Paul Colt's Blog, page 51
November 22, 2015
XIT Ranch
The Capitol Syndicate investors launched ranching operations to employ the capitol land grant until such time as it might be divided for agriculture and settled. They began by fencing sections of the land, drilling wells and erecting windmills to bring water to the herds. Cattle herds, purchased in south Texas began to arrive in the summer of 1885. A year later the herd numbered over 100,000 head, growing from there to some 150,000 head by 1887.
The ranch was organized into eight divisions, each with its own headquarters, foreman and ranch hands. The XIT employed more than 150 cowboys and a remuda numbering a thousand head. Cowboys were paid $25 to $30 a month. Contrary to the image of wild Texas cowboys, terrorizing Kansas railhead towns, the cowboys of the XIT lived by a strict code of ranch laws. Gambling and alcohol were prohibited along with the mistreatment of livestock.
Herefords were introduced to the herd to strengthen the breed. The herd produced over thirty thousand calves each spring. Grazing pastures were maintained as far north as Montana and the Dakota’s for stock destined for shipment to eastern markets. By the turn of the century the vast holdings in Texas encompassed nearly one hundred fenced pastures served by more than three hundred windmills and one hundred dams.
An operation the size of XIT had a significant impact on the communities that grew up around it. Ranch managers and employees often held political positions giving ranch communities the flavor of company towns. Ranch influence spilled over into law enforcement especially where ranch interests were concerned by crimes such as rustling.
Despite its size, the XIT faced all the same problems faced by any other ranching operations. Fluctuations in the price of beef, drought, disease, harsh winters and prairie fires all taxed the profitability of the operation. By the 1890’s foreign investors grew restless waiting for a return on their investment. Management began the slow and gradual wind up of ranching operations, the last of which concluded in the fall of 1912.
So what do you do if you need a new state capitol you can’t pay for? You carve out land for one of the largest ranching operations in Texas and use it like a self-liquidating thirty year mortgage to pay for constructing your capitol building.
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
The ranch was organized into eight divisions, each with its own headquarters, foreman and ranch hands. The XIT employed more than 150 cowboys and a remuda numbering a thousand head. Cowboys were paid $25 to $30 a month. Contrary to the image of wild Texas cowboys, terrorizing Kansas railhead towns, the cowboys of the XIT lived by a strict code of ranch laws. Gambling and alcohol were prohibited along with the mistreatment of livestock.
Herefords were introduced to the herd to strengthen the breed. The herd produced over thirty thousand calves each spring. Grazing pastures were maintained as far north as Montana and the Dakota’s for stock destined for shipment to eastern markets. By the turn of the century the vast holdings in Texas encompassed nearly one hundred fenced pastures served by more than three hundred windmills and one hundred dams.
An operation the size of XIT had a significant impact on the communities that grew up around it. Ranch managers and employees often held political positions giving ranch communities the flavor of company towns. Ranch influence spilled over into law enforcement especially where ranch interests were concerned by crimes such as rustling.
Despite its size, the XIT faced all the same problems faced by any other ranching operations. Fluctuations in the price of beef, drought, disease, harsh winters and prairie fires all taxed the profitability of the operation. By the 1890’s foreign investors grew restless waiting for a return on their investment. Management began the slow and gradual wind up of ranching operations, the last of which concluded in the fall of 1912.
So what do you do if you need a new state capitol you can’t pay for? You carve out land for one of the largest ranching operations in Texas and use it like a self-liquidating thirty year mortgage to pay for constructing your capitol building.
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
November 15, 2015
Need A State Capitol? Let's Make A Deal.
What do you do if your state capital building burns down and you can’t afford to rebuild? If you’re the state of Texas in 1881, you barter with what you have, land, lots of land. You find partners who will build you a new capitol building in return for three million acres in west Texas. Finished, construction cost comes in at about $1.07 an acre. It’s an interesting story.
Planning to replace the capitol building began in 1879. The Texas State Legislature appropriated a three million acre land grant to pay for a new capital along with creating a Capitol Board to oversee the project. A national design contest was held and in 1881 the Capitol Board awarded Detroit architect Elijah E. Myers $12,000 for his winning entry. Fate intervened when the existing capitol burned to the ground later that year. Fortunately the plans were saved when the fire broke out. With state government homeless things moved faster.
In 1882 a man from Rock Island Illinois accepted a contract to build the capitol in exchange for the land. He in turn contracted with Taylor, Babcock & Co. of Chicago to build the capitol in exchange for three-fourths interest in the land. The Rock Islander may have been beneficiary of something less than ethical practices in the grant award. He subsequently assigned his remaining interest in the contract to his Chicago partners to avoid accusations of impropriety in the contract award.
Construction of the new capitol began early in 1882. Difficulties arose almost from the start over the type, durability and cost of stone for the exterior. The project suffered fits and starts for two years until the issue was ironed out. Meanwhile the architect, a chronic hypochondriac, proved difficult to deal with and was fired in 1883. A labor dispute arose when the stone cutters union objected to the state’s use of convict labor to quarry the stone ultimately selected for the exterior. The project was eventually completed by stone cutters imported from Scotland.
