda private doore to open into the garden… the windowsof the Hall which shall be Eight In number with doublelights divided with a transome att two thirds of the hightof the said windows… and the windoes of the [second]story two foote & half wide & five foote high with doublelights to be divided with a Transome att two thirds oftheir height which said windoes in the second story shallbe eight in number as in the first story directly over thewindows of the first story besides one in the second storyin the Porch … that there be three particons [partitions]in the second story as the Governour shall direct the saidparticons …the floores to be laid with quartered planckinch & quarter thick after plained either good white Okeor Pine of this Countrey … the doores all bottened withgood substanciall hinges Spring stock locks & Latchestwo Iron Casements to every window in the said housethe frames and Casements to be well laid in LynseedeOyle according to art and glased with good Cleer squareglasse…& the feete of the Rafters to Jett over a foote &halfe on each side with Basboards att the Gable Ends& Piramedes [hip roofs] the whole house to be wellplaistered within & the Roofes well sealed & the wallswell pointed without with good lime (Maryland StateArchives 2006:129-131).The building was to be 45 feet long and 38 feet wide, with aporch projection in front facing the river, and a stair tower atthe rear, with gardens behind. The first floor would containthe Assembly Room, and the second floor would containthree smaller rooms with partitions placed in locationsas directed by the Governor. Archeological evidencediscovered in 1933 indicated that the building was actuallyconstructed eight inches longer than specified in the Act(Forman 1938:286-287).Page 2-34The original State House appears to have suffered fromconstruction defects even before it was finished. HenryChandlee Forman’s research indicates that CaptainQuigley, the builder, apparently had difficulty following thespecifications and failed to deliver the building as promised.

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008Only six years after its construction in 1676, the buildingwas described as being in “ruinous” condition and needingrepairs. Just six years later, in 1688, it again was decayingand more repairs were authorized, to the point where theporch side was demolished and rebuilt. By 1694, it haddeteriorated to a condition described as “dangerous,”with the walls of the stair tower leaning out far enough torequire shoring up. In the same year the colony capital wasmoved to Annapolis, the State House became the countycourthouse (Forman 1938:287-291).After it was abandoned first as the colony capital in 1695,and then as the county courthouse sometime between 1697and 1708, the State House suffered from neglect and wasapparently in poor repair by 1720, when the governmentconveyed it to the Vestry of William and Mary Parish touse as an Anglican chapel of ease (Hammett 1990:45;Maryland General Assembly 1720; Maryland State Archives2006:131-133). The parish made alterations to the buildingby moving the primary entrance and enclosing the “porch” tocreate a space for the altar (Innis 1971). The State Housesurvived until 1829, when it was in such bad condition thatthe church, by a bare majority, voted to tear it down and usethe bricks to build a new Trinity Church nearby. This actwas reportedly controversial at the time, indicating that therewas considerable awareness of the historic significance ofthe State House. However, taking the building down andharvesting its bricks may have been seen by those in chargeas a means of preserving its historic materials, and thusintended as an act of historic preservation (Fletcher 1992;Wollon 1993:1-2).The Tercentenary CommissionSt. Mary’s City at this time was a remote, inaccessibleplace, far distant from the state capital at Annapolis. Thebicentennial of Maryland’s founding in 1834 passed withno acknowledgement of the role of St. Mary’s City and itsenvirons as the site of the earliest English settlement. In1838, however, this changed when John Pendleton Kennedypublished a bestselling novel, Rob of the Bowl: A Legendof St. Inigoe’s, which focused attention on St. Mary’s City.Kennedy’s fictional account of life in the colonial capital,drawing on rare historic documents, generated considerableinterest statewide in the St. Mary’s City site and what littleremained of the first city. This led to the founding of St.Mary’s Seminary as a public “monument school” to honorthe historic first capital city. (Fausz 1990:28-29).Increasing awareness of Maryland’s historic roots andthe significance of old St. Mary’s City prompted the stateto form a Tercentenary Commission to plan the festivitiesPage 2-35

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008surrounding the 300 th anniversary of the founding of Marylandin 1934. In 1929, the Maryland General Assembly, with theGovernor’s support, passed an Act to establish the MarylandTercentenary Commission. A committee of citizens wasappointed to consider ideas on how to commemorate theanniversary, and submitted a report on its recommendationsto the General Assembly in 1931. The General Assemblythen authorized the Commission to direct the celebration.Numerous means of commemoration were developed,including: placement of a bronze tablet at Cowes on the Isleof Wight in England to mark the origins of the Ark and Dovevoyage; placement of a memorial on St. Clement’s Island tomark the location of the colonists’ first landing in Maryland;acquisition of land in St. Mary’s City at the site of the originalMonument at original State House site, Trinity State House; building of a tercentenary memorial at St.Church Cemetery, photographed by CharlesMary’s City; establishment of a permanent governmentFenwick, 1953 (Courtesy of St. Mary’s CountyHistorical Society).commission to have custody of the memorial sites at St.Clement’s Island and St. Mary’s City; and the constructionof a memorial Hall of Records at Annapolis (Maryland StateArchives 1997).The Replica State HouseOn June 22, 1933, Susette Brome Bennett and her husbandJames Bennett, and Susette’s sister Jeannette BromeHoward and her husband J. Spence Howard, formallyconveyed a 1.18 acre parcel to the State of Maryland foruse as the site of the replica State House. This donation,made in the spirit of patriotism, came from lands inheritedfrom their father, John Thomas Brome. The Bennetts andHowards retained ownership of the adjacent Brome-HowardHouse, where the Howards continued to reside. Althoughthe original State House site was still part of the TrinityChurch cemetery, the Brome parcel was within view andmade a fine substitute. The original State House site wasactually not appropriate for construction of the memorialreplica, given the adjacent burials encroaching on the oldfoundation and the need to preserve the archeologicalremains (Forman 1938:286).Drawing and plans of Replica State House(Forman 1938).Page 2-36It was decided that the replica State House would closelyfollow the specifications set out for the original in the 1674Act which authorized its construction. Further archeologicalresearch of the foundation site in early 1933 and the useof historic building fragments, such as an old newel postpreserved from the first State House and a roof tile fromthe Governor’s Castle archeological site in St. Mary’sCity, were used to make reproduction materials. Someof these materials were provided by J. Spence Howard,a member of the Tercentenary Commission, who had an

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008extensive knowledge and appreciation of the archeologicalremnants of the ancient city. The Tercentenary Commissionretained Baltimore architects Herbert G. Crisp and JamesR. Edmunds, Jr. in association with Horace W. Peaslee ofWashington to design the replica, though some variationswere made from the original design:• the original specifications called for hipped roofs on boththe stair tower and the porch, but only the stair tower ofthe replica has a hipped roof;• shingle tiles were used for roofing instead of pantiles;and• the width of the porch projection was two feet wider inthe replica than in the original.Early view of replica State House, 1934(Maryland Tercentenary Commission 1934).In cases of discrepancies in measurements, the architectsdeferred to their own preferences (Forman 1938:286-287).All in all, however, the replica was by and large a faithfuland well-researched reconstruction, though undoubtedly farsturdier than the original, poorly-constructed State House of1676 (Forman 1938:290).The weekend of June 15-16, 1934, was packed withevents, and thousands thronged to St. Mary’s City to jointhe celebration. Dedication of the majestic iron gatesbetween the State House and Trinity Church, given bythe Society of the Ark and Dove, kicked off the festivities.Gifts, including furnishings, were presented to the StateHouse by different genealogical societies, as well as theMayor and City of Baltimore. The Freedom of Consciencemonument was dedicated as well. Both days featured amilitary parade, followed by the spectacular drama of theArk and Dove replicas sailing around Chancellor’s Point,and a pageant reenacting the landing of the Calvert partyand its interactions with the Piscataway tribe (MarylandTercentenary Commission 1934).Suburbanization and PreservationDuring the three decades following the Tercentenary, theState House and grounds had little oversight from thegovernment of Maryland. A custodian, John J. Lancaster,Sr., of St. Mary’s County, cared for the building from June1934 to July 1966 with little compensation (St. Mary’s CityCommission Annual Reports 1967:2). St. Mary’s Collegedid use the State House for special events, but it otherwiseseems to have been primarily a stop for relatively smallnumbers of tourists, as there was no on-going programof tours or events. In 1969, after the formation of the St.Mary’s City Commission as an agency to maintain the StateHouse, the General Assembly passed an Act to provideTercentenary Centennial program cover(Maryland Tercentenary Commission 1934).Page 2-37

