schlimm I posted some factual information about the CP and the construction company that built it. I do not know if there is any evidence of corruption in the construction, but neither John nor Ken presented any information about that issue.
I posted some factual information about the CP and the construction company that built it. I do not know if there is any evidence of corruption in the construction, but neither John nor Ken presented any information about that issue.
The one instance of fraud I am aware of in the construction of the Central Pacific was claiming that the foothills of the Sierras were on the outskirts of Sacramento as opposed to be about 20 miles east of Sacramento. The reimbursement for construction was higher for the Sierras than for level ground due to higher construction costs, so the Big Four had an incentive to fudge were the hills began.
The Central Pacific was had quite a bit of on-line traffic from silver mining in northern Nevada, connecting with several rail lines serving mining districts, e.g. the V&T, Nevada Central and Eureka and Palisades. The profit from the CP was enough to provide funding for construction of the various Southern Pacific with only a portion of those lines benefiting from land grants.
- Erik
Mac,
"Evil" is the word you used; I didn't. But thank you for pointing out the idea that I disagree with. The idea that people can be divided into two groups, good and evil. If you want to talk about "evil," feel free to do so.
John
Gee, You mean they cheated? Sarcasm intended.
Norm
John WR Many of the problems the early transcontinentals faced were caused by the fraudulent practices of their builders, practices that left the railroads with massive amount of debt. However, these were not problems inherent in railroading itself. John John, So were the evil builders the coolies? Mac
Many of the problems the early transcontinentals faced were caused by the fraudulent practices of their builders, practices that left the railroads with massive amount of debt. However, these were not problems inherent in railroading itself.
PNWRMNMYou are welcome to any opinion you wish to hold. You are not welcome to your own facts.
The facts as I see them is that history is made by a great many people. In the case of the transcontinental railroads there many hundreds of men. Perhaps we cannot know each one individually but neither do we have to exclude any. I would try to understand railroad history by trying to look at the lives of all who were involved.
Some people, and you may be one, see history as being made by a very few great men. The problem I have with that is that it requires us to strip away the human qualities of our heros. We then re-create our either heros or monsters which really do not exist in human life.
And I do think I am entitled to understand historical facts as I do. I would invite you to consider it too.
.
I posted the same information about the CP having its own construction company. I don't know of any evidence of fraud in the the construction of that railroad either. That's what I kept asking for. Basically, "Who did what."
You well know that it's difficult, if not impossible, to prove innocence. That is, to prove someone didn't do something. I mean if they tried to say I killed Billy Bob Joe's chickens over in Lake Villa last Saturday night and I said I couldn't have done it because I was in jail in Toledo last Saturday night; that's a pretty air tight alabi. It would pretty much prove I didn't kill the chickens. But most people aren't in jail, in Toledo or elsewhere.
That's why the burden of proof is on the accusers. Heck fire, I couldn't even get any specifics on what, if any, fraudulent activities were being alleged.
"This Guy" has certainly done this before. And I'm going to get in his face every time he smears people without specifics or proof.
But I'm done for this series.
John,
You are welcome to any opinion you wish to hold. You are not welcome to your own facts.
Mac
I completely disagree with you. And I am trying to accept Murphy's suggestion because I think he speaks for a lot of people here. You are entitled to your opinion but I find it hard to understand why you are trying to add to the problem.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Greyhounds simply called you on two things. One, who the builders of Central Pacific were. He is correct, you are not. Second you accused the builders of CP of some evil doing. He asked you what the evil doing was. Instead of sharing with us what evil they did, you got all in a snit and are now trying to shift the blame for your snit to Greyhounds. I do agree that anyone reading the thread can figure out what is going on.
I really tried, Murphy. I dislike personal invective and I suggested we should drop it precisely because it becomes oppressive for all of the other posters. I really believe you and other people are capable of making up your own minds and are unlikely to be mislead by anyone. I apologize to you and everyone else who has to put up with this crap. I sure regret it.
Geez guys! How 'bout when the bell rings, you both go back to your own corner? (( Ding Ding!! ))
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Greyhounds,
In case you missed it you are not going to provoke me into your misguided thinking simply by using ugly falsehoods to misrepresent what I write.
