QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill To revisit this briefly: Harriman, Hill, Gould, Huntington, and Morgan changed the world. When you trace back from the present day the history of their railroad systems, it's possible to stop with their career and look no further, because they changed everything they touched so utterly. It was as if the railroad world came to them as an orphaned infant, severed completely from its past. John Insley Blair was, in contrast, part of the continuum. He wasn't particularly different from a lot of other business leaders, he didn't do anything that was especially different, and had he not been there, someone just like him probably would have filled his place. He didn't iterate railroading to suit his vision the way Hill, Harriman, Gould et al. did.
QUOTE: Originally posted by dknelson John Insley Blair also figures, oddly enough, in the history of Wisconsin (Green Bay & Western) Nebraska and Iowa railroading. He was the son of Scottish immigrants and was not well educated. Together with the Scrantons he gained control of the Lackawanna, which in turn controlled lots of Lake Michigan steamboats resulting in railroad interests in Green Bay WI. In 1860 Blair and others investigated the railroad situation in Cedar Rapids Iowa. He attended the 1860 Republican party convention in Chicago during the same trip. He had a hand in building the Cedar Rapids and Missouri River RR and surveyed what became the Chicago & North Western's line across Iowa. By 1860 Blair was in Nebraska and built more railroads in that state. He then promoted a line in Iowa that eventually became part of the Rock Island. By that time Blair had acquired banks, land, railroads -- he would develop a small railroad and then sell it to a larger one at a high price. This included situations where he sat on the Board of both sides! My source is Stan Mailer's tremendous book "Green Bay & Western" published by Hundman. This is one of the finest railroad histories around and highly recommended. Dave Nelson
QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill Andy: I didn't say the railroad was an orphan to any of these great railroaders (surely none of their properties were any such thing) but that they treated the railroad AS IF it had come to them as an orphan. That is, they were not beholden to what had come before, thought about what could be done differently, then did it, and stood out apart from everyone else. It's an important distinction.
QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill Roy -- one final comment. Before comparing people then and now, you have to zero out the externalities. A wide-open continent presents great opportunities and affords a field of action for great men.
QUOTE: Originally posted by cbt141 http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Forbes_family mentioning the forbes cb&q family made me wonder if they were also the publishing dynasty. one of the rail forbes' was named malcolm. turns out that the answer is no, but they are related to almost everybody else. these guys were into some interesting lines of work. also, remember their "china trade" perkins relations included charles perkins the "shaper" of cb&q. notice that they have stayed politically active.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.