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008a pension for Lancaster in recognition of his 34 years ofloyal service, which apparently prevented the State Housefrom being acquired by private interests during the periodof government neglect. Lancaster’s vital role in preservingthe State House was well-known to early members of theCommission, who worked tirelessly to secure his pension(Maryland General Assembly 1969; Moody 2007).Commemorative Tercentenary medals (MarylandTercentenary Commission 1934).Suburban development crept closer toward St. Mary’s Cityin the early 1960s and the expansion plans of St. Mary’sCollege were becoming a reality. Many citizens wereconcerned by the potential loss of the archeological remainsof the old St. Mary’s City in the event that the old “townlands” would be developed. In 1965, concerned interestin St. Mary’s City as an historic site had revived to a pointwhere the Governor of Maryland appointed a commissionof nine Marylanders, headed by Delegate Louise Gore ofMontgomery County, to study the feasibility of restoring St.Mary’s City.The commission interviewed government officials,historians, archeologists, and local citizens. The studycommission recommended in its 1966 report that the historicarcheological site of St. Mary’s City be preserved and restoredas a historical district “to enrich the life of our people and offuture generations” (Commission to Study the Feasibility andDesirability of Restoring Historic St. Mary’s City 1966:1-2).Gates presented in 1934 by the Society of Ark The study outlined numerous known archeological sites andand Dove, photographed by George Morgan the threats posed by residential, commercial and academicknight ca. 1937 (Courtesy of St. Mary’s County development, and described St. Mary’s City as a unique,Historical Society).unexplored resource with the potential to become a majortourist destination, thus benefiting the local economy as wellas higher educational and commemorative ideals.Seminary students in historical costume atthe State House, 1950 (Courtesy of SMCMArchives).Page 2-38The report recommended that the state establish “apermanent commission to acquire, develop, and maintainhistoric St. Mary’s City. This Commission recommendsthat there be created within the framework of the StateGovernment an agency with the special knowledge neededand personnel with the necessary experience to carry out aproject with so singular and rare a character, as well as anagency that can seek and obtain assistance and funds fromthe Federal government, foundations, educational grants,individuals, and other resources” (Commission to Study theFeasibility and Desirability of Restoring Historic St. Mary’sCity 1966:3). The Commission mapped the land it felt shouldbe acquired, and declared that a master plan be developedto govern the acquisition of land, reconstruction of a smallnumber of representative buildings, and hiring of highlycredentialed staff to oversee the work. It was mentionedthat St. Mary’s College was supportive of the proposed plan

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008and hoped to develop a cooperative working relationshipwith the permanent commission (Commission to Study theFeasibility and Desirability of Restoring Historic St. Mary’sCity 1966:3-4). Local residents, including some landownersin possession of key parcels targeted for acquisition, werealso supportive.The General Assembly found the Study Commission’sarguments convincing and effective July 1, 1966, thepermanent St. Mary’s City Commission was established(Carr [1984]; Maryland General Assembly 1973 176:238).Immediately, the commission, chaired by St. Mary’s Cityresident General Robert E. Hogaboom, a retired MarineCorps General, set about its plans. Housekeeping concerns,such as acquiring custody of the State House from thestate, occupied much of the first year. The first round ofmajor repairs to the State House, restrooms, dock, andlandscaping were planned. The first staff members werehired, including historical consultants H. Chandlee Formanand Orin Bullock. By the fall of 1967, the commission hadformulated a policy for land acquisition of the most essentialportions of the original 1,500-acre Town Lands, as well asprotection of less critical sites through zoning or easements(St. Mary’s City Commission 1967).“Birth of Tolerance” student performance,inside State House, 1950 (Courtesy of SMCMArchives).By 1968, electric heating was installed in the State Houseand brick walks had been extended around the exterior. Thenearby toilet facility, which was constructed in 1938 with acement slab roof, was improved with a gabled wood-shingledroof and an attached wooden shed to house maintenanceequipment (Tongue, Brooks & Co. 1968). Conservationtreatments were made to paintings and furnishings withinthe State House and the site’s first drinking fountain wasinstalled. Historical markers and signs were also installedaround the grounds to inform visitors about the importanceof the site. (St. Mary’s City Commission Annual Reports1968:5). A history-themed bookshop was opened. A formaleducational consortium relationship with St. Mary’s Collegeand the Smithsonian Institute was initiated. In 1968, a HUDfundedplanner, Robert L. Plavnik of Washington, D.C., wasretained to work with the staff and its new historian, Dr. LoisCarr, to formulate a Master Plan for the site. St. Mary’sCity was placed on Maryland’s Register of Historic Sitesand Landmarks and was recommended for inclusion in theNational Register (Carr [1984]).In August 1969 St. Mary’s City was recognized as a NationalHistoric Landmark. Master planning studies continuedand the first archeological dig occurred in an emergencysituation brought about by dormitory construction plans.Underwater archeology began as well, and the first HUDPage 2-39

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008Tentative mapping of ca.1678 St. Mary’s City town plan, 1974 (Miller 1988:61)Page 2-40funding grant was procured to acquire Chancellor’s Point.The commission offices moved to Calvert Hall, and staffcompleted the Master Plan in March 1970. Researchprograms were formally begun in 1970, and eventuallyexpanded to include archeological field schools, exhibitsin the State House, summer study programs, HABSdocumentation of remaining historic structures within thetown lands, a self-guided tour of St. Mary’s City, madrigaldinners and historical pageants utilizing the State Houseand grounds, and even an NEH-funded history study ofimmigration, farming, and building construction practices inthe west of England, original birthplace of the early Maryland

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008colonists. Excavations were ongoing and yielded muchinformation, resulting in establishment of the first archeologylaboratory (Carr [1984]).Further land acquisition proved more arduous thanexpected; red tape, estate settlements, and a number oflawsuits delayed the process although funding was in place.This was avoided in some cases as a number of smallparcels were donated as gifts. The Nature Conservancyoffered its support and assistance in securing more landbeginning in 1968 (St. Mary’s City Commission AnnualReports 1968:6-9). By 1970, the Commission had securedthe 3.4 acre Governor’s Field site that included Brome’sWharf, 66 acres at Chancellor’s Point, and three smallersites, giving it control of over 80 acres. In 1970, stateOpen Space funds became available to further the landacquisition program (St. Mary’s City Commission AnnualReports 1970:5-6). Acquisitions continued gradually, andby 1976, the Commission had control of 473.9 acres (St.Mary’s City Commission Annual Reports 1976:3). Landsacquired sometimes contained houses and farm buildingswhich were studied and retrofitted for various operations.Although an assertive acquisition program with a “take line”goal of 1,200 acres had been established in 1970, a 1980decision by the General Assembly limited the Commission’stotal acquisitions to 863 acres, with the stipulation that anyfurther parcels would be contiguous to what the Commissionowned (Carr [1984]; King 2007). By 1983, the Commissioncontrolled over 800 acres, with numerous historic andreproduction buildings and a new Visitor’s Center (Carr[1984]).The State House was the original base of operations forthe Commission, and had a number of functions in theearly years, before additional facilities were acquired orbuilt. Along with being the primary architectural exhibit,it served as a bookshop, visitor’s center, exhibit hall, boxoffice for ticketed special events, and, in the first year, theCommission’s office (Carr [1984]). Initially, the Commissionhired a custodian and groundskeeper to care for thebuilding after John Lancaster retired in 1966, and providedtour guides and educational materials to enhance visitorexperiences. Approximately 14,621 visitors came to the StateHouse in the commission’s first fiscal year (St. Mary’s CityCommission Annual Reports 1967:1-2). Within two years,that number had increased by 3,000, despite little publicity(St. Mary’s City Commission Annual Reports 1969:5).Wood rail fencing and a parking lot were built in 1970-1971(St. Mary’s City Commission Annual Reports 1971:6). St.Mary’s College students were trained as guides as part ofa successful docent program. Visitor numbers climbed toPage 2-41

