National Public Radio's Morning Edition had a 5 +/- min. interview with the author, Richard White of Stanford University, this morning at about 6:20 AM EDT (usually rebroadcast 2 hrs. later) - though your time may vary, check local station's schedule. Link to it:
http://www.npr.org/2011/07/11/137497772/how-trains-railroaded-the-american-economy
- Paul North.
Very interesting. I have a feeling the tone of his book (judging by the excerpts, etc.) will not get much positive feedback here.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
The author seems to have an axe to grind here. He blames the pioneering railroads for his perception of evils of modern corporate America. However, I get the impression that he believes in those evils first, and has gone looking for a cause.
He blames the railroads for building into the unsettled west when there was no demand there. He says they would not have done it if not for the grants from the government. Yet he does not blame the government for making grants for something that he contends was not needed.
If the transcontinental railroad was a waste of public funds, why not blame the ones to authorized it and spent the public money?
He takes pot shots at the corruption arising from alliance between the public and private sector, but then he blames only the private sector for causing the problem.
I haven't read it yet either, but my initial impression from the interview is that the author is something of a Monday-morning quarterback, criticizing the mid-19th Century from the easy perspective of 2011.
While the Civil War got settled four years before Promontory, does the author acknowledge the great pressure that wartime concerns contributed to the push for a subsidized transcontinental railroad (built well north of the slave states)? If he did, great. If not, what's his agenda here? It's a fair guess that without that behind it, the thing might have been done on its own, much slower schedule, probably without all those Federal dollars.
The author reports that American railroads weren't all built to the same gauge, so people had to change trains in the middle of the night? Oh, no! What a nightmare for people used to traveling on stagecoaches or horseback!
If the overall book is evenhanded, good. If it is not, go for a second opinion. On the subject of the transcontinental railroad (an extraordinary achievement even if tainted), check out Sunset Limited: The Southern Pacific Railroad and the Development of the American West, 1850-1930 by Richard J. Orsi (University of California Press, 2005). You don't have to adore Stanford, Huntington, the UP's Durant, et al, to appreciate what got done. And Orsi's book offers a very different perspective on that bogeyman "Octopus", the mean and nasty old SP.
Bucyrus He blames the railroads for building into the unsettled west when there was no demand there. He says they would not have done it if not for the grants from the government. Yet he does not blame the government for making grants for something that he contends was not needed. If the transcontinental railroad was a waste of public funds, why not blame the ones to authorized it and spent the public money?
The author doesn't say that, at least not in the excerpt:
"Western railroads, particularly the transcontinental railroads, would not have been built without public subsidies, without the granting of land, and more important than that, loans from the federal government ... because there is no business [in the West at that time], there is absolutely no reason to build [railroads] except for political reasons and the hope that business will come."
Actually, in reading all the excerpts and listening to the interview, it seems to me that the author has a grievance, but he is not very forthright in coming out and saying what it is. It kind of comes across as one hand clapping. He finds fault with the lack of a standard gage, and then he finds fault with the gage chosen to be standard. His tone makes it sound like he views these issues to be mistakes, but he does not say what should have been done to avoid making those mistakes.
I have read much discussion about the gage wars and the authors were able to discuss them objectively including the cause and the effect. Yet, I have no idea what Richard White is really getting at when he mentions the gage problem.
Be specific. The author (again in an excerpt) only points out the facts about gauge. Where does he find fault with the gauge chosen? I was not able to listen to the interview. Did he say something specifically critical about gauge there? The fact remains the choice of gauge was based on chance and the fact that the Union won the war. I get the feeling you are just peeved because he isn't giving mere glowing praise. He's not a railroad enthusiast. He's a respected historian.
schlimm Be specific. The author (again in an excerpt) only points out the facts about gauge. Where does he find fault with the gauge chosen? I was not able to listen to the interview. Did he say something specifically critical about gauge there? The fact remains the choice of gauge was based on chance and the fact that the Union won the war. I get the feeling you are just peeved because he isn't giving mere glowing praise. He's not a railroad enthusiast. He's a respected historian.
No, I am not wanting praise for the industry. Perhaps Mr. White is just telling the story of gage standardization from the perspective of it being a problem that was solved. But the problem is that I am really not sure why he brings it up because he does not come right out say.
Is he just another historian tell the history of pioneering railroads? It hardly seems that way. His book is called Railroaded. The term, railroaded has a meaning that implies cheating. In cheating, someone cheats and someone gets cheated. I see nothing in the excerpts or in the audio interview where the author actually comes right out and gives examples of this cheating. He says Greenville Dodge engaged in grassroots lobbying that was really creating “Astroturf.” It seems like an obvious criticism of Mr. Dodge, but Author White gives nothing to support his accusation of Mr. Dodge.
But clearly the title, Railroaded and the NPR production title, “How trains railroaded the American Economy,” seems to be referring to the early railroads cheating and thus shaping today’s economy. He does not say whether he thinks the cheating made the economy better or worse, but the implication is that the cheating made today’s economy worse than it should be.
But as I say, I do not know exactly what Mr. White is getting at because he does not make that clear. I have met a lot of people who hate corporations seemingly almost as a fashion statement. As such, they don’t have to give a convincing argument for the basis of their feelings about corporations. As a part of making this a fashion statement, they always act like they are talking to people who share the same view, so there is no need for a convincing argument. White reminds me of one of those people.
