An excerpt from the thread that Bruce/ Agent Kid found and linked to above:
erikem greyhounds White literally parades his lack of understanding with the following statement: “…similar technologies and similar economies should produce similar corporations. Great Britain, France, and Prussia, however, did not replicate the American form of railroad organization, although each was a capitalist nation and each employed similar technologies.” The facts are: 1) North America and Europe did not have “Similar Economies”. Europe was settled and had existing population/commercial centers. The US was largely unsettled with few, if any, such centers beyond the Atlantic seaboard. 2) The rail technologies used on each continent had a rapid and profound divergence from the beginning of railroading. An example of this divergence would be that rail cars in North America had (and have) eight wheels. European rail cars had four wheels. It may seem minor, but unless one understands the reason for this difference it is impossible to understand why the North American railroads developed differently than the European railroads. In his book “The North American Railroad”, James E Vance Jr. understands and explains the difference between railroads in Britain and the US. The British rail lines were built to connect established centers of commerce and population. They ran through lands that had been settled for centuries. This resulted in a vastly different railroad than was built in the US. Ken, One of the first things that came to mind when reading about "Railroaded" was that White really needed to read Vance's book a few times before starting on his own. What Vance explained in his book was how the markets/conditions for railroads differed between Britain and the US and why the US approach to building railroads evolved rapidly away from the British approach - with the first attempts at US construction copying British practice. Vance also pointed out that the US was capital poor with respect to Britain, requiring a different approach to financing a railroad. I'll pass on White's book - sounds like he has a huge axe to grind. - Erik P.S. It does warm my heart to see a Berkeley guy (Vance) "showing the way" to a Stanford Guy (White) - I was at UCB from '72 to '78.
greyhounds White literally parades his lack of understanding with the following statement: “…similar technologies and similar economies should produce similar corporations. Great Britain, France, and Prussia, however, did not replicate the American form of railroad organization, although each was a capitalist nation and each employed similar technologies.” The facts are: 1) North America and Europe did not have “Similar Economies”. Europe was settled and had existing population/commercial centers. The US was largely unsettled with few, if any, such centers beyond the Atlantic seaboard. 2) The rail technologies used on each continent had a rapid and profound divergence from the beginning of railroading. An example of this divergence would be that rail cars in North America had (and have) eight wheels. European rail cars had four wheels. It may seem minor, but unless one understands the reason for this difference it is impossible to understand why the North American railroads developed differently than the European railroads. In his book “The North American Railroad”, James E Vance Jr. understands and explains the difference between railroads in Britain and the US. The British rail lines were built to connect established centers of commerce and population. They ran through lands that had been settled for centuries. This resulted in a vastly different railroad than was built in the US.
“…similar technologies and similar economies should produce similar corporations. Great Britain, France, and Prussia, however, did not replicate the American form of railroad organization, although each was a capitalist nation and each employed similar technologies.”
The facts are: 1) North America and Europe did not have “Similar Economies”. Europe was settled and had existing population/commercial centers. The US was largely unsettled with few, if any, such centers beyond the Atlantic seaboard. 2) The rail technologies used on each continent had a rapid and profound divergence from the beginning of railroading. An example of this divergence would be that rail cars in North America had (and have) eight wheels. European rail cars had four wheels. It may seem minor, but unless one understands the reason for this difference it is impossible to understand why the North American railroads developed differently than the European railroads.
In his book “The North American Railroad”, James E Vance Jr. understands and explains the difference between railroads in Britain and the US. The British rail lines were built to connect established centers of commerce and population. They ran through lands that had been settled for centuries. This resulted in a vastly different railroad than was built in the US.
One of the first things that came to mind when reading about "Railroaded" was that White really needed to read Vance's book a few times before starting on his own.
What Vance explained in his book was how the markets/conditions for railroads differed between Britain and the US and why the US approach to building railroads evolved rapidly away from the British approach - with the first attempts at US construction copying British practice. Vance also pointed out that the US was capital poor with respect to Britain, requiring a different approach to financing a railroad.
I'll pass on White's book - sounds like he has a huge axe to grind.