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 200834,426 in 1973 (St. Mary’s City Commission Annual Reports1973), and 60,000 in 1979 (Carr [1984]). Completion of theVisitor’s Center in 1984 freed up the State House to be usedentirely for tours, exhibitions and special events, includingliving history enactments (Carr [1984]). Today, the StateHouse is the centerpiece of a growing reconstruction of theold St. Mary’s City and remains a focal point for historyrelatedevents and commemorations.View of entrance to reconstructed area ofHistoric St. Mary’s City town plan, 1974 (K.Farnham, 2007).As with St. Mary’s College of Maryland, Historic St. Mary’sCity would benefit from a comprehensive written historyof its existence, documenting its various plans and goalsand illustrating how it has evolved to the present time. Theinvestigations and research completed in more recent yearshas augmented and changed our knowledge of ancientSt. Mary’s City, sometimes disproving earlier theories. Assuch, a written history could also summarize the importantarcheological discoveries of the past 40 years. This wouldprovide the reader with an up-to-date secondary source onthe historic buildings, landscape, and people of ancient St.Mary’s City and on the organization charged with preservingand interpreting what remains of Maryland’s first capital.Page 2-42

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008Chapter 3:Relevant Historic ContextsINTRODUCTIONHistoric Contexts are those patterns or trends in history bywhich a specific occurrence, property, or site is understoodand its meaning (and ultimately its significance) within historyor prehistory is made clear. To determine significance withina historic context the following considerations need to bedetermined for each property:• the facet of prehistory or history of the local area or thenation that the property represents;• whether that facet of prehistory or history is significant;• whether it is a type of property that has relevance andimportance in illustrating the historic context;• how the property illustrates that history; and• whether the property possesses the physical featuresnecessary to convey the aspect of prehistory or historywithin which it is associated (Andrus 1990).HISTORIC THEMESClassicism and College Planning: 1820-1860St. Mary’s College of Maryland, founded in 1840 and knownas St. Mary’s Female Seminary until the mid-twentiethcentury,exhibits certain typical design ideals and principlesof many other college campuses that were being developedduring the same era. The most prevalent style of thisperiod revolved around a revival of the philosophical andacademic values of antiquity that were spurred on by thenewly-founded American republic. In the early 19th-century,Americans wanted to separate themselves as much aspossible from the Old World practices of monarchy andtyrannical rule. They found that classical concepts of therepublic, democracy, and education were excellent modelsfor the new country they had created. This desire for newpolitical and social order found an outlet not only in politics,but also in the physical design of the landscape and thebuildings placed upon it (Turner 1984:89-90,100).Education in Maryland in the early 1800s still was reflectiveof a southern plantation economy, with private schoolingavailable to sons of the wealthy gentry through county orregional “free schools,” which were free only in the sensethat they did not espouse a religious denomination andPage 3-1

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008focused on the study of the liberal arts. In general, formaleducation was considered the province of males; femaleswere educated by tutors or at schools founded by religiousdenominations. For either gender, the ability to pay was alsoa determining factor; low or no-cost public education, evenat the primary level, was unavailable. In founding publicuniversities throughout the young nation, state legislaturesgave priority to providing higher education for males overproviding any public education at all for females (Fausz1990:26-27).Beginning in the early 1800s, some nonsectarian seminariesfor females were founded, but these were mostly locatedin northern states. A seminary was considered the moreserious cousin of a “finishing” school, in that it focused onclassical subjects and provided a well-rounded education.Examples from this period include Troy Female Seminaryin New York, founded in 1821 by Emma Willard and Mt.Holyoke Female Seminary in Massachusetts, founded in1837 by Mary Lyon (Fausz 1990:27-30). In the southernand middle states, including Maryland, the few femaleacademies were mostly affiliated with religious institutions.Several Catholic schools for young women were establishedin the early 1800s in Maryland, including St. Joseph’sAcademy at Emmitsburg (1809) as well as schools inBaltimore, Frederick, and Georgetown. Catholic laypeoplealso taught small local schools in private homes and thiswas the primary educational opportunity available to theyoung women of St. Mary’s County before the 1840s (Fausz1990:28). Once established, St. Mary’s Female Seminarybecame the first state-owned seminary in Maryland, thefirst public female boarding school, and the first (and stillonly) academic institution founded “as a monument to, andon the original site of, the colonial birthplace of any state”(Fausz 1990:30-32). The state’s acquisition of the land atSt. Mary’s City to build the seminary was also one of theearliest examples of a government purchasing land with theintent of historic preservation (King 2007).Page 3-2For students pursuing formal education at any level, Americawas “enthralled with the concept of peripatetic learning,with the ideals of order and knowledge gained throughstudy,” and with the theme of “the nobility and necessity ofthe traditional college and its classical curriculum” (Turner1984:89-90). While these ideals were exhibited throughchoice of curricula and methods of moral discipline, theycould also be seen in the way campus landscapes weredeveloped. Classicism, as a design style, was based on theprinciple of order and symmetry. To this end, buildings wereorganized in the landscape in symmetrical, orderly patternswith linear axis and bilateral termini. Examples of this campus

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008planning style can be found at the University of Virginia, withits symmetrical ranges of buildings and at Girard College inPhiladelphia, and the University of Wisconsin, both of whichconsist of a central Greek temple-form building flanked bythe same number of smaller, classically-styled buildings oneach side.In addition to siting of buildings, topography also playeda part in campus planning during the era of Classicism.Colleges and universities were often located upon hills orridges to reinforce the concept of the educational institutionas a temple on a hill, to separate the school from local villagesor towns that were initially thought to be poor influences onimpressionable students, and to maintain a picturesquesetting, complete with views to natural surroundings, thatwere thought to favorably impact the mental and physicalhealth of the student body.The Seminary building was dominated by itsGreek Revival temple-front portico (Courtesyof SMCM Archives).St. Mary’s College of Maryland, although a public femaleseminary and not a college during the nineteenth century, isan excellent example of early campus planning principles.Though it was a singular building during this early period,lacking the additional buildings to create the characteristicsymmetry, the style and setting of the first Seminary wasvery much in keeping with the period’s academic ideals.The original Seminary, completed in 1845, was a majesticGreek Revival brick edifice inspired by other classicalSouthern academic buildings, and its architect’s choiceof architectural style evokes the ancient beginnings ofclassical education. The distinctly classical templeporticodesign, modeled in simple brick and enhancedwith whitewash treatment, indicates that the building’sdesigners had knowledge of the increasing number of allmalecolleges being built throughout the United States withclassical campus buildings. This use of the Greek Revivalstyle reflects the school’s lofty goal to provide a classicaleducation comparable with that offered by expensive privateseminaries and colleges, at low cost, in an era when highereducation for women was still very much the exceptionrather than the norm.The placement of the building only enhanced itsimpressiveness. Set on a bluff above the river, the Seminaryfaced panoramic river views beyond a landscape that wasalready historically significant with the crumbled and buriedarcheological remains of the first Maryland settlement, themulberry tree under which Calvert’s party is believed to havenegotiated the site of the first colony, the graves of over acentury and a half of Anglicans, and Trinity Church, built ofaged bricks from the first State House of 1676. Viewed fromClassicism was evident from the beginning ofthe Seminary (Courtesy of SMCM Archives).Page 3-3

