Save Our History:

Save Our History:

The Political Battle to Save Florida’s Old Capitol Building

Seth A. Weitz

Florida State University

An anonymous letter dated 10 April, 1976 and addressed to Florida’s Secretary of State Bruce Smathers and Governor Ruebin Askew (1971-1979) illustrated the frustration and outrage felt by many Floridians at the prospect of losing one of the state’s historic landmarks. This indignation grew from reports that the state’s original Capitol building, constructed in 1845 and altered on numerous occasions in the first half of the twentieth century, was facing demolition. The letter contained no return address and no signature, but its message was clear: “What? Tear down the old capitol?? FOR SHAME!! Puhleeeeeeze save it!!!”[1] That the letter was addressed to the Secretary of State and the Governor was no mistake either. Smathers was the leading proponent for saving the old structure, while Governor Askew, who would make a futile attempt to win the Democratic Presidential nomination in 1984 ultimately won by Minnesota Senator Walter Mondale, was initially staunchly in opposition to any preservation efforts. Askew was backed by Speaker of the House of Representatives in Florida, Donald Tucker, a Democrat from Tallahassee whose virulent nature and often offensive commentary on the subject made him an easy target for the large grassroots organization that eventually prevailed. The path taken to preserve Florida’s historic Capitol was a long and arduous journey that spanned the decade of the 1970’s and culminated with the completion of the restored 1902 building in 1982.

Tallahassee was not Florida’s capital when the territory was ceded to the United States from the Spanish Crown through the Adams-Onis Treaty of 1819. Before Tallahassee was even founded, Florida was dominated by Pensacola in West Florida and St. Augustine in East Florida. They alternately held sessions of the territorial legislature in their cities, which left delegates scurrying back and forth between the two situated 400 miles apart. When the first session met in July, 1822 in Pensacola “the members from St. Augustine had traveled fifty-nine days by water to attend,” with one delegate, Thomas Lytle, losing his life in a storm.[2] When the second session of the Florida Legislative Council met in St. Augustine in 1823, the delegates from Pensacola were shipwrecked and barely escaped death.[3] The solution to this dangerous situation benefited the new settlers of Middle Florida as commissioners John Lee Williams and William H. Simmons selected “the present day site of Tallahassee as the location for the new capital of Florida.”[4]

What is known as the Old Capitol building today is the restored version of the 1902 building which can trace its roots back to 1845. As early as 1829, Floridians had urged their government to create a permanent Capitol building in Tallahassee.[5] The construction of a permanent structure, however, did nothing to quell the debate over the Capitol building. In 1900, an editorial in the St. Augustine Examiner proclaimed that “old memories linger pleasantly around the old Capitol, but it is old, all old; it belongs to the past ... the present capitol building is an antiquated structure, entirely inadequate to the needs of the state government.”[6] Additions and renovations were made in 1902, 1923, 1936, and 1947, but, by the mid-1950’s voices emerged that once again questioned the wisdom of “continuing to patch up the old one (capitol).”[7]

The idea for a new Capitol building emerged in 1956 when Supreme Court Justice Harold Sebring was named to head a commission on the matter. The commission lacked legislative support and quickly died out but was revived in the late 1960’s. Overcrowding in the Capitol’s office space had been an issue since 1899, and almost every successive legislative session toyed with the idea of moving the seat of government from Tallahassee. In 1967 the Florida legislature seriously flirted with the idea of moving the capital to Orlando after legislation was introduced by Senator Lee Weissenborn. The lobby of the new Capitol honors the Senator with a plaque which claims that Weissenborn’s valiant efforts to move the Capital to Orlando was the prime motivation for construction of the new building.[8] None of these efforts ever gained much momentum but they did create swift and strong reaction from Tallahassee’s Daily Democrat. In 1923, the same year that a major renovation and addition to the Capitol was completed, an editorial ran in the paper that exclaimed “there is nothing at Tallahassee except the Capitol and the Women’s college and Tallahassee is the right place for both institutions … let the Capitol remain in the place where it was born … a place rich with the tradition of the Old South.”[9]

