John WR And the Union Pacific and Central Pacific got Federally guaranteed bonds to boot. John
And the Union Pacific and Central Pacific got Federally guaranteed bonds to boot.
John
Just try to collect 'em from the late 19th century's version of today's dysfunctional Congress. Jay Gould blunted his lance, and finally gave up on U.P., trying to salvage the road's finances in the face of the government's broken promise. The road had to go into bankruptcy before E.H. Harriman could step in to pick up the pieces. Read "Empire Express," by Bain.
schlimmMO, the western transcons were built to spur the economic development and settlement of the west.
Schlimm,
I agree with you. But I wonder if all of the Federal land grants were necessary.
1n 1850 there were about 9,000 miles of railroad in the country and most were in the northeast. Chicago had one single line, The Chicago and Aurora, which ran between those two cities. By 1860 there were over 30,000 miles of railroad in the country, much of it in the mid west. Chicago was the nation's railroad center with lines coming in from the north east and going out west. Iowa and Wisconsin both had a web of rails and the lines reached the Missouri River at St. Joseph, MO. The Illinois Central and The Chicago, Burlington and Quincy had both been built. You know far more about how railroads covered Illinois than I do. The CB&Q would ultimately reach as far west as Billings, Montana. So I think it is valid to ask if all that Federal land was really necessary to get the transcontinentals built. And the Union Pacific and Central Pacific got Federally guaranteed bonds to boot.
Erik,
Is the Southern Pacific a land grant railroad? What I have read is that Collis Huntington built and assembled it without any Federal land grant.
I've never before encountered your argument about the Union Pacific and the Central Pacific being built to haul silver from the Comstock lode and other metals back east. Off the top of my head I would say this is an economic reason to build the road rather than a strategic one. However, your argument sure blasts my argument out of the water. I argued that the dry climate in the far west eliminated any real need for a transcontinental. But hauling ore is certainly a valid reason to build a railroad and the Federal Government had a special interest in precious metals.
I agree with your observation about the UP and the fraud in building it. I've also read there was a fair amount of fraud in building the CP but the SP prevented it from going bankrupt so all of the loans were paid off whether or not they were legitimate. I have read that all of the UP Federal bonds were paid off too but I've also read the opposite. I don't really know which is true.
Thanks for your interest in the question. It is one of the issues I enjoy.
IMO, the western transcons were built to spur the economic development and settlement of the west. "Build it and they will come" sort of idea. And it worked. Eventually the lines turned a profit, huge numbers of settlers followed the rails west, and the economies developed. It also served the national/strategic purpose of binding the west to the rest of the nation.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Generally, Erik, I agree that the transcontinental railroads did enable the settlement of the West. However, I think the question is whether or not the same thing might have been done using regional railroads with no need for federal subsidies.
The Northern Pacific was completed in `883. By `893 it was bankrupt for the second time. Meanwhile, the Great Northern was completed in 1893. If offered the same connections as the NP but was built without any Federal subsidy. Ao with a little patience we might have had all of the benefits of the NP without any Federal land grants.
I can understand that the NP brought economic benefits to settlers even while it was in bankruptcy. I do not see any strategic (in the sense of military) benefit. The border between the US and Canada was fixed by the Webster Ashburton Treaty and had been in place for many years. I have never heard of any real dispute about the border with Alaska. Even if there were Canada had no railroad to the Pacific until 1895, after both the NP and GN. The NP was chartered in 1866, shortly after the Pacific Railroad Acts. By 1872 Congress itself was fed up with the land grants and, as far as I know, did not authorize any more of them. So the strategic need is hard for me to understand.
(more on next post)
John,
Strategic needs for transcons?
The Northern Pacific would have helped firm up the settlement of the land along the Canadian border, in addition to making Seattle as a convenient transfer port for traffic to Alaska. Keep in mind that the boundary between Canada and Alaska was not fully agreed on until the 1890's - with Kaiser Wilhelm doing the arbitration.
The Southern Pacific would have helped firm up the border with Mexico.
As for the CP and UP, a big impetus for taking the central route was to provide transportation to Virgina City. Keep in mind that Nevada was admitted to the Union in 1864 when the population was ridiculously small, mainly because of the wealth of silver being mined from the Comstock Lode. FWIW, Nevada Day is still a big event in Carson City.
I'm not saying that strategic needs were the only motive for pushing development of the transcons, but would have been an important consideration.
The UP was probably the worst transcon for the amount of fraud involved in construction, while the Central Pacific and Southern Pacific were built with operation in mind.
- Erik
erikemThe first transcons were built to meet the strategic needs of the US (as well as promoting economic development of the West), with possible greater emphasis after noting the usefulness of the USMRR in the great bloodbath of 1861-65.
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.
The first transcons were built to meet the strategic needs of the US (as well as promoting economic development of the West), with possible greater emphasis after noting the usefulness of the USMRR in the great bloodbath of 1861-65.
A related story was a small company peddling samples of special transistors to various other companies wondering if there would be any outside market (the transistors were developed for internal needs). A group at Convair said they would like a few dozen - the company replied that they could only supply small samples lots - Convair told the Air Force of their desire for the new transistors - the Air Force said that this was for the highest priority project in the country (Atlas ICBM) and told the company to set up a production line and start cranking them out. The name of the then small company was Texas Instruments and I don't need to go into details of the economic benefits of silicon semiconductors.
One obvious historical difference is that the eastern roads were built to serve economic needs. The only one that might be an exception is the Erie. Most of the transcontinentals were built with the aid of government grants. Often the grants were substantial. And they were built before an economic need existed.
For example, you could use the Alphabet route instead of one of the major trunks.
I think that the "Trunk" lines of old had more incidental competition from other, smaller, railroads ....than the big western roads do now.
Murphy Siding Do the Trancon lines of BNSF and UP function a lot like the Trunk lines of PRR, NYC, B&O C&O & Erie of old did? The Transcons are hauling basically the same goods, from the same points-west coast- to the Chicago, etc.. The Trunk lines hauled the same goods from the East Coast to Chicago.
Do the Trancon lines of BNSF and UP function a lot like the Trunk lines of PRR, NYC, B&O C&O & Erie of old did? The Transcons are hauling basically the same goods, from the same points-west coast- to the Chicago, etc.. The Trunk lines hauled the same goods from the East Coast to Chicago.
Murphy,
I do not know how this subject stirred up some of the usual suspects since it seems pretty tame to me.
While I am not sure what you are really asking, I would offer that the Transcons of today are performing the same economic function that the trunk lines did in their heyday, that is being very important arteries of commerce. I would also offer that the CSX and NS routes between Chicago and NYC/and the ports of northern NJ are performing the same function they have since about 1860.
Mac
Check it out! I replied to Mac's post (above) before he made the post (below).
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
PNWRMNM Murphy Siding Do the Trancon lines of BNSF and UP function a lot like the Trunk lines of PRR, NYC, B&O C&O & Erie of old did? The Transcons are hauling basically the same goods, from the same points-west coast- to the Chicago, etc.. The Trunk lines hauled the same goods from the East Coast to Chicago. Murphy, I do not know how this subject stirred up some of the usual suspects since it seems pretty tame to me. While I am not sure what you are really asking, I would offer that the Transcons of today are performing the same economic function that the trunk lines did in their heyday, that is being very important arteries of commerce. I would also offer that the CSX and NS routes between Chicago and NYC/and the ports of northern NJ are performing the same function they have since about 1860. Mac
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.