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008the river, the Seminary formed a broad, formal backdropto the humbler church and its surrounding grounds, whichconcealed so many buried mysteries of the first St. Mary’sCity. The east gable end of the Seminary, which composedthe “street front” of the building on Brome’s Wharf Road,was later redesigned as a secondary portico nearly as largeas the main portico. This side of the building was set closeto the road and presented an imposing view.Mythmaking and Commemoration: 1820-1861In the period from about 1820 to 1861 American highereducation experienced tremendous growth but also founditself in crisis. The expanding American frontier, the rivalryof religious sects, and the ideal of democratic education allThe original Seminary presided over a tranquillandscape (Courtesy of SMCM Archives). contributed to a proliferation of colleges in the country. Mostschools perpetuated the traditional system of education,with its strict religious emphasis and narrowly classicalcurriculum, which many critics considered irrelevant to asociety preoccupied with business, industry expansion andprogress. Many new types of schools did appear but themajority persisted in the old methods (Turner 1984:89).Intellectual interests falling outside the prescribed curriculumoften were discouraged. Students protested often withvandalism and violence, which became serious problems –riots and disorder was not uncommon. Concern for studentorder often affected campus planning – installation offireproof elements. Students began reshaping the Americancollege with unofficial curricula – first literary and debatingsocieties, then the Greek-letter fraternities and laterorganized athletics (Turner 1984:90).The secondary portico, added in the early1900s, created an imposing street façade(Courtesy of SMCM Archives).Page 3-4In addition to changes to and adaptations of the establishedcurriculum, a tension existed between religious orthodoxyand academic freedom, the strained financial circumstancesof many schools, and about the value of higher education,which continued to persist. In the face of these tensionsAmerican colleges protected themselves by creating akind of encompassing mythology. The main theme wasthe nobility and necessity of the traditional college with itsclassical curriculum. There was emphasis on Americanhigher education as being part of an ancient tradition oflearning and as such, colleges should display the supposedhallmarks and trappings of that tradition. These ideas foundexpression in the architecture and physical planning of theAmerican college (Turner 1984:90).The young women of St. Mary’s Seminary were kept undermuch tighter rein than their male collegiate counterparts,with their comings and goings closely supervised, and the

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008inculcation of traditional Victorian-era values and standardsfor feminine deportment continued well into the 1900s.The first generations of students of St. Mary’s were viewedrather paternalistically by the Board of Trustees as the futuremothers of Maryland men. These women were in need ofa superior education in this venerable location to raise sonswho would grow up to be leaders in state government andbusiness. Indeed, the initial political and financial support tofound St. Mary’s Female Seminary was earned by invokingthis very image in the Act authorizing the school’s creation.Alumnae were expected to use their St. Mary’s education tomarry and raise literate, cultured sons with strong affectionfor Maryland and knowledge of its history, not to go out intothe world and get jobs (Fausz 1990:30).The rebellion seen in American colleges was largely absentat St Mary’s Female Seminary in the mid-to-late nineteenthcentury. Given the youth and gender of the Seminarystudents, and the fact that higher education for womenwas still a relatively rare privilege, there was little incentiveto challenge authority or attempt to reshape the school.However, for young women hungry for an education, thetiny school offered a surprising array of courses, includingmusic and art, and daily exercise was part of the curriculum(Fausz 1990:37-38, 55-56). The variety of course offeringswas hardly narrow in focus. The school was preoccupiedwith survival in its pre-Civil War period, but the newfoundstability of the 1870s allowed the development of belovedschool traditions and extracurricular organizations. The firstgraduation occurred in 1874, and as more students beganto earn diplomas, commencements became formal annualrituals with awards and guest speakers. The first studentextracurricular organization, the Literary Society, wasformed in 1885. Students cherished the school for its warm,congenial, intimate atmosphere, where they were able toengage fully in their studies and with their companions, withlittle outside distraction. The historicity of its location onlyadded to the nostalgia and pride that the growing roster ofalumnae felt for their school (Fausz 1990:47-57).Commemoration was a prevailing theme at St. Mary’sFemale Seminary from its very beginning, given that itwas established as a monument to the first colonists whofounded Maryland at this site. The school was required bythe State to maintain a library “for the purpose of collectingand preserving all books and other relicks connected withand calculated to throw light upon the first settlementand early history” of Maryland (Fausz 1990:37). Until thefounding of Historic St. Mary’s City over a century laterin the 1960s, St. Mary’s Female Seminary was entrustedwith the role of curating the history of what had occurredGraduates of the class of 1902. By this timeelaborate annual commencement exerciseswere standard at St. Mary’s Female Seminary(Courtesy of SMCM Archives).The Trinity Church Cemetery was part of alandscape dating back centuries (Courtesy ofSMCM Archives).Page 3-5

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008on its peninsula (Haugaard et al. 2007). From the school’sbeginning, those associated with it were acutely awareof the magnitude of the area’s history, which provided aperpetual subject of study, scrutiny, exploration, veneration,pageantry, and celebration into the present day. The historicsetting extended beyond the Seminary fence to includethe adjacent Trinity Church and its cemetery, which wereimbued with the sense of buried ancient ruins. Living in thissetting inspired the students to think beyond their own livesand futures and to contemplate the more than two centuriesof Maryland history and people that had brought them andthe Seminary to the present. The combination of isolationand a timeless heritage engendered strong bonds betweenthe people, the school, and the place (Fausz 1990:55-57).Though the Seminary kept pace with educational progress,it also retained a continual gaze on the past.Romanticism was embodied by the sweeping,ivy-clad Gothic Revival reconstruction of TrinityChurch (Courtesy of SMCM Archives).Romanticism and Design: 1850-1890Following the Civil War, American stylistic tastes movedaway from the formal, geometrical, and rigid aestheticsof Classical Revival styles, such as Greek and RomanClassicism, and began to embrace the more organic,flowing, and natural tendencies of the Romantic Periodof architectural and landscape architectural design. TheRomantic Period of landscape design was based onprinciples of arranging the landscape to appear natural,yet resulted in sites that were actually heavily manipulatedthrough plantings, water features, curvilinear walkways thatfollowed natural topography, and framed views to attractivefocal points. This was also the era that saw a burgeoninginterest in the establishment and design of public parks asremedies for crowded cities, tedious grids of urban streets,and an overwhelming trend toward an industrial paradigm(Pregill and Volkman 1993:393-394, 403-413).Romanticism in architecture was expressed through thepopularity of a number of “revival” styles, including theItalianate, French Second Empire, Romanesque, and GothicRevival. No new buildings were constructed at St. Mary’sSeminary during this period, but in 1889, the adjacent TrinityChurch was rebuilt in a quaint Gothic Revival style with steep,sweeping rooflines. Although documentary explanation ofthe design choices in this reconstruction has been lost tohistory, it is clear that the parish found the highly picturesquerebuilt church far more appropriate to its historic setting thanthe “unsightly” Georgian-inspired edifice of 1829 had been.Page 3-6