The new commission formed in the late 1960’s was a proactive body with support from the legislature and Governor Claude R. Kirk (in office 1967-1971), Florida’s first Republican chief executive since 1872. The committee hired world-famous architect Edward Durell Stone of New York to design the proposed building. As quoted in the Tallahassee Democrat, Stone was instructed to create plans for a “modern Capitol that reflected the character of all of Florida, not just the ante-bellum, magnolia and honeysuckle atmosphere of Tallahassee.”[10] This view was a precursor to the propaganda spewed from the mouths of the opposition to restoration as the decade progressed. The proponents of the new Capitol project included many in the legislature and government that did not see the necessity of maintaining the old historic structure. Those who did have a notion of the importance for historical preservation and Florida’s past decided that the miniscule 1845 Capitol building should be restored as to be as unobtrusive as possible to the new edifice. Governor Kirk’s cabinet approved the plans for restoration in 1969 with Kirk acting as the lone dissenting vote. He lambasted his cabinet for “promoting palatial palaces for political potentates.”[11] Despite the cabinet vote, the matter of the old Capitol was never resolved because a final decision was not made. Most of the architects and planners of the new Capitol actually had considered the question settled. They believed, but never publicly stated, that the decision to erect the 22-story building directly behind the old Capitol spelled doom for the historic landmark. An editorial written in Tallahassee’s newspaper proclaimed that the decision to implement a fast track construction of the new building presupposed razing the old building.[12]

Not everyone in the Tallahassee or Florida as a whole was pleased with the designs for the new Capitol. Even before a push began to demolish the old Capitol, editorials surfaced in newspapers throughout the state where readers and columnists voiced their displeasure at what many labeled Stone’s monstrosity. Stone publicly announced: “I don’t care what they want … this is what they are going to get … it will be good for Florida” in response to the rising criticism over his plans for the new Capitol.[13] He did not realize how his arrogance would those who favored preservation. The proponents of the new Capitol, who would later become the main advocates for demolition of Florida’s historic Capitol, including Supreme Court Justice B. K. Roberts, stated that the new structure would “make government more of a blessing and less of a burden,” by providing a modern structure for a growing state government.[14] Roberts, Askew and their allies underestimated not only Bruce Smathers, but more importantly a large portion Florida’s population who instantaneously became avid preservationists and rallied to save the old Capitol.

A problem arose when it was revealed that restoration of the Capitol to the way it appeared in 1845 was not feasible because there was not enough evidence remaining to properly reconstruct the building. Governor Askew and his administration had basically overlooked this blunder and went ahead with construction of the new Capitol without any solution pertaining to the historic building. Bruce Smathers, son of legendary and controversial US Senator from Florida George Smathers (1951-1969), began exploring conservation alternatives to the 1845 plan in 1976. Smathers, who would lead the drive for conserving the old Capitol, worked with the Division of Archives, History and Records Management of the Department of State to create a plan that would save money for taxpayers in the long run, while at the same time preserve what many felt was the most important building in Florida’s history. He also highlighted the fact that the old Capitol could be used as additional office space which was a major reason the new building was constructed in the first place.[15]

The efforts of Smathers were met with an outpouring of support from the populace around the state. Virtually every local historical society within the state as well as the Florida Historical Society lent assistance. Countless letters were written to newspapers around the state as well as to state Representatives and Senators. Many people were upset with assertions made by the opponents of the old Capitol who claimed that Florida had no history worth saving. Recent immigrants to the Sunshine State joined “natives” in rallying to the cause as witnessed in the case of Charlotte R. Morgan of Lakeland. Morgan had moved to central Florida from Springfield, Illinois, in 1973 and immediately became one of Secretary Smathers’ biggest supporters and allies in the fight to save the old Capitol. In a letter written to Smathers, Morgan noted the similarities between the struggle in Florida and one that she had been an active part of a decade earlier in Illinois. She had helped lead a fight to save the original Illinois state Capitol from demolition. Morgan highlighted the importance of history to a state and the people by reminding the Illinois legislature that this was the same building that witnessed the beginning of Abraham Lincoln’s political career in the 1830s. She went further to note that the restored building stood as one of the Midwest’s finest restoration sites as well as the home of Illinois’ famous Historical Library.[16]