With capitol construction underway, Amos Babcock and Abner Taylor principals in the construction company holding the land grant, organized the Capitol Syndicate along with Illinois Congressman Charles Farwell and his brother John. John Farwell then organized the Capitol Freehold Land & Investment Company of London for the purpose of raising $15.0 million to establish ranching operations on the land in west Texas until it could be sold. The Capitol Freehold Land & Investment Company stocked the range with cattle and commenced a ranching operation that grew into the legendary XIT Ranch.
The Goddess of Liberty crowned the capitol dome in early 1888 and the new Texas State Capitol was dedicated in April. The building stood three hundred ten feet tall, completed at a cost of $3,744,600, $500,000 of which was born by the state.
Next Week: The XIT Ranch
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
Planning to replace the capitol building began in 1879. The Texas State Legislature appropriated a three million acre land grant to pay for a new capital along with creating a Capitol Board to oversee the project. A national design contest was held and in 1881 the Capitol Board awarded Detroit architect Elijah E. Myers $12,000 for his winning entry. Fate intervened when the existing capitol burned to the ground later that year. Fortunately the plans were saved when the fire broke out. With state government homeless things moved faster.
In 1882 a man from Rock Island Illinois accepted a contract to build the capitol in exchange for the land. He in turn contracted with Taylor, Babcock & Co. of Chicago to build the capitol in exchange for three-fourths interest in the land. The Rock Islander may have been beneficiary of something less than ethical practices in the grant award. He subsequently assigned his remaining interest in the contract to his Chicago partners to avoid accusations of impropriety in the contract award.
Construction of the new capitol began early in 1882. Difficulties arose almost from the start over the type, durability and cost of stone for the exterior. The project suffered fits and starts for two years until the issue was ironed out. Meanwhile the architect, a chronic hypochondriac, proved difficult to deal with and was fired in 1883. A labor dispute arose when the stone cutters union objected to the state’s use of convict labor to quarry the stone ultimately selected for the exterior. The project was eventually completed by stone cutters imported from Scotland.
With capitol construction underway, Amos Babcock and Abner Taylor principals in the construction company holding the land grant, organized the Capitol Syndicate along with Illinois Congressman Charles Farwell and his brother John. John Farwell then organized the Capitol Freehold Land & Investment Company of London for the purpose of raising $15.0 million to establish ranching operations on the land in west Texas until it could be sold. The Capitol Freehold Land & Investment Company stocked the range with cattle and commenced a ranching operation that grew into the legendary XIT Ranch.
The Goddess of Liberty crowned the capitol dome in early 1888 and the new Texas State Capitol was dedicated in April. The building stood three hundred ten feet tall, completed at a cost of $3,744,600, $500,000 of which was born by the state.
Next Week: The XIT Ranch
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
November 8, 2015
Empire So Vast
John Chisum’s success in the cattle business stemmed from his ability to find markets for cattle. Along with Charley Goodnight he opened the Colorado and Wyoming markets to Texas beef. Eastern markets opened with the arrival of railheads in Kansas. Chisum secured contracts to supply beef to the army and Indian reservations in New Mexico and later in Arizona. His herds grew rapidly by virtue of his distribution power. Smaller ranchers in Texas were content to contract with Chisum to bundle their herds for sale with his. Those arrangements would ultimately lead to a morass of legal entanglements and civil disputes.
As the Long Rail herds grew in number, they became an attractive target for Indian raids and rustlers. They dominated public grazing land much to the frustration and anger of small ranchers, bordering his Pecos River holdings at Seven Rivers. Many of these small ranchers felt justified in rustling Long Rail stock as a way to thin the herd and turn a quick sale with a cattle brokerage operated by Lawrence G. Murphy in Lincoln.
Rustling drew Chisum into conflict with Murphy and his political backers known as the Santa Fe Ring. Murphy and his partner Jimmy Dolan ran Lincoln County. They controlled commercial mercantile trade. Their cattle brokerage wasn’t particular about where the beef they sold came from as long as the price was right. Chisum suspected Murphy and Dolan were behind his rustling losses; but he was unable to get the Lincoln County Sheriff to do anything about it. The Sheriff did bidding for Murphy and Dolan.
Chisum took matters into his own hands. He hired professional gunmen to protect his herds and meet out vigilante justice to rustlers, misfortunate enough to fall into his hands. Contrary to John Wayne’s classic portrayal, Chisum never carried a gun himself. He hired men who did. His Jinglebob Boys would ultimately be recast as quasi-legitimate lawmen, called Regulators, during the Lincoln County War.
Rustled competition, losses from Indian raids and fluctuations in the cattle market, combined to implode Chisum’s financially inflated brokerage business. He’d taken cattle from Texas ranchers on consignment for resale. In effect Chisum borrowed them. When he was unable to fulfill his supply-side contracts due to stock losses and depressed market conditions, he found himself entangled in civil suits that landed him in jail for a brief period.