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008Colonial Revival Design: 1890-1965Mid-to-late-nineteenth-century fears of rapid changesoccurring in America prompted the established eliteto look to the Colonial period for reassurance that theRepublic and all it stood for would survive. In doing so, theyemphasized ideas about patriotism and used references inarchitecture and design to evoke trusted symbols rooted inthe ideas of the Republic. St. Mary’s Seminary, founded tocommemorate this period long before most of society hadbegun to revisit it, has emphasized the historic significanceof early settlement at its site as long as it has existed. Infact, this spirit of patriotism was evoked again and againas the school faced fire, skeptics, and fiscal crises, andthe association of the “monument school” with Maryland’sfounders triumphed repeatedly over political opposition.During the period from 1890 to 1965, St. Mary’s evolvedfrom a tiny women’s seminary to a progressive high school,a junior college, and ultimately to a four-year institution in1969, all while remaining committed to high-quality, lowcostpublic education in the liberal arts.Most major buildings which followed the original Seminaryhave reflected classical influence. The second permanentbuilding, St. Mary’s Hall (1906-1908), is also a templefront,columned edifice, placed to the side of Calvert Hallas a flanking companion. When the original Seminary wasdestroyed by fire, the replacement Calvert Hall of 1924-1925was built as a somewhat grander reconstruction, withthe same white-columned Greek temple front screeninga new third story. The new building was decorated withelaborate Colonial Revival interior woodwork in its primarypublic spaces, and furnished with gifts of antiques frompatriotic benefactors. Calvert Hall remains the center ofa small campus universe populated by the construction ofAlumni Lodge (1924), and Kent Hall (1941), which joinedSt. Mary’s Hall to form smaller, red-brick counterparts toCalvert Hall. Even buildings separated from Calvert Hallby intervening properties and roads adhere to the classicalColonial Revival style. In 1951, as the school began its firstmajor expansion on a new land purchase, Margaret BrentHall (1951) and Anne Arundel Hall (1954) were designedin a Georgian Colonial Revival style, indicating that theoriginal architectural vocabulary of the original campus wasto continue as new campus sectors developed. AlthoughColonial Revival was rapidly falling out of favor nationwide,replaced by modernism, the 1960s dormitories on thenewer east campus at St. Mary’s College were still built inGeorgian Colonial Revival style. Queen Anne Hall, built in1964, was the first of this group. This choice connectedthe new campus with the old in an aesthetic sense, thoughSt. Mary’s Hall (1908) formed a smaller temple-frontcounterpart to the original Seminaryand School buildings (Fausz 1990:56).St Mary’s Hall echoed the Classical Revivalarchitecture of the seminary (Courtesy ofSMCM Archives)The rebuilt Calvert Hall was a larger incarnationof its predecessor, and retained the GreekRevival portico, although the rest of the buildingis Colonial Revival in style (Courtesy ofSMCM Archives).Page 3-7

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008Page 3-8the east campus represented the most visible signs of theschool’s breakneck expansion of the 1960s into a modernfour-year college. Beginning in the late 1960s, many newbuildings on the east campus were constructed in modernneotraditional styles, but retained some ties to the earlierbuildings through their use of red brick or similar rooflines.Statement of Campus SignificanceSt. Mary’s College of Maryland originated as a singlecommemorative seminary building set in a rural environmentwith its roots steeped in the colony’s early history, a classicalCentral entrance foyer of rebuilt Calvert Hall,1925. This space still contains elaborate ColonialRevival woodwork and moldings (Fausz At the same time, it has had a sense of experimentation andcurriculum, and reverence for traditional values and order.1990:72).risk-taking from its very beginning and has survived manysetbacks. St. Mary’s College has come back again andagain to succeed at what few thought possible: to create acompetitive women’s public boarding school in a backwater;to remain funded by the government during periods ofstatewide and nationwide fiscal crisis; to provide top-notcheducation to women in a period when they had few careeroptions other than teaching or nursing; to rebuild or expandfollowing fire, harsh criticism, political disfavor, and financialhardship; and to develop innovative educational programsthat keep this school in the arena of the most progressivecolleges of its time.What began as a small women’s boarding seminary is nowa competitive four-year public honors college with nationalrecognition for its academic and athletic achievements.Connecting the generations of students throughout theschool’s history was an endearing charm borne of the smallacademic community’s determination to live and learn inwhat most people considered to be an isolated and dullcorner of the state. Perhaps most pervasive was the senseof preserved ancient history and the school’s status as amonument to Maryland’s founders.Reconstruction is a persistent theme at the College andthroughout St. Mary’s City. Calvert Hall, Trinity Church, andthe State House are all reconstructions of earlier buildingswhich did not survive, and all share the unique mantle ofbeing commemorative properties. The history of these threebuildings, together with the combined auxiliary buildings andlands of St. Mary’s College, Trinity Church, and Historic St.Mary’s City, demonstrates the very principles of toleranceand mutual cooperation upon which the Maryland colonyView of Queen Anne Hall (1964-1965), a continuationof Georgian Colonial Revival style three institutions may not have been harmonious at allwas founded in 1634. Although relations among theseon the new East Campus (Courtesy of SMCM times, it is clear that each entity has relied on the supportArchives).and cooperation of the others at one time or another to

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008survive to the present day. The historical, archeological,and geographical interconnectedness of St. Mary’s Collegeof Maryland, Trinity Church, and Historic St. Mary’s Citymakes it impossible to separate them, and together theycreate a collection of resources that fulfills the visions ofthose who once longed for a suitable commemoration ofMaryland’s origins.Throughout its history, St. Mary’s City and its residentseminary and church have been more or less aware of theircolonial-era past, although recognition from the outsideworld was slow in coming. Recognition of the historicimportance of this isolated peninsula has ebbed and flowedover time, although it was long venerated by Catholicsas the birthplace of American Catholicism (King 2007).Increased development pressure after World War II, andnationwide recognition that important historic sites neededto be documented and protected, led to careful study andpreservation planning in St. Mary’s City and the formationof Historic St. Mary’s City as a means to interpret, preserve,and study the archeological remains of Maryland’s firstEnglish settlement. By the late twentieth century, historicaldesignation had been secured for a number of land areas.In August 1969, St. Mary’s City was recognized as a NationalHistoric Landmark (Carr [1984]). In 1975, the St. Mary’sCity Historic District was listed in the National Register ofHistoric Places (NRHP 1975). This large district, whichis the same for both the National Historic Landmark andNational Register documentation, is bounded on the westby the St. Mary’s River, on the south and southeast by St.Inigoes Creek and Broom Creek, and its east boundary runsnorth across Mattapany Road to a boundary line north ofand parallel to Fisherman’s Creek, which runs southwestto the St. Mary’s River. This district thus includes theentire original sector of the St. Mary’s College campus,Trinity Church and its adjacent landholdings, and otherprivate properties lying within the historic boundary of the1,500-acre St. Mary’s City Town Lands and Pope’s Freehold.Additional documentation, mostly pertaining to historic landpatents and archeological finds on multiple sites within thedistrict, was approved for the St. Mary’s City Historic Districtin 1993 (NRHP 1993). The National Historic Landmark andthe St. Mary’s City Historic District both focus primarily onthe colonial-period archeological context of the area. TheState House, as a modern replica building, and the extantbuildings belonging to Trinity Church and St. Mary’s Collegeof Maryland are not considered to be contributing resourcesin the landmark or the district.At St. Mary’s College, plans to renovate Kent Hall in theearly 1990s prompted a Maryland Historical Trust (MHT)View of Rectory from Calvert Hall, 1947 (Courtesyof SMCM Archives).Trinity Church ca. 1962, as seen through 1934gates (Trinity Church Archives).Page 3-9

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008survey of the old campus and several of its pre-1950resources. Kent Hall, St. Mary’s Hall, Alumni Lodge, and theGarden of Remembrance were documented with MarylandInventory of Historic Properties forms. A vaguely defined St.Mary’s College Historic District (MIHP# SM-37), includingthe original campus sector, was determined eligible forthe National Register by MHT. A map accompanying thisdocumentation showed the district as including only theoriginal campus parcel northwest of Brome’s Wharf Road.However, a number of additional campus and churchbuildings of sufficient age were not surveyed at this time,and the text states that a firm boundary for the district wasnot established. Further study by MHT is needed to finalizethe district boundaries and generate a list of contributingand noncontributing resources (MHT 1992; MHT [1993]).Page 3-10