John WR Greyhounds, To repeat myself for a third time, I said "builders." I did not say owners or stockholders or anything like that. And I did that deliberately to distinguish between the two. There is a difference between investing in a company, even in a closely held company, and actually working for that company. I suppose the difference escapes you but it is there. Volumes have been written about the relationships of Crocker, Hopkins, Huntington and Stanford. I, however, did not discuss them and I am not inclined to go to that discussion now. You criticize a figment of your imagination that has nothing to do with me. John
To repeat myself for a third time, I said "builders." I did not say owners or stockholders or anything like that. And I did that deliberately to distinguish between the two. There is a difference between investing in a company, even in a closely held company, and actually working for that company. I suppose the difference escapes you but it is there.
Volumes have been written about the relationships of Crocker, Hopkins, Huntington and Stanford. I, however, did not discuss them and I am not inclined to go to that discussion now. You criticize a figment of your imagination that has nothing to do with me.
I ask what fraudulent practice or practices "The Builders" of the Central Pacific engaged in that burdened the railroad with additional debt. You apparently don't have an answer. But you sure made the accusation.
If you've got some specifics then post them. Otherwise I'll suggest you quit making baseless accusations.
A factual note. The CP was built by a wholly-owned subsidiary of it, Charles Crocker & Co., headed by Charles Crocker, one of the "Big Four.." He was not just a figurehead; he was personally involved with the construction.
dmoore74It would be very difficult to prove or disprove fraud on the part of the Big Four
I agree with you. And, as I have said, I am not posting about the Big Four. Anyone who wishes to introduce that subject is free to do so.
greyhounds John WR Greyhounds, I am happy to have given you such pleasure in responding to my post. But it would be helpful if you would read it before responding. I made no reference to "the men in charge of building the Central Pacific." I wrote of "builders." There is a difference, a big difference. When all else fails try doing the reading. John They were one in the same. The Big Four of the Central Pacific held their construction company closely. Crocker resigned from the CP to head the construction company. The Big Four didn't want to get cheated. They were also aware of many early railroads falling into the hands of the construction companies. A repeated pattern was that a railroad would run out of funds and go into default owing the construction company money. The construction company would then go to court in an attempt to get the money it was due. But, since there was no money to be had, the construction company got the uncompleted railroad instead. Since the Big Four had every intention of building a good railroad and then operating it they didn't want that to happen. So they basically built it themselves using a closely held construction company headed by one of their own. As you mentioned, it pays to read about these things. You did say that the Central Pacific was burdened by fraudulent actions on the part of its builders. I asked for some specifics. You don't seem to have any. Just more baseless accusations about some very accomplished men.
John WR Greyhounds, I am happy to have given you such pleasure in responding to my post. But it would be helpful if you would read it before responding. I made no reference to "the men in charge of building the Central Pacific." I wrote of "builders." There is a difference, a big difference. When all else fails try doing the reading. John
I am happy to have given you such pleasure in responding to my post. But it would be helpful if you would read it before responding. I made no reference to "the men in charge of building the Central Pacific."
I wrote of "builders." There is a difference, a big difference.
When all else fails try doing the reading.
They were one in the same. The Big Four of the Central Pacific held their construction company closely. Crocker resigned from the CP to head the construction company.
The Big Four didn't want to get cheated. They were also aware of many early railroads falling into the hands of the construction companies. A repeated pattern was that a railroad would run out of funds and go into default owing the construction company money. The construction company would then go to court in an attempt to get the money it was due. But, since there was no money to be had, the construction company got the uncompleted railroad instead.
Since the Big Four had every intention of building a good railroad and then operating it they didn't want that to happen.
So they basically built it themselves using a closely held construction company headed by one of their own. As you mentioned, it pays to read about these things.
You did say that the Central Pacific was burdened by fraudulent actions on the part of its builders. I asked for some specifics. You don't seem to have any. Just more baseless accusations about some very accomplished men.
It would be very difficult to prove or disprove fraud on the part of the Big Four. It seems most of the financial records of the Central Pacific "mysteriously" burned shortly before they were to be turned over to the United States Congress for investigation. You might want to reread Empire Express or Nothing Like It In The World. The misdeeds of the Union Pacific were uncovered by the same investigation.
erikemCrocker and Huntingdon were the major force behind the Big Four
Erik, I agree with you. But I think we might also mention Theodore Judah. He had the original vision and was influential in writing the Pacific Railroad Acts. Ultimately he sold out to the big four and died of a disease contracted while crossing Panama.
Judah's grave: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=6299294
Judah's Practical Plan.... published in 1857: http://www.sfmuseum.net/hist4/practical.html
daveklepper My understanding was that the CP was bankrolled initially and organized by four SF businessmen primaily for the good of their city.
My understanding was that the CP was bankrolled initially and organized by four SF businessmen primaily for the good of their city.
