In an unfortunate coincidence, given the beating NY took from Hurricane Sandy and the need for federal disaster assistance, today is the anniversary (October 30, 1975) of the infamous NY Daily News headline, FORD TO CITY: Drop Dead. It appeared when New York (and several other major metropolises) were mired in a fiscal crisis and on the verge of bankruptcy. President Ford vowed he would veto any fiscal relief package passed by Congress, saying New York needed to set its financial house in order on its own. And yet, in a move seemingly unimaginable in today’s political climate, Ford, who never actually said “drop dead,” eventually relented and federal loans were made available to the city.
In late October 1884 Republican candidate James G. Blaine seemed all but certain to win the presidency. With the election only one week away, he was campaigning in New York City, wooing the vital Irish Catholic vote to secure New York State and its many electoral votes. Everything was going his way until a Presbyterian minister named Rev. Samuel Burchard, speaking at a pro-Blaine event that evening, denounced the Democrats as the party of “rum, Romanism, and rebellion.” Translation: the Democratic party was controlled by boozers (“rum”), Catholics (“Romanism”), and ex-Confederates (“rebellion”). When Democratic newspapers across the country ran the phrase as a banner headline the next day, Blaine’s campaign suffered a mortal would from which it could not recover. Blaine soon denounced Burchard’s intemperate words, but it was too little too late. Thrown on the defensive, his campaign never recovered. In one of the closest elections in American history, Cleveland carried New York by a mere 1,149 votes and the national popular vote by just two tenths of one percent. How many Irish Catholic votes Blaine lost due to Burchard’s bigoted remark will never be known, but it was surely enough to cost him the election. Democrat Grover Cleveland, despite having been outed during the campaign as the father of an illegitimate child, won New York state and the election.
InThePastLane Edward T. O’Donnell
Given the raging debate in contemporary American politics over what role if any the government should play in the economy, it’s always instructive to look to history for some insight. One of the oldest and most influential myths in American history goes as follows: Before the 20th century the nation’s state and federal governments adhered to a laissez-faire creed and played no role in the economy other than to enforce the law and keep the peace. While it certainly is true that the government played less of a role in earlier eras compared to now, the notion of some past golden age of libertarian rugged individualism is, simply put, a fantasy.
We need only look to the story of the Erie Canal, which celebrates its 187th anniversary this week. This monumental feat of political will, engineering genius, and backbreaking labor was made possible only by the actions of the state government of New York. As such, it provided a model of public-private partnerships that endure to this day (consider the government’s recent role in not only creating the Internet, but also taking measures to provide nearly universal access to it). The ethos behind such ventures has remained unchanged: government investment in certain large-scale enterprises (postal service, public schools, railroads, electricity, highways, etc.) will benefit society at large.
The Erie Canal, which opened on October 26, 1825, was the brainchild of Governor DeWitt Clinton. He was in every respect the “father” of the Erie Canal. The descendant of Irish immigrants, Clinton was born in 1769 in Little Britain, NY. Educated at Columbia College, he followed the example of his uncle, then governor of New York, and entered politics. He served in the state legislature and one term in the U. S. Senate before winning his first term as Mayor of New York City in 1803. He served in that office until 1815 and won election as Governor in 1817.
Clinton was no mere politician. He was a brilliant visionary who foresaw New York’s greatness as the Empire State long before most of his contemporaries. He was also a progressive who believed – to the horror of his conservative counterparts – that the proper role of government was not merely to administer the laws and keep the peace. Rather, it was also obligated to support bold initiatives that would benefit the public, everything from public schools to a massive canal across upstate New York.
The proposed Erie Canal was a mind-boggling 363 miles in length across upstate New York, connecting the Hudson River with Lake Erie. It also carried a staggering price tag of $7 million. Not surprisingly, given its unprecedented size and cost, the canal generated vehement political opposition. Opponents sneered that “Clinton’s ditch” would bankrupt that state treasury and never succeed. Undaunted, Clinton waged a ceaseless campaign to garner support and in 1817 the state legislature passed a bill approving of the project.
Construction began that same year. Two aspects of the project merit special attention. First, nearly all the power to dig the 363-mile canal came from human beings wielding shovels and picks (the rest came from mules and oxen). Second, since no canal of this type and size existed in the world, the project’s engineers had to invent and innovate as they went along.
Most of the canal workers were Irish immigrants and by 1818 some 3,000 Irishmen were swinging picks and lifting shovels in the big ditch by 1818. They lived a rough existence to say the least, working long hours in exceedingly dangerous conditions for paltry wages. Scores died in construction accidents or from disease contracted in the grim canal camps. Despite these conditions, contractors never lacked for laborers and the monumental project reached completion in the fall of 1825. It took just eight short years using to dig a canal 40 feet wide and 363 miles long with 77 locks and 18 aqueducts. No project would rival it in scale, cost, and engineering challenge until the Interstate Highway program of the 1950s.
To mark its opening, New York officials staged a massive statewide “Festival of Connection” that began with Gov. Clinton and a host of dignitaries boarding a canal boat in Buffalo, NY on October 26, 1825. Ten days later, after traveling the length of the canal and then down the Hudson River, they arrived in New York City to one of the most spectacular civic celebrations in the city’s history. Clinton marked the “wedding of the waters” by emptying two barrels of Lake Erie water into the Atlantic ocean.
New Yorkers were justifiably proud of their new canal, but one vital question hung in the air: was it worth it? Clinton, of course, had no doubts. On the evening of the great celebration he boasted of New York that “the city will, in the course of time, become the granary of the world, the emporium of commerce, the seat of manufactures, the focus of great moneyed operations. And before the revolution of a century, the whole island of Manhattan, covered with inhabitants, will construe one vast city.”