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008Chapter 4:Planning, Interpretation, andManagementINTRODUCTIONPlanning, programming, and interpretation are importantconsiderations within the Preservation Master Plan studyarea given its numerous significant layers of history. Nearlyfour centuries of change and evolution have occurred onthe site in response to changes in ownership, government,leadership, religious practice, settlement patterns, andthe needs and desires of the three institutions. Chapter 4of the Preservation Master Plan for St. Mary’s College ofMaryland includes a summary of planning in the study areaand how the institutions have historically, and still do, worktogether. Building on the relationship of the institutions is adiscussion of programming and interpretation. Telling thestory of Historic St. Mary’s City and making that storytellingexperience an exciting and interesting one for visitors isa shared responsibility among the three organizations.Options for defining which story to tell and how best to tell itare explored in the final section of this plan.PLANNING IN THE HISTORICSECTORPast Planning DocumentsPlanning for the future is not something new for the College,City, and Church. The following section summarizes key pastplanning efforts that have been undertaken by St. Mary’sCollege of Maryland, Historic St. Mary’s City, and TrinityEpiscopal Church. While many are not solely applicable tothe historic sector, the goals and recommendations withinthe plans have the potential to impact the land use, design,stability, preservation, and character of the historic sector.St. Mary’s College of Maryland Master Plan, 1988In 1988 a Master Plan was prepared for the College by thedistinguished land planning firm of Cooper, Robertson andPartners. The plan summarizes the College landscapewell, stating “the natural landscape is superb and thosebuildings inherited from earlier iterations of a FemaleSeminary and later a Junior College have real charm and asense of history. The new portions, however, built during thePage 4-1

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 20081960’s…..are homely and disappointing.” The Master Planrecognizes the importance of fostering and embracing therelationship between the College, City, and Trinity Churchand being sensitive to the scale of the historic sector andHistoric St. Mary’s City. The goals of the plan appear tobe in line with the goals of the three entities and address:maintaining the attractiveness of the natural setting and thepedestrian scale of the campus; maintaining the characterand scale of the historic sector; increasing the amount ofcommercial and retail activity to make the College a “24 hourcampus”; constructing new buildings in the historic sectorthat are compatible with the historic buildings; and identifyingspecific landscape treatments that are considerate of theexisting attributes and historical significance. The plan alsodiscusses the importance and opportunities available forcollaboration among the three entities which co-exist withinHistoric St. Mary’s City.Campus Facilities Plan (1999-2009)The College has embraced campus planning as an effectivemeans to guide and direct the future development of thecampus. By being proactive with regards to planning, theCollege is ensuring that decisions that have the potential toimpact the fabric and character of the campus are carefullythought out and considered.The 1999-2009 Facilities Master Plan discusses the overallfacility needs and campus improvements for the Collegethrough 2009. While the plan does not specifically addressthe historic sector, capital projects have the potential toimpact the historic sector, as evident in the plan for theredevelopment of Anne Arundel Hall. The plan is alsocareful to ensure that the relationship between the Collegeand City is preserved, understanding the importance of thatrelationship in preserving the human scale of the historicsector, protecting archeological resources associated withHistoric St. Mary’s City, and enhancing the environment andnatural landscapes.Page 4-2Strategic Plan of St. Mary’s College of Maryland,2005-2009During the 2004-2005 academic year, a committee wasformed to commence development of a new, evolvingstrategic plan for the College. The plan is intended to be arolling, evolving, non-static plan that lays out a foundationfor meeting the current and future needs of the College.Within the plan are four strategic priorities, each of whichis more tightly defined through the development of criticaltactics. The four identified priorities within the plan include:enhancing and sustaining academic excellence; increasing

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008and efficiently allocating resources; improving cohesivenessthrough the College; and providing a diverse studentpopulation with an excellent education.St. Mary’s City 1970 and 1974 PlansIn the early 1970s two plans were development for St.Mary’s City. The 1970’s plan was entitled “St. Mary’s City:A Plan for the Preservation and Development of Maryland’sFirst Capital.” The study identified the significance of thesite and the original goals and tasks associated with makingthe site into a historic park to attract and educate visitors.The document focuses on the role of the Commission,preservation of archeological sites and natural resources,interpretation, research, and more. The document truly laysout the framework for developing Historic St. Mary’s City intowhat it has become today. This plan defines the relationshipbetween the City and College as being most important froma strictly education-based perspective.A second plan, “St. Mary’s City: A Plan for the OutdoorMuseum at Maryland’s State Capital” was intended tosupplement the 1970 plan to identify what the actual outdoormuseum would look like and what it would teach visitors.The plan focuses on the physical development of the visitorexperience including the Visitor Center and exhibit themes.Historic St. Mary’s City Master Plan UpdateIn 1992 Mary Means & Associates developed a MasterPlan to assist Historic St. Mary’s City in clarifying itsgoals, mission statement, and interpretive direction, andin identifying recommendations for success over a five toten year period. The plan includes 14 recommendationswhich focus on three overarching themes: Improve VisitorUnderstanding; Reach Out to Many Audiences; and Protectthe HSMC Experience. As a whole, the concepts behindthe development of the plan appear to be sound, thoughsome of the specific recommendations may no longer beapplicable or appropriate. An updated interpretive planthat addresses the needs of the City, and incorporatesthe 19 th – and 20 th -century landscapes of the College andChurch, would help to develop a unified, cohesive vision forinterpreting the study area.Maryland Heritage ProjectThe Maryland Heritage Project (begun in 2001) is a jointinitiative between the College and Historic St. Mary’s City,and works in cooperation with Trinity Church. The Projectwas developed under the premise that the three entitiesshare a common goal: to enhance the scholarship, study, andinterpretation of Historic St. Mary’s City. The replacement ofPage 4-3

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008Page 4-4Anne Arundel Hall and the creation of the Maryland HeritageInterpretive Center are the two most significant projectscurrently being proposed through this initiative.Various Studies on the Affiliation of the College andCityNumerous studies and documents have been preparedoutlining and defining the relationship between the Collegeand City, as well as the successes that have resulted fromthe on-going collaboration between the two entities, andoften a third entity, Trinity Church. A task force report wasissued in 1996, a report of the Joint Advisory Group wasissued in 2005, and in 2007 a summary of the Joint AdvisoryGroup board meeting was prepared that focused on therelationship of the College and City as an effective modelfor partnerships.Current and Future PlanningThe College, in order to meet the increased demands andexpectations of student and faculty, is consistently andconscientiously identifying areas where changes, upgrades,and improvements are necessary. This applies to both theacademic and physical aspects of the College; oftentimes thetwo are intertwined. This is most evident in looking at someof the current and future plans for the campus, specificallythose that will have a significant impact on the buildings andlandscapes within the historic sector. This section of thePreservation Master Plan summarizes current and futureplanning and design initiatives within the historic sector,and offers comments and recommendations on the variousprojects from the perspective of historical significance andpreservation.Redevelopment of Anne Arundel HallSt. Mary’s College of Maryland has proposed a three-phaseplan that focuses first on the redevelopment of the site ofthe existing Anne Arundel Hall and gradually expands toinclude parcels to the southwest, northwest, and north of thesite. This site was selected for the redevelopment projectbecause it is historically significant as the site of the originalcolonial town and there is a growing interest in updating andmore efficiently utilizing space and land in the historic sector.The rehabilitation of the existing Anne Arundel Hall wasconsidered but was not deemed viable given the desiredprogramming requirements and the extent of the renovationwork that would be required. The proposed plan providesfor collaboration among the College, Church, and City andsatisfies their goals as defined during the completion of ajoint land-use study.