When English business man John Tunstall and attorney Alexander McSween opened a mercantile and a bank in Lincoln to compete with Murphy and Dolan, Chisum joined them in a classic ‘Your-enemy-is-my-enemy’ alliance. The battle lines were drawn for the war that followed. We’ll come back to the Lincoln County War in an upcoming post series on the Great Western Cattle Wars. For our purposes here let’s just say The House, as the Murphy Dolan faction were known, held all the cards.
Following the Lincoln County War, Chisum lived quietly. He never married, though he is believed to have fathered two daughters by a former slave. Suffering from cancer he moved back to Texas where he died in 1884 at age sixty.
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
As the Long Rail herds grew in number, they became an attractive target for Indian raids and rustlers. They dominated public grazing land much to the frustration and anger of small ranchers, bordering his Pecos River holdings at Seven Rivers. Many of these small ranchers felt justified in rustling Long Rail stock as a way to thin the herd and turn a quick sale with a cattle brokerage operated by Lawrence G. Murphy in Lincoln.
Rustling drew Chisum into conflict with Murphy and his political backers known as the Santa Fe Ring. Murphy and his partner Jimmy Dolan ran Lincoln County. They controlled commercial mercantile trade. Their cattle brokerage wasn’t particular about where the beef they sold came from as long as the price was right. Chisum suspected Murphy and Dolan were behind his rustling losses; but he was unable to get the Lincoln County Sheriff to do anything about it. The Sheriff did bidding for Murphy and Dolan.
Chisum took matters into his own hands. He hired professional gunmen to protect his herds and meet out vigilante justice to rustlers, misfortunate enough to fall into his hands. Contrary to John Wayne’s classic portrayal, Chisum never carried a gun himself. He hired men who did. His Jinglebob Boys would ultimately be recast as quasi-legitimate lawmen, called Regulators, during the Lincoln County War.
Rustled competition, losses from Indian raids and fluctuations in the cattle market, combined to implode Chisum’s financially inflated brokerage business. He’d taken cattle from Texas ranchers on consignment for resale. In effect Chisum borrowed them. When he was unable to fulfill his supply-side contracts due to stock losses and depressed market conditions, he found himself entangled in civil suits that landed him in jail for a brief period.
When English business man John Tunstall and attorney Alexander McSween opened a mercantile and a bank in Lincoln to compete with Murphy and Dolan, Chisum joined them in a classic ‘Your-enemy-is-my-enemy’ alliance. The battle lines were drawn for the war that followed. We’ll come back to the Lincoln County War in an upcoming post series on the Great Western Cattle Wars. For our purposes here let’s just say The House, as the Murphy Dolan faction were known, held all the cards.
Following the Lincoln County War, Chisum lived quietly. He never married, though he is believed to have fathered two daughters by a former slave. Suffering from cancer he moved back to Texas where he died in 1884 at age sixty.
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
November 1, 2015
John Chisum
In a recent post series we discussed the one hundred thirty year old controversy surrounding the death of Billy The Kid. At the time, a number of readers commented on; or expressed interest in learning more about John Chisum. Chisum appears in all three books in my Bounty series, so I had some research material on him. I decided to take a deeper dive in response to reader interest. He is an interesting character. Here’s what I found.
John Simpson Chisum was born in Tennessee, August 16, 1824. His parents moved to Red River County, Texas when young John was thirteen. He had little in the way of formal education and worked at a variety of odd jobs until he formed a partnership with a New York investor and entered the cattle business at age twenty-eight. History paints him as cattle baron rancher. In reality he was more cattle broker than rancher. That said, he indeed operated on a grand scale as befitting the stature of royalty.
Chisum parlayed his North Texas partnership interest into some five thousand head of cattle by 1860. He avoided service to the South during the Civil War, confining his interest to supplying Confederate forces with beef. His herds grew to some 18,000 head by 1863. Three years later, he partnered with Charles Goodnight and contracted to supply beef to the Navajo reservation at Bosque Redondo near Fort Sumner, New Mexico Territory. His relationship with Goodnight and the discovery a lucrative market in New Mexico marked an important turning point in Chisum’s cattle career.
Soon after Goodnight moved his ranching operations to Colorado and contracted with Chisum to provide Texas beef for markets there and in neighboring Wyoming. In 1872 Chisum moved his Long Rail brand with its Jinglebob ear mark to the Pecos River valley in New Mexico. His use of the distinctive Jinglebob notch in a cow’s ear proved more recognizable than a brand when managing cattle in mixed herds.
Chisum established his South Spring ranch near present day Ruidoso New Mexico. He ran herds, numbering upwards of 60,000 to 100,000 head, on public grazing land for a hundred miles south along the Pecos River valley. The move fueled growth in Chisum’s business and sowed the seeds of troubles that would later draw him into the Lincoln County War.