- Erik
P.S. It does warm my heart to see a Berkeley guy (Vance) "showing the way" to a Stanford Guy (White) - I was at UCB from '72 to '78.
http://www.abebooks.com/9780801845734/North-American-Railroad-Origin-Evolution-0801845734/plp
- Paul North.
Murphy Sidingwhen I do as you mentioned, there is no drop down box for me, that says "Show All". Any idea what I may be missing?
I have no idea. I tried my own instructions again, and there was the same drop down box saying "Show All".
If you just use the search box in the normal way, and hit enter after your search terms, I don't see why it shouldn't work. Provided you are not on an individual thread page.
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
AgentKidWhen a regular person reads a thread, and sees something that prompts a question in his mind, his natural response is to move to the right side of the page and scroll up or down to the Search Community box. DO NOT DO THAT! DO NOT use that box!
Thanks for the good information. Now I know what I did wrong. I followed the instructions.
Bruce- Thanks for the info. It's kind of like playing a game. However, when I do as you mentioned, there is no drop down box for me, that says "Show All". Any idea what I may be missing?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy SidingFor those of us who have not been able to get the search function to work on this latest and greatest software update, can you tell us how you found that thread? Thanks.
First off, apologies for not getting back to you sooner. I was away from home much of yesterday. Also, as long time members of this forum know, my ability to participate meaningfully on this form is hopelessly compromised during Curling season!
Now to the question at hand: What we have here is a case of computer programmers not behaving like regular people. And this applies to every iteration of the forum software going back to my "seniority date", on this forum. When a regular person reads a thread, and sees something that prompts a question in his mind, his natural response is to move to the right side of the page and scroll up or down to the Search Community box. DO NOT DO THAT! DO NOT use that box!
You have to back out of the thread you are in, and get back to the "General Discussion" page, listing all of the threads, and use the "Search Community" box on that page. It is the only way to get the search function to look at all the previous General Discussion threads. In the "Search Community" box, I then typed Railroaded Transcontinental White, and clicked the "Show All" box that dropped down. The link we were looking for was, I believe, the third entry down.
Unbelievably, if you try the "Search Community" box from within a particular thread, it will only search posts in that thread! Here is where the disconnect between us and the programmers occurs. The programmer is no doubt working against the clock and is not likely to be a railfan, so he does not take the time to go into a particular thread. He gets as far as the General Discussion page, runs a couple of tests there, and says "Yup, it works". What they need to do is either fix that, or stop the box from appearing on individual thread pages.
I presume that this procedure also needs to be used to search in the "Locomotive", or "Transit", etc., portions of the forum as well. Now, if one is unsure whether what you are looking for is in the "General Discussion", or "Locomotive" sections, for example, I am not sure if you have to back out one section further, to "TRAINS Magazine forums", and use the "Search Community" box there, or if you have to run two separate searches.
Also, I think the ability to search through one's own posts has been completely compromised in the last two versions of the forum software. I did do one successful search of my own posts in the last version of the software, but that appeared to be a happy accident and I was never able to replicate the event.
greyhounds By the time Huntington died, in 1900, he had not one, but two transcon rail lines in operation.
By the time Huntington died, in 1900, he had not one, but two transcon rail lines in operation.
Not to mention a 17 mile shortline in the Adirondacks.
Huntington, along with several other names of the day, tired of travelling cross-country or on winding streams and rivers to reach his great camp in the Adirondacks. So he, along with several others (including a Durant), built a connection to the Mohawk & Malone (NYC Adirondack Division) between Carter, 6 miles north of Old Forge, and Raquette Lake, the Raquette Lake Railroad.
One story regarding the building of the line relates that Huntington's wife had tired of the laborious trip and told her husband that she wouldn't go to the camp again unless she could go mostly by rail. After all, if he had built a transcon, he could certainly handle a 17 mile branch.
The line lasted until the early 1930's, a victim of improved roads. Much of the ROW is still visible and is used as a trail. I've driven over portions of it, and alongside other parts.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
ButchKnouseUnlike in California, the prospect of either seceding and going it alone, OR petitioning the US for admission as a state, was being openly debated in BC.