Proof of Clinton’s prescience was not long in coming. Within a year canal boats transported some 221,000 barrels of flour and 435,000 gallons of whiskey, to name but a few of the leading products floating on the waterway. More astonishing than volume were the speed of transit and reduction in cost. The cost of moving Midwestern grain from Lake Erie to New York harbor dropped from $100 per ton to $9 per ton. The time of transit was similarly slashed from 20 days to 7. So much commerce moved along the canal in its first nine years that toll receipts paid off the entire debt and began to finance thirteen more canals in the state.
The stunning success of the Erie Canal touched off a frenetic era of canal building that saw nearly every state in the Union launch canal projects from Massachusetts to Louisiana. Unfortunately for these states, few of these canals proved a worthwhile investment because even as they constructed them a new technology—the railroad—was rapidly taking hold. Unlike canals, the railroad could be built quickly and almost anywhere. And railroads never froze in the winter. As a result, the canal played a role in the transportation revolution that was very similar to the ill-fated 8-track tape in the 1970s. For all their limitations, 8-tracks represented the first major break from LP records, allowing people to play music of their choosing in their cars and at the beach. They were soon replaced by the far superior cassette tape (the railroad) which in turn was replaced by the compact disk (the automobile).
The Erie Canal remained a key commercial highway into the late 19th century. But competition from railroads and later trucks (neither of which froze in the winter) doomed it to sharply reduced capacity by 1900 and obsolescence by the late 1940s. Today the canal is a National Heritage Corridor with many of its adjacent towns investing in museums, historic sites, and heritage tourism designed to lure visitors and boost local economies hit hard by the canal’s demise and the loss of manufacturing.
The story of the Erie Canal reminds us that, contemporary political rhetoric aside, government investment in projects intended to benefit most Americans has a long and storied history. It’s an imperfect history, to be sure, with its share of failures, but also with its many triumphs.
Follow me on Twitter @InThePastLane
Sources and Further Reading
Peter L. Bernstein, Wedding of the Waters: The Erie Canal and the Making of a Great Nation (Norton, 2006)
Evan Cornog, The Birth of Empire: DeWitt Clinton and the American Experience, 1769-1828 (Oxford, 2000)
L. Ray Gunn, The Decline of Authority: Public Economic Policy and Political Development in New York (Cornell University Press, 1988)
Gerard Koeppel, Bond of Union: Building the Erie Canal and the American Empire (Da Capo Press, 2009)
Ronald E. Shaw, Canals For A Nation: The Canal Era in the United States, 1790-1860 ((University Press of Kentucky, 1993)
Carol Sheriff, The Artificial River: The Erie Canal and the Paradox of Progress, 1817-1862 (Hill and Wang, 1997)
Every summer Americans spend millions of dollars to destroy, or at least repel, the pesky mosquito. As a people, we hate mosquitoes. But we might be a little less hostile toward these creatures if we realized the role mosquitoes played in winning the American Revolution.
Certainly the leadership of Gen. George Washington and the fortitude and bravery of the men of the Continental Army rightfully deserve most of the credit in earning the victory over the British. But historians also recognize the key role played by the mighty Anopheles quadrimaculatus mosquitoes, the malaria bearing mosquitoes that flourished in the coastal regions of the American South. Here’s what happened. In 1779 the British invaded the American South (the “Southern Strategy”) in the hopes of winning a few battles that would then trigger a Loyalist uprising. With the South under British control the redcoats would then move to defeat the rebellion in the remaining colonies. At least that was the plan. The British and German soldiers serving under Gen. Cornwallis had almost no previous exposure to malaria when they arrived in the Tidewater region near Yorktown in June 1781. By late summer as many as half his soldiers were incapacitated by malaria. Fortunately for the American and French soldiers who opposed Cornwallis, they had arrived in the Tidewater region in September. So while mosquitoes soon infected many of them with malaria, smaller numbers were taken ill because the disease takes up to a month to manifest symptoms. And it was in those weeks that the Continental Army managed to trap and lay siege to Cornwallis and what he termed his “force daily diminished by sickness.” On October 19, 1781, seemingly out of options and with no relief in sight, Cornwallis surrendered.
So credit the men of the Continental Army, but don’t forget the mosquitoes!
Read more here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/18/AR2010101803877.html
InThePastLane.com by Edward T. O’Donnell
Today in History – October 17, 1968 – African American athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos raise their hands to make the Black Power salute during the medal awards ceremonies at the 1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico City. They also wore no shoes to symbolize the poverty of black Americans and black beads to honor those who died at the hands of lynch mobs. These expressions of solidarity with the Civil Rights Movement sparked outrage from Olympic officials. They denounced the “politicization” of the Olympics, calling it “a deliberate and violent breach of the fundamental principles of the Olympic spirit.” Many American politicians criticized the men for making the salute during the playing of the national anthem. Smith and Carlos were summarily expelled from the Olympic village. They returned to the U.S. to face harsh criticism and years of hostility from white Americans.
The charge that these tow men were guilty of politicizing the Olympics reflected the widely believed mythology that the Olympic Games had always operated outside of political influence. A quick look at the historical record (for example, the 1936 Olympics held in Nazi Germany or the 1980 ice hockey game between the U.S. and Soviet Union) makes it clear that the Olympics have always been influenced by politics. Today this photo of the Black Power salute at the 1968 Olympics is considered by many Americans an iconic moment of courageous protest that marked the Civil Rights movement. And Smith and Carlos are properly regarded as important contributors to that movement.