Next Week: Empire So Vast
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
John Simpson Chisum was born in Tennessee, August 16, 1824. His parents moved to Red River County, Texas when young John was thirteen. He had little in the way of formal education and worked at a variety of odd jobs until he formed a partnership with a New York investor and entered the cattle business at age twenty-eight. History paints him as cattle baron rancher. In reality he was more cattle broker than rancher. That said, he indeed operated on a grand scale as befitting the stature of royalty.
Chisum parlayed his North Texas partnership interest into some five thousand head of cattle by 1860. He avoided service to the South during the Civil War, confining his interest to supplying Confederate forces with beef. His herds grew to some 18,000 head by 1863. Three years later, he partnered with Charles Goodnight and contracted to supply beef to the Navajo reservation at Bosque Redondo near Fort Sumner, New Mexico Territory. His relationship with Goodnight and the discovery a lucrative market in New Mexico marked an important turning point in Chisum’s cattle career.
Soon after Goodnight moved his ranching operations to Colorado and contracted with Chisum to provide Texas beef for markets there and in neighboring Wyoming. In 1872 Chisum moved his Long Rail brand with its Jinglebob ear mark to the Pecos River valley in New Mexico. His use of the distinctive Jinglebob notch in a cow’s ear proved more recognizable than a brand when managing cattle in mixed herds.
Chisum established his South Spring ranch near present day Ruidoso New Mexico. He ran herds, numbering upwards of 60,000 to 100,000 head, on public grazing land for a hundred miles south along the Pecos River valley. The move fueled growth in Chisum’s business and sowed the seeds of troubles that would later draw him into the Lincoln County War.
Next Week: Empire So Vast
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
October 25, 2015
The Mason Dixon Line
For most of us the Mason Dixon Line is the Civil War demarcation between the North and the South. That historical context has nothing to do with the origin of a line the Civil War made famous. The Mason Dixon line dates back to a family feud in colonial times. In the 1700’s the border between Penn family holdings in Pennsylvania and Calvert family holdings in Maryland was in dispute. The dispute escalated into all-out war, sometimes called the Cresap War. It lasted eighty years.
Weary of the dispute, King George II stepped in to broker a truce. Bowing to royal pressure the families agreed to commission a survey to resolve the dispute by fixing a border both sides would respect. They hired English astronomer Charles Mason and surveyor Jeremiah- you guessed it- Dixon to survey the two hundred thirty three mile border. Mason and Dixon completed their work in 1767, establishing a border marked out in stone that cleverly became known as- The Mason Dixon line.
In the latter years of the 1700’s the line became a symbol of another dispute. This time it was the future of the practice of slaveholding. States south of the line favored the practice while those to the north opposed it. The Mason Dixon line became a blueprint for the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which governed territorial disputes over slavery until the 1850’s.
As we discovered in our series on choosing a route for the transcontinental railroad, the slavery issue could not be resolved legislatively. The dispute would ultimately burst into bloodshed. The Mason Dixon Line extrapolated along the lines of secession, absent the celestial precision of its origin. Symbolically the Confederacy’s assault on territory north of the fabled line was thrown back at Gettysburg in Pennsylvania, beginning the end of resolving the dispute.
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
Weary of the dispute, King George II stepped in to broker a truce. Bowing to royal pressure the families agreed to commission a survey to resolve the dispute by fixing a border both sides would respect. They hired English astronomer Charles Mason and surveyor Jeremiah- you guessed it- Dixon to survey the two hundred thirty three mile border. Mason and Dixon completed their work in 1767, establishing a border marked out in stone that cleverly became known as- The Mason Dixon line.
In the latter years of the 1700’s the line became a symbol of another dispute. This time it was the future of the practice of slaveholding. States south of the line favored the practice while those to the north opposed it. The Mason Dixon line became a blueprint for the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which governed territorial disputes over slavery until the 1850’s.
As we discovered in our series on choosing a route for the transcontinental railroad, the slavery issue could not be resolved legislatively. The dispute would ultimately burst into bloodshed. The Mason Dixon Line extrapolated along the lines of secession, absent the celestial precision of its origin. Symbolically the Confederacy’s assault on territory north of the fabled line was thrown back at Gettysburg in Pennsylvania, beginning the end of resolving the dispute.
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
October 18, 2015
The National Road
Our travels to the Western Writers of America Convention this summer took us to Lubbock Texas. Along the way, we traveled some length of Interstate 40. We’ve traveled it before on the way west. Likely many of you have too. We think of the interstate highway system as thoroughly modern transportation and for the most part it is; but Interstate 40 traces its roots to 1806. In fact the need for a trans-Appalachian road was first conceived by none-other than the persons of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
The National Road was built by the Federal Government between 1811 and 1834. It proceeded west from Cumberland Maryland to the Ohio River. By 1839 The National Road reached Vandalia Illinois. The eighty foot wide thoroughfare was paved in broken stone known at the time as macadam for the Scottish engineer who invented the paving technique. A smooth dirt roadbed was covered in stone broken by hand and shoveled and raked into place with great precision. An iron roller was used to compact a surface able to withstand wagon and carriage traffic drawn by horses, mules and oxen.