I would only add that Prime Minister John A. Macdonald promised British Columbia a railroad to prevent the province from joining the US.
The biggest reason for the Transcon and why it was funded and when was a simple one. Lincoln was afraid that California would take advantage of the chaos of the Civil War and simply secede from the US and go it alone as a nation. Given the mineral wealth out West, Lincoln was not willing to risk it.
The first Canadian Transcon was built for the same reason. British Columbia was well settled and populated, but there was practically nothing between them and Toronto.
Unlike in California, the prospect of either seceding and going it alone, OR petitioning the US for admission as a state, was being openly debated in BC.
Reality TV is to reality, what Professional Wrestling is to Professional Brain Surgery.
erikemA couple of notes about Collis P Huntington: He was an abolitionist prior to the Civil War
As I recall all of the Big Four were abolitionists and Republicans.
Murphy Siding AgentKid Gentlemen; The Missing Link! http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/207640.aspx Bruce For those of us who have not been able to get the search function to work on this latest and greatest software update, can you tell us how you found that thread? Thanks.
AgentKid Gentlemen; The Missing Link! http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/207640.aspx Bruce
Gentlemen; The Missing Link!
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/207640.aspx
Thanks to Bruce (Agent Kid) and to Norris (Murphy Siding) for providing the link to that Thread.. These reviews are really helpful and 'Greyhounds' reviews are particularly insightful.
The opening comment about Revisionist History and some authors. Was pretty spot-on from my point of view. It seems more and more "History" seems to lak any view of the contextual issues of the times in which they occurred. To a certain extent, it seems to me that academics who purport to write history are more interested in embelishment, and trying to make their contributions " sexy". They speed-write an account to live up to the old saw about how College professors keep their job " To publish or Perish". As a fairly recent college grad who suffered a lapsed educational time line ( plus 30 years, between Freshman and Sophmor years). It seemed evident that the History I remembered, and the History I studied, seemed to have a lot of the same details,but emphasis( plus politics) was much different the second time around....
greyhoundsWhite just spews hatred about all this with very little fact thrown in.
I see White as throwing in a great many facts; that is his problem. All of his fact obscure what was actually accomplished. He can't see the forest for the trees. And he does omit some important facts such as the need for the UP and CP. I see him as naïve rather than evil. But we agree he is flat out wrong.
A couple of notes about Collis P Huntington: He was an abolitionist prior to the Civil War and late in life donated money to several colleges that were educating former slaves. He was also known for looking out for his employees during his shopkeeper days.
Durant of the UP was another story...
John WR If you, Bruce, or anyone else is still interested in this subject (and very few seem to be) I think there is another issue to be addressed. Richard White's main thrust is to object to where the transcontinentals were built, when they were built and the way in which they were built. That is, he objects to the Federal Government's policy decision to build them at all. He thinks the Pacific Railway Acts should never have been passed and that the job should have waited until the private sector did it. I agree that is the real issue although I think that the Federal Government adopted the right policy. It might have been carried out better but that is Monday morning quarterbacking. And I believe that it was possible to support or oppose the Pacific Railway Acts without having a detailed understanding of the way railroads operate.
If you, Bruce, or anyone else is still interested in this subject (and very few seem to be) I think there is another issue to be addressed.
Richard White's main thrust is to object to where the transcontinentals were built, when they were built and the way in which they were built. That is, he objects to the Federal Government's policy decision to build them at all. He thinks the Pacific Railway Acts should never have been passed and that the job should have waited until the private sector did it.
I agree that is the real issue although I think that the Federal Government adopted the right policy. It might have been carried out better but that is Monday morning quarterbacking. And I believe that it was possible to support or oppose the Pacific Railway Acts without having a detailed understanding of the way railroads operate.
I certainly agree that it is possible to support or oppose the Pacific Railway Act without having a detailed understanding of the way railroads work.
The valid criticisim of Richard White, in his awful "Railroaded", is that he doesn't do that. He just slings mud at the men who built the transcons. He's savagely critical of everyone from Collis Huntington to James J. Hill and everyone else involved. Part and parcel of his uninformed criticism is how they operated the railroads. It's obvious to anyone who understands railroading that White doesn't know what he's talking about. He just wants to sling mud.