Better add this title to the forum book club.
Meet back in 30 days to discuss?
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
I think one would have to examine the book to see the evidence of the author's contentions. Off hand, none of those in the excerpts and the 7 minute radio interview seem preposterous.
There is quite a bit on the web about the book. Here is one review followed by lots of interesting comments:
http://www.slate.com/id/2296082/
Here is another:
http://www.amazon.com/Railroaded-Transcontinentals-Making-Modern-America/dp/0393061264
More:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/books/2015207613_br05railroaded.html
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-06-13/richard-white-railroaded
Haven't read the book, probably not likely to. I don't have a problem with revisionist history, as long as it's the truth. The problem I have with most revisionist historians in the Howard Zinn or Richard White mold is the "AHA! GOTCHA!" "YOU CAPITALIST DOG!" mindset. Hey, buddy, let me tell you something, certainly the money men behind the transcontinental railroad were involved in some shady practices, which were typical of that time, but look at what they accomplished! Accomplish something yourself of that magnitude, THEN critisise!
Although I didn't hear the interview, I have read the book. I didn't find anything in the work that I didn't already know. I was a history major in college and specialized in 19th century America. That was about 50 years ago and I have kept up to date since.
As to Mr. White's allegation that the transcontinental railroads weren't necessary, I would differ with that. The eastern and midwestern states were filling up with millions of immigrants and were running out of room. Although the west had been described as The Great American Desert, later opinion was that rain follows the plow. Then as now, there were disagreements but all agreed that there was a lot of land out west and it was there for the taking. The fact that there were already people living there made no difference to anyone, they were savages and couldn't farm.
Wagon trains had been making their way west for forty years and so there was a demand for westward movement which the railroad builders were only too happy to accommodate. There was also a desire to shorten trade routes to Asia. Competition was what made so many railroads keep building.
Mr. White has done a workmanlike job and there is plenty to keep a reader occupied. However I would suggest that if you are in doubt about adding the book to your collection, get a copy from the library first. That's what I did and no, I'm not going to buy it.
The Western Transcontinental railroads certainly did not invent serious political lobbying and bribery. The Pennsylvania Railroad brought two characters on to the railroad and political scene before the Civil War. Thomas Scott, from whence the term "Going Scott Free" comes from. And also Simon Cameron, later Abraham Lincoln's first Secretary of War, and of whom Lincoln later said "He was so corrupt that he would steal anything but a Red Hot Stove". Also attributed to Mr. Cameron is the famous quote " An honest politician is one who once bought, stays bought"
But isn't that one of the inherent risk of investing?
One bets that an idea, invention or process will, at some time in the future, become profitable.
From the tone of the reviews it seems White feels that investing in the transcons was somehow wrong, in that at the time they were built the business to operate them was not apparent.
But people who invested in the first computers didn't have a readymade market for them, in fact, it took quite a marketing campaign to get the average Joe Schmoe to buy one, yet look at today's dependence on them, and on the transcons White decries.
As for the folks who built them, who really cares how morally corrupt they were, compared to todays "business monsters" these guys were soft core anyway.
Did they get filthy rich from it, sure.
But isn't that the idea behind investing, or creating a business, to make money?
I ask you this...
If I could give you the winning numbers to this week's Powerball, how many of you would refuse it because the lottery works/pays off from the sweat and work of millions of blue collar workers betting against the odds with their hard earned dollars?
When that 40, 50 90 million dollars lands in your lap, I kinda doubt any one of us would suddenly be overcome with moral and social pangs of conscience, and give it all away.
23 17 46 11
One of the main goals of the investors in the UP wasn't to earn a profit on the operation, but make a bunch of money on the contracts to build the line through the Credit Mobilier of America scandal, which blew up in 1872. The government paid $94,650,287 and $50,720,958 to the Union Pacific and Credit Mobilier, leaving $43,929,328 in profits to investors. Based on relative share of GDP, that would be about $78 billion in today's money, hardly small change, even by Goldman Sachs standards.
schlimm One of the main goals of the investors in the UP wasn't to earn a profit on the operation, but make a bunch of money on the contracts to build the line through the Credit Mobilier of America scandal, which blew up in 1872. The government paid $94,650,287 and $50,720,958 to the Union Pacific and Credit Mobilier, leaving $43,929,328 in profits to investors. Based on relative share of GDP, that would be about $78 billion in today's money, hardly small change, even by Goldman Sachs standards.
Would you be so kind as to provide a source for these numbers.
Interesting way to calculate the value of a dollar over time.
Ken: I think those calculations of "What is an 1898 dollar worth in today's money?" are difficult approximations, at best. The site below explains the various ways (10) of doing so and which ones are most appropriate for what application:
http://www.measuringworth.com/indicator.php
As you can see, there is a pretty wide variation. Nevertheless, it is mildly helpful. I came across this site when I was trying to find the worth today of the $300 fee folks (like my great grandfather) living in the Union paid for providing a substitute for the draft in the Civil War.
http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/
Looking again, the GDP deflator or the relative share of GDP could have been used. If the former, the profits would have been only ~$753 mil.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.