Construction of The National Road, also known as the Cumberland Road or National Pike spawned booms in bridge building, settlement and commerce. Picturesque old stone and wood bridges built across streams and rivers spanned by The National Road can still be found on its original route. Settlements too sprung up along the right of way with taverns and inns to serve the weary traveler. The National Road served as Main Street to many a small town and village, some of which remain with us to this very day.
As expected, The National Road brought settlement west. Agricultural produce traveled east to market, while industrial and imported goods traveled west. The National Road’s economic success served as a catalyst to further transportation advances in the years that followed. The Erie Canal provided a boon to commercial canal building soon followed by railroad expansion. Both innovations resulted in abandoning plans to further develop The National Road until the automobile arrived in the 1920’s, giving birth to Interstate 40 and the eventual interstate highway system.
Today we breeze along I-40 at seventy miles per hour with no thought to an old stone road revolutionizing the way west at thirty miles a day. But there’s an Inn up ahead with a hot meal and a bed for the weary traveler in some wayside settlement just off the super-slab. Some things never change.
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
The National Road was built by the Federal Government between 1811 and 1834. It proceeded west from Cumberland Maryland to the Ohio River. By 1839 The National Road reached Vandalia Illinois. The eighty foot wide thoroughfare was paved in broken stone known at the time as macadam for the Scottish engineer who invented the paving technique. A smooth dirt roadbed was covered in stone broken by hand and shoveled and raked into place with great precision. An iron roller was used to compact a surface able to withstand wagon and carriage traffic drawn by horses, mules and oxen.
Construction of The National Road, also known as the Cumberland Road or National Pike spawned booms in bridge building, settlement and commerce. Picturesque old stone and wood bridges built across streams and rivers spanned by The National Road can still be found on its original route. Settlements too sprung up along the right of way with taverns and inns to serve the weary traveler. The National Road served as Main Street to many a small town and village, some of which remain with us to this very day.
As expected, The National Road brought settlement west. Agricultural produce traveled east to market, while industrial and imported goods traveled west. The National Road’s economic success served as a catalyst to further transportation advances in the years that followed. The Erie Canal provided a boon to commercial canal building soon followed by railroad expansion. Both innovations resulted in abandoning plans to further develop The National Road until the automobile arrived in the 1920’s, giving birth to Interstate 40 and the eventual interstate highway system.
Today we breeze along I-40 at seventy miles per hour with no thought to an old stone road revolutionizing the way west at thirty miles a day. But there’s an Inn up ahead with a hot meal and a bed for the weary traveler in some wayside settlement just off the super-slab. Some things never change.
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
October 11, 2015
Lessons of Our History
The past few months we examined cases where historical records may be contradictory, flawed or inaccurate. Was George Custer a tragic hero or reckless ego-maniac? If Pat Garrett killed Billy The Kid, why do we have a one hundred thirty year old controversy? Was the Grant presidency as corrupt as history portrays; or might the historical record be politically biased? History is a prismatic lens through which we view the past as seen by those who record it. Things may not always be as they are reported.
We learn historical lessons in hindsight. If you stop and think about it though, slanted or distorted records that became ‘history’, weren’t hindsight at the time they were first reported. The reports themselves were biased, flawed or just plain wrong. When that happens, the fragile lessons of history become misreported or lost. In the past, these occurrences tended to be isolated mistakes; or someone’s wishful thinking slipping into the historical record. Future generations were left to deal with the effects of misreporting or inaccuracies.
In the nineteenth century history was reported and recorded by the printed word. Today history is reported and recorded by a twenty-four-hour, mass-media news-cycle. Once again, things may not always be as they are reported. We see example after example of reporting that is selective, slanted or simply not true. If these reports become our history, one wonders what lessons our history will offer those who follow us in generations to come. What will they learn from records that are biased or false? What lessons will be lost for being selectively ignored?
There are some bedrock principles in play here. Our constitution ensures the rights of a free press. Rights come with responsibilities. Journalistic ethics profess to take these responsibilities seriously. The ethical standards professional journalism sets for itself raise a high bar. The Society of Professional Journalists promotes a Code of Ethics. You can find it at www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp. The preamble states:
“Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. Ethical Journalism strives to ensure the free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough. An ethical journalist acts with integrity.”
“Justice and the foundation of democracy,” make for serious stuff. The code goes on at length and specificity to elaborate on the meaning of journalistic ethics and the behaviors the code expects of ethical journalists. It would be amusing if it weren’t so sad. Today we are surrounded by examples of journalists and media outlets who don’t seem to take journalistic responsibilities or ethics seriously at all. The news is less reported than editorialized to suit a particular ideology or worldview. What happened to “Accurate, fair . . . thorough” and I’ll add ‘truthful’ journalism? It’s become ‘group-think’ talking-points.