As Secretary Smathers and legislators were bombarded with letters of support, the opponents to restoration, led by Governor Askew and Speaker Tucker, cited and played up a report from 1971 that commented on the physical durability of the old Capitol. The main priority of Ruebin Askew’s first term as governor, which began in 1971, was to complete the construction of the new Capitol building. This led to the selection of the William Bishop Consulting Engineers of Tallahassee firm to study the feasibility of restoring the old Capitol building. The committee reported that “structurally, the center section of the building has deteriorated to a point where it is inadequate to be of any value in the future development of the Capitol Center.”[17] Proponents of restoration immediately responded by noting that Bishop was an ally of Askew and this was the sole reason he was selected to lead the committee. Diane Self Owen, Florida State Chairman for Preservation Action, claimed that the last six words of the committee’s report were omitted in order to provide propaganda for Askew and his allies. According to the Jacksonville Journal, the forgotten words noted that the old Capitol was structurally unsound to be included within a larger structure, meaning the new Capitol.[18]

Lee Warner, of Tallahassee’s Historic Preservation Board, a non-profit organization, stated “the unhappiness came from the fact that other firms were not considered.”[19] The decision was also made behind closed doors out of the view of the public. State Senator Pat Thomas proposed a bill in the Florida Legislature that called for a new study of the old Capitol and more importantly an open selection of an unbiased firm. Thomas’ bill would have called for the selection of a firm by the Department of General Services as outlined by Florida’s Professional Negotiations Act. According to the Tallahassee Democrat, the bill was a moot point since the decision to hire Bishop was upheld by the Governor and his allies.[20] Smathers was also not content with the selection of Stone. In both cases, the selections of Stone and Bishop, Smathers was disappointed. He stated to the Floridian that he had hoped that a firm that had been previously involved with historic preservation would have been selected.[21]

After it was resolved that the restoration of the Capitol to either the 1923 or 1902 version would in fact not be a hazard, the opponents of preservation turned their attention to money. Secretary Smathers fired back claiming that taxpayers would only have to pay four dollars per square foot to restore the building. Smathers went further and was aided by Diane Self Owen. They both claimed that preservation of the 1902 structure would provide the state with 30,000 additional square feet for office space. This was important since the state had admitted to renting over 980,000 square feet and the new Capitol only provided an additional 340,000 square feet.[22]

Proponents of demolition of the old Capitol appeared to be blinded by an infatuation with the new office building which Governor Askew exclaimed was “going to be a beautiful capitol.”[23] Askew’s preference for demolition, according to his critics, stemmed from his view that to fully appreciate the beauty of the new Capitol one must see it surrounded by all the open space that was envisioned by Stone when he drew up the plans. This open space referred to the land currently occupied by the old Capitol. While numerous opponents attacked Askew and the proponents of demolition for their blatant disregard of history, others, mostly legislators and government officials, simply assailed the new Capitol. The former president of the Florida Chapter of the American Institute of Architects bluntly stated that Stone’s creation was “a poorly conceived symbol of neo-classical pabulum.”[24] An anonymous aide to one of Askew’s cabinet members went further by proclaiming that “this great phallic symbol at the end of U.S. 27 … is a great concrete slab with no personality.”[25] Attorney General Robert Shevin summed up the situation when he clearly remarked “I don’t think it looks like a Capitol building.”[26]

Smathers did not rely solely on factual data of the building’s soundness to make his case. He tried to strike a sentimental chord with Floridians. He likened the Capitol to some of America’s oldest and most treasured landmarks by saying “our state Capitol, 1845 to the present, is a combination of Independence Hall and the nation’s Capitol … part of the quality of life is our heritage.”[27] As late as 1977 some in Florida hoped the conflict and dilemma would simply disappear, but State Senator Kenneth Myers, a Democrat from Miami echoed the reality when he claimed “we can’t bury our heads in the sand and say the problem is going away.”[28]

