Theodore Roosevelt As an Icon in Presidential Rhetoric Frank W Solak

Home , Alfred Steinberg, Conference of Governors, Emily Newell Blair, Emlen Roosevelt, Linnie Marsh Wolfe, Mornings on Horseback

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2010 Theodore Roosevelt as an Icon in Presidential Rhetoric Frank W Solak

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

THEODORE ROOSEVELT AS AN

ICON IN PRESIDENTIAL RHETORIC

FRANK W SOLAK

A Thesis submitted to the Department of History in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

Degree Awarded: Summer Semester, 2010

The members of the committee approve the thesis of Frank Solak defended on April 22, 2010.

______Frederick Davis Professor Directing Thesis

______Michael Ruse Committee Member

______James Jones Committee Member

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract iv

INTRODUCTION 2

CHAPTER I 8

CHAPTER II 26

CHAPTER III 49

CHAPTER IV 69

CHAPTER V 87

CONCLUSION 107

BIBLIOGRAPHY 120

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 137

iii

ABSTRACT

This thesis is a study of the usage of the name Theodore Roosevelt in Presidential rhetoric concerning environmental policy. From Roosevelt‟s immediate successors to the Chief Executives of today, all Presidents have found it convenient to allude to Roosevelt in order to promote a particular program or policy. Many Presidents have claimed that they or their party are the true heirs to Roosevelt and his philosophy. On occasion, competing candidates have both claimed to be representing Theodore Roosevelt‟s legacy while expounding significantly different policies. This thesis does not attempt to say who was right, but rather establishes that the legacy of Roosevelt was so complex that multiple interpretations are both possible and necessary. Each President is addressed with their use of the Roosevelt name and some possible explanations for why they choose to use him in that particular rhetorical way. The Presidents are broken down into groups in the chapters. At the end of each chapter, broader scope explanations are put forth indicating how scholars and society at large say Roosevelt (and, by extension, viewed the contemporary polices Roosevelt‟s name was being attached to). Conclusions at the end of each chapter are tied together at the end to demonstrate that the use of the Roosevelt name was far from random or solely a matter of short term expediency. Instead, the use followed the ever changing conception in America of conservation, environmentalism, and the many-faceted ideas of ecology. The overall theme of the thesis is that the rhetorical image of Roosevelt evolved over the past century along with the American idea of the environment, with Roosevelt always representing the consummate conservationist, simultaneously at one with environmental sensitivity and governmental efficiency.

But let a portion of ethereal dew Fall on my head, and presently unmew My soul; that I may dare, in wayfaring, To stammer where old Chaucer used to sing.

-John Keats, Endymion (Lines 131-4)

INTRODUCTION

It was no mere poetic fancy which impelled the ancient Greeks to people the firmament with their mythical heroes. A great National hero, a Washington, a Lincoln, a Roosevelt, does shine like a star to the people who come after him. In them they find light, and by them they can steer their course over uncharted and stormy seas… The fame of other men may fear the onslaught of time; but the fame of Roosevelt need not fear it. -Calvin Coolidge1

The 19th Century saw many developments in the field of conservation: the world‟s first National Park (Yellowstone); introduction of scientific forestry to North America; organized protection of game animals by hunting clubs; and the birth of Theodore Roosevelt. Before Theodore Roosevelt (hereafter TR) became President of the United States, Presidents may have taken actions dealing with the environment, but they had no specific policy. TR opened a Pandora‟s Box that could never be sealed. He created so many forest preserves, laid down so many laws, made such an issue of protecting the nation‟s natural resources, that no successor could ever completely ignore the matter. Since TR, every President, for good or ill, has had a conservation policy; since the 1970s, thought of as an environmental policy. Also, every President has had something that TR did not: the legacy of TR casting a shadow over them. Sometimes it was a disadvantage, considering that Roosevelt‟s accomplishments were many, the bar was set high for future efforts. Many times, it was advantageous: the name of Roosevelt could be invoked for a conservation policy and automatically imbue the program with the fervor of a crusade. For a century now, Presidents have been using, misusing, and sometimes even abusing, the name of Theodore Roosevelt to promote their environmental policy.