Popular culture gives lying a pass. We’ve institutionalized deceit as an accepted form of discourse. We parse phrases, spin words, shade meaning and bias questions to favor a desired answer or ‘Optic’. In some cases we are fed outright lies without the slightest fear of repercussion because mass media has become mass-think. Reporters use talking-point templates featuring buzz words that appear in every story regardless of outlet. I read a story not long ago reported in a half dozen different outlets. Every one used the word ‘gravitas’. When was the last time you used gravitas in a sentence? Some ‘coincidence’. In a more subtle and devious deceit, undesirable truth is simply ignored.
The problem isn’t confined to journalists either, though in most cases journalists are the great enabler of deceits by those they were once charged to oversee. If some statement or allegation suits a journalist’s worldview, it goes into the media megaphone without question. Elected officials, business leaders, celebrities and even educators engage in slanted, biased and less than truthful practices. They do so with impunity whenever their distortions suit the popular or desired ideology. The intrepid purveyor of unpopular truth or a contradictory viewpoint is systematically demonized or destroyed.
Taken together we are left with a culture of deceit. We have devalued truth in our society and our history with it. In doing so we abandon truthful lessons of history and the value future generations might take from them. I’ve used these quotes before. They bear repeating.
George Santayana observed: Those who ignore the lessons of history, are destined to repeat them.
George Orwell famously said “Who controls the past, controls the future.”
Orwell might also have said ‘Who controls the present, controls the future.’
“Justice and the foundation of democracy” make for serious consequences.
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
We learn historical lessons in hindsight. If you stop and think about it though, slanted or distorted records that became ‘history’, weren’t hindsight at the time they were first reported. The reports themselves were biased, flawed or just plain wrong. When that happens, the fragile lessons of history become misreported or lost. In the past, these occurrences tended to be isolated mistakes; or someone’s wishful thinking slipping into the historical record. Future generations were left to deal with the effects of misreporting or inaccuracies.
In the nineteenth century history was reported and recorded by the printed word. Today history is reported and recorded by a twenty-four-hour, mass-media news-cycle. Once again, things may not always be as they are reported. We see example after example of reporting that is selective, slanted or simply not true. If these reports become our history, one wonders what lessons our history will offer those who follow us in generations to come. What will they learn from records that are biased or false? What lessons will be lost for being selectively ignored?
There are some bedrock principles in play here. Our constitution ensures the rights of a free press. Rights come with responsibilities. Journalistic ethics profess to take these responsibilities seriously. The ethical standards professional journalism sets for itself raise a high bar. The Society of Professional Journalists promotes a Code of Ethics. You can find it at www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp. The preamble states:
“Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. Ethical Journalism strives to ensure the free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough. An ethical journalist acts with integrity.”
“Justice and the foundation of democracy,” make for serious stuff. The code goes on at length and specificity to elaborate on the meaning of journalistic ethics and the behaviors the code expects of ethical journalists. It would be amusing if it weren’t so sad. Today we are surrounded by examples of journalists and media outlets who don’t seem to take journalistic responsibilities or ethics seriously at all. The news is less reported than editorialized to suit a particular ideology or worldview. What happened to “Accurate, fair . . . thorough” and I’ll add ‘truthful’ journalism? It’s become ‘group-think’ talking-points.
Popular culture gives lying a pass. We’ve institutionalized deceit as an accepted form of discourse. We parse phrases, spin words, shade meaning and bias questions to favor a desired answer or ‘Optic’. In some cases we are fed outright lies without the slightest fear of repercussion because mass media has become mass-think. Reporters use talking-point templates featuring buzz words that appear in every story regardless of outlet. I read a story not long ago reported in a half dozen different outlets. Every one used the word ‘gravitas’. When was the last time you used gravitas in a sentence? Some ‘coincidence’. In a more subtle and devious deceit, undesirable truth is simply ignored.
The problem isn’t confined to journalists either, though in most cases journalists are the great enabler of deceits by those they were once charged to oversee. If some statement or allegation suits a journalist’s worldview, it goes into the media megaphone without question. Elected officials, business leaders, celebrities and even educators engage in slanted, biased and less than truthful practices. They do so with impunity whenever their distortions suit the popular or desired ideology. The intrepid purveyor of unpopular truth or a contradictory viewpoint is systematically demonized or destroyed.
Taken together we are left with a culture of deceit. We have devalued truth in our society and our history with it. In doing so we abandon truthful lessons of history and the value future generations might take from them. I’ve used these quotes before. They bear repeating.
George Santayana observed: Those who ignore the lessons of history, are destined to repeat them.
George Orwell famously said “Who controls the past, controls the future.”
Orwell might also have said ‘Who controls the present, controls the future.’
“Justice and the foundation of democracy” make for serious consequences.