Four businessmen from Sack-of-tomatoes -er- Sacramento.
Crocker and Huntingdon were the major force behind the Big Four, Crocker for knowing how to organize the work force and Huntingdon for logistics.
Schlimm,
There is an interesting aside about the Government guaranteed bonds. The original intent of the Congress was that the railroads (Union Pacific and Central Pacific) would pay the interest semi annually and the Government would not wind up paying any. But the law was badly written. Jay Gould, when he came to the Union Pacific in 1872 or 3, sued the Government. He argued that no part of the interest was due until the bonds matured. He won. So the interest did not fall due until 30 years later and when it did it was simple interest, not compound interest. Meanwhile the Federal Government had to pay the interest all those years. This is described in Maury Klein's book The Life and Legend of Jay Gould.
Financed in much the same way as the UP, minus the corrupt practices of the latter. (from Wiki):Construction of the road was financed primarily by 30-year, 6% U.S. government bondsauthorized by Sec. 5 of the Pacific Railroad Act of 1862. They were issued at the rate of $16,000 per mile of tracked grade completed west of the designated base of the Sierra range near Roseville, CA where California state geologist Josiah Whitney had determined were the geologic start of the Sierras' foothills. Sec. 11 of the Act also provided that the issuance of bonds "shall be treble the number per mile" (to $48,000) for tracked grade completed over and within the two mountain ranges (but limited to a total of 300 miles (480 km) at this rate), and "doubled" (to $32,000) per mile of completed grade laid between the two mountain ranges.] The U.S. Government Bonds, which constituted a lien upon the railroads and all their fixtures, were repaid in full (and with interest) by the company as and when they became due.
Sec. 10 of the 1864 amending Pacific Railroad Act (13 Statutes at Large, 356) additionally authorized the company to issue its own "First Mortgage Bonds"] in total amounts up to (but not exceeding) that of the bonds issued by the United States. Such company-issued securities had priority over the original Government Bonds.] (Local and state governments also aided the financing, although the City and County of San Francisco did not do so willingly. This materially slowed early construction efforts.) Sec. 3 of the 1862 Act granted the railroads 10 square miles (26 km2) of public land for every mile laid, except where railroads ran through cities and crossed rivers. This grant was apportioned in 5 sections on alternating sides of the railroad, with each section measuring 0.2 miles (320 m) by 10 miles (16 km).] These grants were later doubled to 20 square miles (52 km2) per mile of grade by the 1864 Act.
John WR . By "first transcons" I understand you to mean the Union Pacific and the Central Pacific, Erik. After the Civil War was over I'm not sure exactly what strategic needs existed to justify the large Federal expenditures. Certainly the economic development of part of the west was promoted. However, part of the west was rather inhospitable to human settlement because it was dry, mountainous or both. The land suitable for agriculture might have been developed with regional railroads. Some of those were built without any Federal aid at all. Many of the problems the early transcontinentals faced were caused by the fraudulent practices of their builders, practices that left the railroads with massive amount of debt. However, these were not problems inherent in railroading itself. Finally, the transcontinentals were built in a very different time from our own. We today are not the society that existed in the 30 or so years following the Civil War. I am rather reluctant to apply the standards of our day to the people who lived back then. John
By "first transcons" I understand you to mean the Union Pacific and the Central Pacific, Erik.
After the Civil War was over I'm not sure exactly what strategic needs existed to justify the large Federal expenditures. Certainly the economic development of part of the west was promoted. However, part of the west was rather inhospitable to human settlement because it was dry, mountainous or both. The land suitable for agriculture might have been developed with regional railroads. Some of those were built without any Federal aid at all.
Finally, the transcontinentals were built in a very different time from our own. We today are not the society that existed in the 30 or so years following the Civil War. I am rather reluctant to apply the standards of our day to the people who lived back then.
Would you please be kind enough to point out some particular malfeasance by the men in charge of building the Central Pacific that burdened their creation? I know of no such thing, but maybe you can inform me. Or are you just slinging mud? Again.
The land grants probably made the federal government a fair amount of money from the increased value of the land intertwined with the land grants.
It's an interesting question. Ultimately, the land grants and guaranteed bonds probably cost the federal government very little. The Illinois Central (A. Lincoln did lawyering for it) was the first land-grant railroad in 1850. I believe the CB&Q (Burlington and Missouri River Railroad in Nebraska) received land grants.
P.S. Another thing Bain discloses is the extent to which the so-called robber barons risked their personal wealth to keep the transcon abuilding while Congress dithered.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.