White never deals with why the US and Canadian governments wanted the transcontinental rail lines built. He claims they were a mistake. He does nothing to support his claims. All he does is level uninformed criticism at the men who succeeded. He just literally trashes the HELL out of men who overcame great odds and made great things happen.
Look at what Collis Huntington did. He was part of the "Big Four" who built the Central Pacific eastward over the Sierra Nevada Mountains and across the Nevada desert. They did it in the 1860s at the end of an 18,000 mile long supply line with little in the way of powered equipment, no dynamite, no electric or even keroseen lighting in the tunnels, and a labor shortage that required recruiting men from China.
Huntington went back east to walk point on the supply line. He had to get everything purchased and shipped out in a timely manner. He got the job done and the railroad built. White just throws him under the bus. White even calls Huntington a swindler without presenting one shred of evidence that Huntington ever swindled anyone. White's book is basically hate speech in spades.
Yes, it was a government contract. But it was a very difficult government contract to fulfill. They got it done. And White just hates that.
By the time Huntington died, in 1900, he had not one, but two transcon rail lines in operation. There was the original Central Pacific and then the Southern Pacific line from California to New Orleans. When Huntington died his Southern Pacific was the largest transportation company in the world. Not too shabby for a Sacramento merchant who heard a presentation from Theodore Judah and grasp the potential.
White just spews hatred about all this with very little fact thrown in.
BTW, the Central Pacific (to become the Southern Pacific) was the first railroad in the world and one of the first companies in the world to provide health care for its employees and retirees. The system was established in 1867. White never mentions such a thing. Why would he? It doesn't fit the hate monger template he was writing to.
Thank you so much, Bruce.
I read the reviews by Greyhounds and by Chuck and the comments following. I agree with the consensus that both reviews are excellent.
Actually, I think the reviews understate the issue White misses. It is the railroads that took a vast land and forged it into two nations, the US and Canada. Without railroads this would not have happened. Should the US or Canada declined to become a nation? What then would the land have become? I think we saw what would happen a few years before in the events that are called Bleeding Kansas. Railroads came with some problems and the treatment of Native Americans was one of the worst ones. But Bleeding Kansas was just continuing guerrilla was. It was worse, much worse.
It would be nice if there was a search feature - THAT WORKS!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Thank you, Firelock. However, going back even a year on this thread is a long and tedious job. There are over 1600 posts that go back to 2001. Working backward the most I can do is to go back 2 pages at a time which cover a month or less. I tried searching but the search function does not access these posts. Perhaps some day when I have time on my hands I'll try again.
John
John. there was quite a bit of discussion on this book about, oh, a year or so ago in the Forum. No point in bringing up everything that was said by everyone, me included, but I think if you look back through "General Discussion" you may find it. I think that's where it was. There was quite a bit of give and take on "Railroaded."
Railroaded: The Transcontinentals and the Making of Modern America is a revisionist history by Richard A. White. White argues that the transcontinental railroads should not have been built when they were built, where they were built or in the way they were built. He argues the Pacific Railroad Acts of 1862 should never have been passed but railroad building should have been left to the private sector.
It is an interesting idea and, I think, worth reading. But there is one thing he does not consider. In 1862 France and Britain still not given up the idea of American colonies. Sam Houston negotiated with Britain to have Texas become a British colony. The idea fell through because of the issue of slavery but the British were interested. While the US was busy with our Civil War Napoleon tried to conquer Mexico. Finally, both Britain and France considered offering to broker an armistice between the Union and the Confederacy. Had they succeeded they would have a lot of power over the two countries which would have had to compete with each other. Lincoln put an end to any possibility of such and offer with The Emancipation Proclamation. White does not consider these problems.
Amazon has several reviews, both positive and negative, of the book. Here is a link:
http://www.amazon.com/Railroaded-Transcontinentals-Making-Modern-America/product-reviews/0393342379/ref=cm_cr_dp_qt_hist_five?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addFiveStar&showViewpoints=0
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.