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
October 4, 2015
A Talking Points Record
So how do we explain a historical record of the Grant administration that is so one-sided? Enter history’s prismatic lens. Grant faced newspaper editor Horace Greeley in his 1872 campaign for a second term. Greeley’s supporters in the political elite included most of his newspaper editor colleagues across the nation. Together they slandered and vilified Grant with a venom reserved in modern times for the likes of . . . well you pick your favorite victim of personal destruction politics. The charges Grant’s adversaries trumpeted in that campaign, literally the opposition talking points, come down to us today as history’s assessment of the Grant presidency. The record completely overlooks the fact that Grant won reelection, capturing nearly sixty percent of the popular vote. Despite a national opposition that purchased ink by the barrel, the American people found reason to approve the president’s performance in office.
And so we are left with an imperfect portrait of President Ulysses Simpson Grant. Few who hold presidential office can rightly claim more, though history accords some kinder treatment than others. When it comes to scandal, Grant was a piker by contemporary standards. One wonders what history will record of our current administration. I came away from my research on the Grant presidency convinced the historical record is far more flawed than the substance of his legacy. Some say ‘History is written by the winners.’ In this case history was written by the newspaper editors who supported Horace Greeley in 1872; and lost.
Which brings us to the conclusion of this long running series. In recent weeks we’ve looked at historical controversies surrounding George Custer, Billy The Kid and Ulysses S. Grant. All these controversies owed, at least in part, to flawed historical records. What is our take-away from this for the time in which we live?
Next Week: The Lessons of Our History
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
And so we are left with an imperfect portrait of President Ulysses Simpson Grant. Few who hold presidential office can rightly claim more, though history accords some kinder treatment than others. When it comes to scandal, Grant was a piker by contemporary standards. One wonders what history will record of our current administration. I came away from my research on the Grant presidency convinced the historical record is far more flawed than the substance of his legacy. Some say ‘History is written by the winners.’ In this case history was written by the newspaper editors who supported Horace Greeley in 1872; and lost.
Which brings us to the conclusion of this long running series. In recent weeks we’ve looked at historical controversies surrounding George Custer, Billy The Kid and Ulysses S. Grant. All these controversies owed, at least in part, to flawed historical records. What is our take-away from this for the time in which we live?
Next Week: The Lessons of Our History
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
September 27, 2015
Untold Legacy
Lost in the popular history of the Grant presidency is any credit for policies and actions that might have accorded the president a more favorable legacy. Historians give him little credit for seeing the nation through the difficult period of post war reconstruction. He preserved the achievements of the war by guaranteeing African American freedmen their rights of citizenship in an unrepentant South, when necessary at the point of a bayonet.
His policy for dealing with Native Americans, though flawed when considered in light of twenty-first century values, made a good faith effort to treat the plains tribes fairly. In his second inaugural address he put forward a vision for “The original inhabitants of the land.” His so called “Peace Policy” sought to protect the rights of citizenship. The policy proved unpopular. It attracted political opposition in the west, economic opposition from railroad and mining interests and a not so passive resistance from his former brothers in arms at the War Department.
As part of his plan to expose corruption in administration of the reservation system he appointed religiously affiliated groups to oversee treatment of the tribes. Besides overseeing management of government funded treaty benefits, these well intentioned stewards saw their responsibilities to include Christian evangelization of the tribes. The policy became misguided when religious tyranny that trampled Native American culture replaced administrative corruption. It is easy to pass judgment on nineteenth century policy when viewed through the enlightened lenses of twentieth or twenty first century values; but Grant’s policy was enlightened for its time. In the end conflicts over land, gold, railroad expansion and military supremacy pit westward expansion against Grant’s Peace Policy. His best intentions could not prevail against such relentless pressure.
Next Week: A Talking Points Record
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
His policy for dealing with Native Americans, though flawed when considered in light of twenty-first century values, made a good faith effort to treat the plains tribes fairly. In his second inaugural address he put forward a vision for “The original inhabitants of the land.” His so called “Peace Policy” sought to protect the rights of citizenship. The policy proved unpopular. It attracted political opposition in the west, economic opposition from railroad and mining interests and a not so passive resistance from his former brothers in arms at the War Department.
As part of his plan to expose corruption in administration of the reservation system he appointed religiously affiliated groups to oversee treatment of the tribes. Besides overseeing management of government funded treaty benefits, these well intentioned stewards saw their responsibilities to include Christian evangelization of the tribes. The policy became misguided when religious tyranny that trampled Native American culture replaced administrative corruption. It is easy to pass judgment on nineteenth century policy when viewed through the enlightened lenses of twentieth or twenty first century values; but Grant’s policy was enlightened for its time. In the end conflicts over land, gold, railroad expansion and military supremacy pit westward expansion against Grant’s Peace Policy. His best intentions could not prevail against such relentless pressure.
Next Week: A Talking Points Record
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
September 20, 2015
Scandal or a Few
So how did Ulysses S. Grant’s presidential legacy get so tarnished? History tarred him with all the political corruption and scandal of the time. Here are some of the more notable ‘Scandals’ history attributes to Grant’s presidency. Some of them may ring a bell from that long-ago history class you took back when schools actually taught American history.