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008The overarching principles guiding the site design, basedon the land-use study are:• Create a pedestrian connection between thehistoric campus and the central campus andimprove handicap accessibility.• Minimize impacts to archeological resources.• Create views and paths from the College to theState House to reinforce the significance of thestructure.• Create an entrance to the Maryland HeritageInterpretive Center on “Middle Street”, one of thehistoric town roads which was located on thissite.• Enhance and improve the safety of pedestrianscrossing Route 5.• Set aside land for student residences and services,such as retail and dining establishments.• Create additional parking spaces to serviceCollege faculty, students, and visitors.The project has been proposed in three phases due to thesize of the project which will require substantial funding andapprovals in order to move forward.Calvert Hall ADA RampIn order to make Calvert Hall accessible to all students, theCollege has initiated a project to construct an ADA accessramp on the main front entrance portico of the building. Theramp along the western, main façade would have someimplications on the historic character of the building, mostsubstantially resulting in permanent alteration of the existingportico. Should the ramp be desired on this main façade,every effort should be made to develop a solution that doesnot have any permanent impact on the existing building(i.e. any improvement should be reversible) and does notalter any significant historic building features, such as theportico. An option may be to pull the proposed ramp awayfrom the portico and building so as to clearly differentiatethe two building elements.Another option worthy of consideration is to constructthe ADA access ramp on the rear of the building (eastelevation). It has been stated that it is a goal of the Collegeto develop an entrance to the building on this façade and tostrengthen the Kent Hall Quadrangle as a usable outdoorspace for students, staff, and faculty. The new entry andimprovements to the Quadrangle could be incorporatedinto a larger project that would also involve the installationof an ADA access ramp. The ramp could be constructedin temporary materials until that time when the College isPage 4-5

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008in a position, financially and from a design perspective, tomove forward with a permanent project. Furthermore, giventhe planned renovations due to occur at Calvert Hall, itwould seem like another logical improvement to include inthe planned work that furthers the long-term goals of theCollege.From the perspective of preservation, locating the ramp onthe east side of Calvert Hall will have the least significantimpact on the historic character of the building, eliminatingany visual or physical impacts on the main façade facing theState House and Trinity Church.Page 4-6

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008MANAGEMENT ANDMAINTENANCEThe primary goal and objective of the Campus HeritageGrant Program, from which this plan was made possible, isto ensure that preservation and stewardship are integratedinto long-term decision-making processes and to ensurethat consideration is given to preservation goals andobjectives during the course of other planning and designprocesses. The College, City, and Church all wish to protectand enhance the significant historic resources which remainwithin the study area and understand that protection beginswith sound policies and procedures which are sensitive tothe historic context of the study area. The PreservationMaster Plan is the first resource each entity has for definingan appropriate process for preservation within the studyarea and identifying specific areas which require additionalattention and consideration.The Preservation Master Plan process cannot be consideredtruly successful until the recommendations and treatmentguidelines are put into regular practice. This requires thecommitment of the College, City, and Church to implementthe guidelines and to continue collaborating and workingtogether towards a common defined goal.Acceptance of the plan by each entity will establish a sharedpreservation philosophy that can then be put into action.The preservation philosophy will help to:• acknowledge the importance of the sharedhistories of each entity and how the histories areinter-woven;• foster visitor and resident education about theinter-woven histories associated with the siteby establishing an interpretive program andeducation recommendations;• promote responsible and effective stewardshipof landscape and buildings resources;• increase awareness of the impacts of newconstruction and development on the existinghistoric fabric of the study area; and• provide a framework for making future decisionsthat have the potential to impact historic sitesand archeological resources.Acceptance of the plan by the College, City, and Church as aguide for current and future decision-making is the first andmost important step in furthering the goals of preservation,cooperation, and collaboration.Page 4-7

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008Facilities and Maintenance StaffAt St. Mary’s College of Maryland, maintenance, operations,and the design and construction of new buildings are broadlyadministered through the Office of Facilities. Within theOffice of Facilities is the Physical Plant organization whichprovides the maintenance, repair, and alteration servicesfor campus buildings, grounds, and systems. Physical Plantstaff includes Buildings staff (currently 17 staff members)and Grounds staff (currently 11 staff members). Mechanical,electrical, and plumbing work for campus buildings is handledby in-house staff and a carpentry division within the BuildingDepartment handles finishes and small-scale repairs.Trinity Church is responsible for the maintenance andrepair of their buildings, as well as any proposed newconstruction projects. The Church has no permanent inhousemaintenance staff, with general cleaning and upkeepprovided by members of the Church. Grounds are cared forin a similar manner. Any large-scale maintenance projects,such as roof repair, would be undertaken by an outsideprofessional hired by, and paid for by, the Church.Although Historic St. Mary’s City has a small maintenancestaff, it is not proportionate to the extensive building andgrounds which comprise the City’s land and buildingcollection.Policies and ProceduresThe histories of the College, City, and Church are interwovenand as such, their futures should be as well. Although theinstitutions have not always collaborated on projects andinitiatives within the historic sector that have the potentialto impact each of them, over the past years there hasbeen a positive trend in joint decision-making and strategicplanning.In 1991 the General Assembly of Maryland reconstitutedthe Historic St. Mary’s City Commission that was originallyestablished in 1966 to acquire and protect the historiclands of the City. The effort in 1991 created a directoriallink between the Board of Trustees at the College and theCommission for joint educational programming and landand facility stewardship.Page 4-8However, it was not until 1996/1997 that a formal relationshipbetween the College and City was identified as an outcomeof a task force group effort to determine how to best improvethe governance and support of Historic St. Mary’s City. Aresult of the Education Law enacted in 1997 as a resultof the task force study, the City underwent a significant

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008reorganization and was made an independent agency thatreports directly to the state Governor. The law that formalizedthe affiliation of the City and College permitted the City tocontract with the College for various management servicesand encouraged the College to integrate the educationalopportunities afforded by the City into their curriculum.To expedite the handling of this new relationship and topursue new opportunities for cooperation, a Joint AdvisoryGroup was established which included key leaders from bothentities. The collaboration was seen as, and has become,beneficial for both parties as they have had the opportunityto build on the others strengths and resources.Today the implementation of the collaborative relationshipand Joint Advisory Group workings are highly visible andcan be viewed as a truly successful relationship. Academicopportunities, community service initiatives, land planning,and facility planning are just some of the areas that havebenefited from this new on-going working relationship.In 2000, the City and College developed a ten-year jointcapital program which is known as the Maryland HeritageProject. The initiative originally focused on the safeguardingand interpretation of the St. John’s site and has expandedto include an ambitious redevelopment plan for the AnneArundel site in the historic sector. While the College seeksto redevelop the site to accommodate growing academicneeds and space, the City was looking for an opportunityto develop an exhibit and orientation center. By workingtogether, the City and College are ensuring the buildingsare constructed in tandem, in the same architectural style,to minimize costs and disruptions from construction activity.The effort has also included leaders from Trinity Church, asthe final phase of the plan may impact structures currentlyutilized by the Church. A host of other activities have beenundertaken by each entity to further the overarching goalsof the Maryland Heritage Project, resulting in a collaborativerelationship that is both cost-effective and useful from amanagement and administrative perspective.General Maintenance RecommendationsThe following recommendations are provided to assist theCollege, City, and Church in addressing maintenance asassociated with historic buildings and grounds. Specificmaintenance recommendations related to a building orspecific landscape features are identified in subsequentsections of this report.• Cyclical maintenance is often based on the institutionalPage 4-9

