"Is the National Park System in danger of turning into a catchall system? Should a site dedicated to the nuclear arms race, another to union organizers, and another to First Ladies really fall under an agency that started out preserving spectacular vistas and landscapes, that showcases Yosemite, Yellowstone, and the Grand Canyon?"

Morristown was the first National Historical Park; it was created in 1933, 81 years ago. Salem Maritime was the first National Historic Site; it was created in 1938, 76 years ago. the first four National Military Parks were created in the 1890s, and were transferred to the National Park Service in 1933, the same year that the first NHP was created.

So this seems like a particularly silly question to me. The National Park Service may have started out just preserving spectacular vistas and landscapes, but for the past 80 years it's clearly been managing more than that. It's not like the Park Service's expanded role of preserving sites of historical and cultural significance, in addition to areas of natural beauty and significance, is some sort of new development.

If it is appropriate for the National Park Service to manage sites associated with the development of maritime industry or the textile industry or trade outposts, then it is appropriate for the Service to manage a site associated with the history of organized labor. If it is appropriate for the Park Service to manage sites associated with the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 and the Civil War and the Cold War (Minuteman Missile), then it is appropriate for it to manage a site associated with World War 2. If it is appropriate for the Park Service to manage birthplaces and residences and memorials associated with various presidents, it's appropriate for it to manage one associated with First Ladies as well.

The alternatives to this would be either the government jettisoning these historic sites, which I feel would be a colossal loss for our country and our national heritage, or creating a duplicative and redundant bureaucracy to perform the same functions the National Park Service is already performing perfectly well -- and considering many of our National Parks still involve the management, interpretation, and preservation of historic structures (or are you saying there are none of these things at Yellowstone, at Glacier, at Yosemite?) the Park Service would still need to employ historians and archeologists like whatever new bureaucratic agency we create to exclusively manage historic sites. So what's the point? It sounds like an increase in inefficiency and a waste of taxpayer money to engage in such a reorganization.

I saw a comment a while back, and I think it was on this forum, that the NPS should maybe be broken up into 3 units.  One should be for historic, another for military, and a unit for the nature parks.  I think this is a better approach.  Then those three units are funded and budgeted accordingly.  It can get pretty sketchy when it comes to historic sites, because just about anything can be declared historic if it's somewhat aged.  I think the original National Park idea was created to preserve landscapes.  I think Mesa Verde was where that tide started to shift.

I don't really seek out the cannonball sites, but I can see where they are part of the American fabric. 

I do hope Maine Woods occurs in my life time.  I also like your idea of upgrading the Presedential range.  Also, the adirondacks are a pretty well preserved place too. Even though it's not a National Park, it feels like it in many areas.

"I saw a comment a while back, and I think it was on this forum, that the NPS should maybe be broken up into 3 units. One should be for historic, another for military, and a unit for the nature parks. I think this is a better approach."

I really don't. Many of the historic sites also contain areas of natural beauty that need to be preserved along the same lines as places like Glacier National Park. And many of the grand natural areas have historic sites within them that require the appropriate preservation and interpretation.

So you'd create three different agencies. And then, in order to properly do their jobs, these agencies would either need to co-manage virtually every site in the system, or they'd end up employing people with the same professional skills. It'd create new inefficiencies and bureaucracies that would not actually help in the management of these places in any way. You're the supposed expert on Great Smoky Mountains here. Well, Great Smoky has the appropriate staff to maintain its trails and vistas, but it also has people with historical expertise who maintain its historic structures. So would the new Historic Park Service need to co-manage Great Smoky with the Natural Park Service in order to ensure the sites are cared for appropriately? Or would the Natural Park Service keep employing historians and archaeologists, the same sort of people getting hired by the Historic Park Service? Then we'd have two duplicative agencies hiring the same sort of people. It makes absolutely no sense.

The National Park Service is staffed to properly manage each aspect of its mission.

" It can get pretty sketchy when it comes to historic sites, because just about anything can be declared historic if it's somewhat aged."

That's not really true. The National Park Service has clear guidelines for determining national significance, along with suitability and feasibility for inclusion in the park system, for historic sites. If you think their analysis goes no deeper than "yep, that building is old," that's really silly. Their criteria is solid, they do great historic analysis, and I've read plenty of SRSes where they've dismissed sites as lacking national historic significance.

"I think the original National Park idea was created to preserve landscapes."

That was the original idea, but the idea changed a long time ago. When the oldest historic sites under the Park Service's purview are almost as old (81 years) as the Park Service itself (98 years), it's kind of pointless to change things back to the way they used to be. The service has long since adapted to its expanded mission of preserving historic and culturally significant sites.

The alternatives to this would be either the government jettisoning these historic sites, which I feel would be a colossal loss for our country and our national heritage

Disagree on two levels.  First, many of these sites really have no historical significance and dropping them from the NPS would do nothing to diminish our national heritage.  Second, jettisoning even the significant ones would not necessarily result in a loss.    Take Presidential homes.  Which are the most historically significant and most visited?  Hoover birth place? Truman's home? Reagan's birthplace? Carter's peanut farm? No.  Its Mount Vernon, Monticello and Montpelier.  None of which are in the park system.  It didn't take the NPS to preserve these truly historically significant properties. 

Its the National Park System.  Not the National Historic Society or the National Cheerleader for Social Causes.  If there is a truly historic site that is threatened or can't be privately maintained then NPS status might be warranted.  But when the NPS has to search for a cite to honor politically correct cause A, B, or C, then it is nothing but a waste of taxpayer money. 

I do hope Maine Woods occurs in my life time. I also like your idea of upgrading the Presedential range.

Given these are already well managed and protected, what would be accomplished?  I have hiked the 100 mile Wilderness a couple of times.  I can't see how upgrading it to NPS status would improve the experience in any way. 

Simply due to providing the eastern US with a few more National Parks on par with Shenandoah, Smokies, and the Everglades.  Maine Woods, the Allegheny Highlands in northeaster WV, and the Presidentials would fit the bill for the next best places, IMO.

Simply due to providing the eastern US with a few more National Parks

Why? Just to say we have more National Parks?