Diane Self Owen challenged Askew and Tucker, and more importantly motivated the populace of Florida by appealing to reason. She stated “in a way, the old Capitol is a symbolic thing … if the legislature isn’t willing to save the old Capitol; I don’t see where we stand a prayer of saving anything else.”[29] Secretary Smathers first brought the issue to the attention of Senator Robert Williams in 1975 when it became apparent that nothing was being done to act on recommendations to save the Capitol. While Smathers’ endeavors were invaluable, the most important effort was made at the local level including a grassroots campaign sponsored by local preservation societies and historical associations. A town hall meeting aptly titled, “A Public Forum on the Future of the Old Capitol,” was staged in March, 1977 in Tallahassee and was well attended by people from various walks of life hailing from different regions of Florida. The meeting included remarks by Secretary Smathers, Lee Warner, as well as numerous other concerned citizens. Before the meeting was adjourned, a vote took place which showed overwhelming support for restoration. Of the 120 ballots cast, 116 or 96.7% voted for restoration of some sort. Only four people voted for demolition. The most popular alternative was the 1923 model which garnered 75.8% of the vote with the 1902 plan only gaining 10 votes. In the end, the 1902 model was decided upon as the most cost and space efficient version.[30]

A year following the town hall meeting, another event took place in Tallahassee. The Daughters of the American Revolution, Florida Federation of Women’s Club and Springtime Tallahassee sponsored Save the Capitol Night.[31] Fiery rhetoric was employed at the meeting in favor of preservation and restoration. One concerned citizen noted that without the old Capitol, the new Capitol is nothing more than an ordinary high rise office building.

The Pensacola Journal conducted a poll in April, 1978 that confirmed Askew’s fears; the people of Florida favored a restoration effort. Of those polled, 66.7% favored restoration, 9% were in favor of demolishing the building, while 24.3% said they were not sure.[32] The voices of the people were echoed in the halls of Florida’s legislature in May 1978 when the Senate voted 25-7 in favor of preservation, followed by a 103-12 vote in the House six hours later in favor of saving the 1902 version.[33] Bruce Smathers had previously staged a sit-in, refusing to leave his office in the old Capitol until legislation was passed saving the historic building. He was evicted on 17 May, a couple of days preceding the favorable vote. Despite the vote, there was still concern as to how Governor Askew would react to the legislation, but Representative Herb Morgan of Tallahassee was confident the governor would not veto the bill. Questions had arisen over Askew’s intentions, when a week before the vote came to the floor, Assistant Secretary of State Dave McNamara authored a scathing letter to the Governor in which he accused the chief executive of being guilty of a “cruel hoax” in ordering all occupants, including Smathers, out of the building because he deemed it unsafe.[34]

The vote in the legislature, however, did not end the debate. The restoration work was not immediately started, and this led to another concerted effort to demolish the old Capitol in 1979, steered by State Senator Dempsey Barron of Panama City. Barron claimed the old Capitol was a “dilapidated mess with no historic value” and that restoration “might turn into a boondoggle.”[35] Barron was the loudest critic of the old Capitol in 1979, and another motion to demolish the Capitol was set forth after the 1978 vote for restoration. This time Barron was aided by Senator Harry Johnston of West Palm Beach who had sponsored Barron’s bill. Johnston claimed it was “fiscally irresponsible to try and renovate the old Capitol” after a seven million dollar price tag was slapped on the project.[36] A vote was taken in the Senate for demolition of the building and it passed 22-17. Many Senators who had previously voted to save the Capitol a year before had changed their minds after being persuaded by Barron and Johnston. Senator Childers went a step further when he proclaimed that the old Capitol did not hold any value to the present-day citizens of Florida. He ridiculed preservationists by exclaiming “all those people who saw the 1902 Capitol aren’t here, they won’t see it, they’re dead.”[37] Childers also claimed that the building was ready to cave in and was unsafe, a charge Askew had made the previous year when he ordered the landmark closed. Derek McLean, the state’s project director for restoration shot back, denying the charges and also claimed that the task would be completed $38,000 under budget.[38] The scare thrown into the preservationist community was short lived as the House did not pass the demolition bill and the legislature upheld the appropriated funds, seven million dollars, for restoration of the 1902 capitol.

Dr. Lee Warner, currently serving as Alabama’s State Historic Preservation Officer, when commenting on the decade debate and the compromise that ensued, noted that the “result is the Florida capitols as they appear in 1982, are an imposing and functional combination of structures that serve the state’s functional and symbolic needs well.”[39] The long and grueling battle also served as the impetus for the creation of the Florida Trust for Historic Preservation, founded in 1978 by the very people who fought Governor Askew to save the Capitol from demolition. The battle to save the old Capitol building served a larger purpose by motivating the community to act for preservation while reminding Floridians how important the state’s history is to its citizens.