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008memory of long-term staff. It is recommended thatcaretakers at each institution implement regularmaintenance and inspection schedules and adopt bestpractice guidelines for future maintenance and repairwork for buildings, landscapes, and natural resources.• For each building, prioritized schedules should bedeveloped to properly sequence and budget futurework. The guidelines and recommendations for the fourbuildings in this document could be used as a startingpoint for developing these schedules.• Regular termite and insect inspections should beconducted on buildings, through long-term contracts, toensure continuity.• Gutter maintenance is critical on all buildings butrequires access. Access equipment should be obtained,and possibly shared among the three institutions, toallow for a minimum of two inspections per year. In lieuof purchasing equipment, an outside contractor shouldbe hired to complete the inspections.• A holistic approach to water drainage should bedeveloped as drainage issues have the potential tonegatively impact both buildings and landscapes. Waterdrainage from rooftops to the site or storm sewer shouldbe carefully designed and coordinated with adjacentlandscape and existing underground drain systems.• In addition, underground drain lines should be inspectedfor leaks, clogs, and breaks using water tests orspecialized drain inspection equipment.Page 4-10Management Recommendations• Develop a comprehensive management and conservationplan to protect the lands associated with the College,Church, and City. The plan should involve each entityand include the state historic preservation office – theMaryland Historic Trust.• Future planning documents prepared for each institution,or for the group of institutions, should clearly identify thegoals and objectives of the plan. Defining this up frontwill ensure that those people implementing or modifyingthe plan in the future have a sound understanding of thereasoning and approach to the recommendations anddecisions stemming from the planning process. Havingsound justifications for certain actions will assist in theimplementation of projects.• The Maryland Heritage Projects appears to be asuccessful and lucrative relationship between the Cityand College and should be maintained in the long-term.• Opportunities for joint marketing between the Collegeand City should be explored to maximize resources andbenefits.

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008PROGRAMMING ANDINTERPRETATIONInterpreting HistoryInterpretation is intended to be a means to reach out,educate, and fulfill the needs of people who live in and visita site, such as Historic St. Mary’s City. Historic St. Mary’sCity’s history may be a more complex canvas in which tointerpret as it has many layers of history that reflect theevolution and development of three existing institutions –St. Mary’s College of Maryland, Historic St. Mary’s City, andTrinity Episcopal Church. Each of these entities brings tothe table its own perspective and vision for how the storyof the site, and most importantly, what story, should becommunicated.For members of the local community, the significance of thesite is often related to its role as the colony’s capital in the17 th century. Tobacco, religious toleration, and farming areall key components to this period of history. For members ofthe local Church, the thread of religious toleration that beginsin the 17 th century and continues to the 18 th century may beof particular interest and the 19 th century, when the extantChurch was first constructed, is also an important period.St. Mary’s College of Maryland was originally founded as afemale seminary in 1839 and likely views the 19 th centurylandscape as a critical layer in its development.The study area reads like a patchwork quilt with regards tointerpretation and there are few places that can boast sucha layered, integrated, and intricate history on one piece ofland. That said, the goal within the project study area is tocreate an integrated landscape that provides a cohesiveexperience and understanding of the significance of the sitein its entirety.The importance of Historic St. Mary’s City is largely relatedto it being a public landscape that has served communityneeds from its original inception. It is a place for peopleto learn about history and the landscape on which thathistory took place and should include the various periods ofdevelopment and stages of change that have occurred onthe lands.Page 4-11

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008Programming and InterpretiveRecommendationsThe following section identifies general recommendationsregarding interpretation at Historic St. Mary’s City. A detailedinterpretive plan and study should be undertaken to identifyappropriate interpretive themes and sub-themes for thestudy area, as well as to develop a program for relayingthe themes and stories to visitors. Identifying what the beststory to tell is, and how to tell the story, would be the endresult of an Interpretive Plan for Historic St. Mary’s City.Interpretive ThemesWith five centuries of history associated with the study areathere are likely to be varying opinions regarding what thelong-term vision for the site is – the question of what pastto preserve is a pivotal one and boils down to what historicresources are valuable to whom. Interpretation at St. Mary’sis recognizably complex as it is a landscape that has beencompletely altered, but it remains very focused on the pastand its historical origins. The interpretive theme or themesdeveloped for the study area need to enrich and educatevisitors.Page 4-12• The College, City, and Church should develop acommittee to coordinate and strategize to develop ashared vision about what and whose history should bepreserved and interpreted within the historic sector.• The interpretive program for Historic St. Mary’s Cityshould honor all levels of history within this complex site.From an interpretive perspective it makes sense to viewHistoric St. Mary’s City as a commemorative landscapelocated on an extremely important archeological site.th• The significance of the 19 -century settlement, smallindustry, and Tercentenary Celebration should not bediscarded in favor of only 17 th -century interpretation.Although the significance of the site as Maryland’s firststate capital is indisputable, there are no above groundresources dating to the 17 th century; resources from thisperiod are all archeological.• The College, City, and Church should embark on afollow-up project to develop an Interpretive Plan for thehistoric sector that builds on the current activities atFarthing’s Ordinary and also incorporates later periodsof significance related to the College and Church.This may be achieved in part through the CorridorManagement Plan process being undertaken for theReligious Freedom Scenic Byway.• The key component of any Interpretive Plan for HistoricSt. Mary’s City would be the collaboration of all interested

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008parties to ensure there is agreement and consistencywithin the program.• Interpretive themes chosen for the site should incorporatethe significance of the site as Maryland’s first statecapital, but should not overlook later advancements.Possible interpretive themes that integrate each entitycould include:o The rural landscape and natural attributes ofthe site, ando The celebration of political, religious, andeducational advancement.• Under a separate planning process being directed by St.Mary’s and Charles Counties, a Corridor ManagementPlan for the Religious Freedom Scenic Byway iscurrently in the early stages of development. One ofthe primary elements of the Corridor Management Planis the development of an interpretive program whichincludes the identification of an interpretive theme forthe byway, the identification of historic and culturalsites which contribute to the theme, the identification ofenhancements to promote increased visitors to varioussites, and the identification of an interpretive program –including signage and exhibit recommendations. HistoricSt. Mary’s City is included as a site on the southern endof the scenic byway which extends from Port Tobacco toPoint Lookout.• The College, City, and Church should be actively involvedin the development of the Corridor Management Plancurrently being prepared for the Religious FreedomScenic Byway. The Corridor Management Plan seesHistoric St. Mary’s City as one of the anchor historicaland interpretive attractions along the byway route.• Representatives from each institution should be activelyparticipating in developing goals and strategies for theenhancement, interpretation, and development of HistoricSt. Mary’s City as part of the Corridor Management Planplanning process.Interpretive Site ImprovementsSpecific site improvements associated with the developmentof an interpretive program are as important as selecting thetheme or period to interpret. The site improvements relateto the physical and aesthetic appeal of a site to potentialvisitors and users.• Develop a consistent signage package for the historicsector which may include a hierarchy of signs, includinginterpretive wayfinding signage, site specific signage,informational signage, directional signage, and historicsite markers. This signage should be consistent amongall three institutions in order to create a cohesive visitorPage 4-13

St. Mary’s College of MarylandPreservation Master PlanHistoric St. Mary’s City February 2008and educational experience.• Existing interpretive efforts, such as the bluestonemarker that identifies the center of Main Street in the17 th century should be enhanced. Visitors and site usersshould be made aware that the landscape feature theyare seeing has historical significance. Markers andsignage should be sensitively incorporated into thelandscape, as appropriate.• In order to attract a regional and transient audience,ample visitor amenities are necessary. To be effectivein attracting this audience, interpretation must includechanging exhibits, programs, festivals, and mostimportantly places to eat and shop once a visitor hasarrived. One of the critical issues facing Historic St.Mary’s City is the lack of amenities for visitors once theyarrive and after they have visited the existing historicattractions, such as Farthing’s Ordinary. There areno other amenities to keep people in, or attract themagain.• Specific recommendations for signage, siteimprovements, interpretive components that can beintegrated into the landscape, and amenities would beaddressed in the development of an Interpretive Plan.• Identify how and where site amenities can be transformedinto public art and interpretive displays. Opportunitiesfor this include benches and sculpture in public areas.• Site improvements and enhancements should not implyfalse historicism that results in a fake, Disney-esquequality within the study area. Enhancements should fitinto the historic character of remaining extant structures,which within the historic sector, date to the 19 th century.Page 4-14