The language of the act reflected the higher aspirations of public lands for crafting America’s national identity. Frederick Law Olmstead, a landscape architect who co-designed New York City's Central Park and drafted a charter for Yosemite in 1865, wrote passionately about the obligation of the government to protect such places. “It is the main duty of government, if it is not the sole duty of government, to provide means of protection all citizens in the pursuit of happiness,” wrote Olmsted, arguing that happiness could be found through the “occasional contemplation of natural scenes of an impressive character.” Public parks, wrote Olmsted, ensured such happiness was available to all citizens, upholding the values of unity, liberty and equality.
“It’s a remarkable document in many ways,” said Fiege, “He talks about national parks as a fulfillment of the promise of the American republic, echoing ideas and sentiments that go back to the founding fathers.”
Despite these democratic ambitions, the creation of Yellowstone and other national parks was not without tension, particularly among the locals. “Before the park was created, people hunted for food,” says Limerick. “After the park was created, that became an illegal act called poaching. And that changed the whole tenor of life in neighboring communities.”
And the public for whom the park was intended did not include everyone. “These places could not have been seen as wilderness without the exclusion of the Native people,” says Limerick. “That was a purposeful exclusion.”
In the words of historian Paul Schullery, “The idea of Yellowstone is, like nature itself, a work in progress.” As public understandings of Native rights and history evolve, the legacy of Yellowstone becomes more complicated in retrospect. Limerick argues that challenging, dynamic character is what makes the park so special.
“It never stands still, it always changes. And it will always be a place that challenges the mind,” says Limerick, “The geysers and hot springs, all the many different forms of life—it’s chronically, wonderfully unsettling. Is that always comfortable? No! But we can’t make it into an interchangeable part of the American experience.”