Credit Mobilier: Grant came to office and inherited this ongoing plot that defrauded the federal government of tens of millions of dollars in railroad construction contracts. That’s right, twenty million nineteenth century dollars! The plot was exposed on Grant’s watch and the conspirators, Union Pacific officials and their Congressional accomplices were brought to account.
Back Pay Grab: Congress enacted a bill authorizing a fifty percent pay increase across the board for the legislative, judicial and executive branches. They attached it to an appropriations bill that was under pressure for swift passage. Imagine that. No pay increases had been granted for some time, so the increase seemed ‘reasonable’. Grant signed the bill despite a provision that made the increase retroactive for two years. That provision provoked public outcry. In retrospect he should have vetoed the bill. Bad judgement? Sure. Is he the only president ever to sign flawed legislation? Hardly.
Indian Trading Scandal: This affair involved a kick back scheme over an Indian Agency appointment that implicated Secretary of War, William Belknap. Belknap resigned on the eve of the scandal being exposed. Grant accepted his resignation without question not knowing allegations of misconduct were forthcoming. Should Grant have questioned the sudden resignation which allowed Belknap to avoid prosecution? Probably; but that of course is hindsight. In fact a significant component of Grant’s Indian policy was an aggressive campaign to root out corruption in the Bureau of Indian Affairs. These practices were widespread before Grant came to office. His policy was to expose abuse and remove those responsible for wrong doing. That policy popular history largely ignores.
The Whiskey Ring: This scheme defrauded the government in the collection of taxes on whiskey production. The conspiracy implicated administration officials Orville Babcock and Horace Porter, both close associates of the president. Grant insisted on a thorough and vigorous prosecution- in spite, one might imagine, of his personal distaste for the very notion of taxing whiskey. His political adversaries tainted him by association.
Political corruption in the 19th century didn’t begin or end with the Grant administration. Flagrant abuses such as Credit Mobilier and corruption in the Bureau of Indian Affairs were rampant before Grant came to office. The rail road fraud and the Back Pay Grab had their roots in congress. The Indian Trading Scandal and the Whiskey Ring involved administration officials, but Grant was never personally implicated. Clearly he made mistakes in some of his appointments. His hands-off management style resulted in poor handling of some of the abuses that occurred on his watch. Nevertheless, he seems to bear too much responsibility for the wrongdoing of others while getting little credit for the more positive policies of his administration.
Next Week: Untold Legacy
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
Credit Mobilier: Grant came to office and inherited this ongoing plot that defrauded the federal government of tens of millions of dollars in railroad construction contracts. That’s right, twenty million nineteenth century dollars! The plot was exposed on Grant’s watch and the conspirators, Union Pacific officials and their Congressional accomplices were brought to account.
Back Pay Grab: Congress enacted a bill authorizing a fifty percent pay increase across the board for the legislative, judicial and executive branches. They attached it to an appropriations bill that was under pressure for swift passage. Imagine that. No pay increases had been granted for some time, so the increase seemed ‘reasonable’. Grant signed the bill despite a provision that made the increase retroactive for two years. That provision provoked public outcry. In retrospect he should have vetoed the bill. Bad judgement? Sure. Is he the only president ever to sign flawed legislation? Hardly.
Indian Trading Scandal: This affair involved a kick back scheme over an Indian Agency appointment that implicated Secretary of War, William Belknap. Belknap resigned on the eve of the scandal being exposed. Grant accepted his resignation without question not knowing allegations of misconduct were forthcoming. Should Grant have questioned the sudden resignation which allowed Belknap to avoid prosecution? Probably; but that of course is hindsight. In fact a significant component of Grant’s Indian policy was an aggressive campaign to root out corruption in the Bureau of Indian Affairs. These practices were widespread before Grant came to office. His policy was to expose abuse and remove those responsible for wrong doing. That policy popular history largely ignores.
The Whiskey Ring: This scheme defrauded the government in the collection of taxes on whiskey production. The conspiracy implicated administration officials Orville Babcock and Horace Porter, both close associates of the president. Grant insisted on a thorough and vigorous prosecution- in spite, one might imagine, of his personal distaste for the very notion of taxing whiskey. His political adversaries tainted him by association.
Political corruption in the 19th century didn’t begin or end with the Grant administration. Flagrant abuses such as Credit Mobilier and corruption in the Bureau of Indian Affairs were rampant before Grant came to office. The rail road fraud and the Back Pay Grab had their roots in congress. The Indian Trading Scandal and the Whiskey Ring involved administration officials, but Grant was never personally implicated. Clearly he made mistakes in some of his appointments. His hands-off management style resulted in poor handling of some of the abuses that occurred on his watch. Nevertheless, he seems to bear too much responsibility for the wrongdoing of others while getting little credit for the more positive policies of his administration.
Next Week: Untold Legacy
https://www.amazon.com/author/paulcolt
Ride easy,
Paul