1 From the preface to Frederick S. Wood, ed. Roosevelt As We Knew Him. (Philadelphia: The John C. Winston Co, 1927): vii.

What, then, is this thesis about? It is a history of the image created by 20th Century political figures of the man Theodore Roosevelt. That image promoted National Parks and industrial parks; justified fisheries and wilderness areas; it was painted as Muir‟s greatest friend, and a bitter enemy. The image has gone through as many evolutions in a century as the drosophila fruit fly. This thesis will trace the changes and the many facets of Roosevelt‟s image; an image that permeated throughout the conservation efforts of the past century, and extends into this one. It is a history of the utilization of the name Roosevelt. To this end, this thesis should make clear, that the use of Roosevelt‟s name has evolved along parallel lines with prevailing societal sentiments vis-à-vis mankind‟s relationship with the natural world.2 Then it may be wondered why this is being billed as a work of Environmental History, and not of say political history or biography. In many ways, this is a biography; but not a biography of a man, but of a myth (or perhaps more accurately, a mythos). It is not a political history, however. It will address laws and policies, but not in the depth expected of political history. Instead, it will look at the changing role the Presidents have found themselves in, reflecting societal demands on and about nature. Just as Presidents have cited Roosevelt to justify their conservation policies, here I shall cite Roderick Nash to justify my classification as Environmental History: Environmental history has the potential for displaying the successes and failures of our custodianship of the land in such a way that the present can benefit from the experience of the past… Moreover, in attempting to advance conservation policies today it is important to know something of the national taste in environment. One of the best places to acquire such information is from an examination of how it was formed.3 The changing attitudes of the Presidents reflect the changing attitudes of their constituents, and better understanding of the direction that environmental concern has

2 This thesis addresses not a stagnant myth, nor a cult of personality, so important to previous works. Rather, it approaches the topic from a change over time perspective. Nevertheless, credit is due to a work that helped inspire the methodology of this thesis. Darrin M. McMahon, Happiness: A History. (New York: Grove Press, 2006): traces the evolution of a concept, which keeps the same name (i.e. happiness) but changes drastically in definition. This thesis adapts the same approach, but fitted to the image of a man rather than an emotional state. 3 Roderick Frazier Nash, American Environmentalism: Readings in Conservation History. 3rd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Co, 1990): 7-8.

taken over the past century will help to put the modern environmental movement in wider historical perspective. In previous works, close conceptually to this one, the interest has been on the image of a President at a particular time. The questions asked were: What image did the President try to project? What legacy do we see today (i.e. current with publication of the book)? Or, what did the actions of the President mean to society? The commonality between the questions is that they focus on a single time (or, at best, two: the time the subject lived and the time the author wrote about it). The other universal aspect of this work is that the interest focuses on scholarly perception of the times. The changing historiography is the focus of historians; ignoring to their peril the evolving perceptions of society at large and political figures in particular.4 One duo of historians came close to a similar approach to this subject matter. They described the rhetorical strategies of Bill Clinton. They applied an idea to an individual that I have applied to an entire class (the 20th Century Presidents), but their ideas made a significant contribution to this thesis: Clinton‟s rhetorical maneuver here [in referring to the Progressive Era] is clever. Drawing historical parallels with a time that most voters would only know through history and myth as opposed to lived experience [as opposed to Dole‟s references to World War II], allowed Clinton to shape his rendition of that time nostalgically for political purposes. As such, he becomes, in this discourse, the successor to Theodore Roosevelt‟s mythological mantle. He borrowed the crusading ethos of the hero of San

4 For examples of works such as these, see Gary Alan Fine, “Reputational Entrepreneurs and the Memory of Incompetence: Melting Supporters, Partisan Warriors, and Images of President Harding,” The American Journal of Sociology Vol. 101, No. 5 (March 1996): 1159-93: which studies the image of a president generally but not over time. John T. Flynn, The [Franklin] Roosevelt Myth. Revised Ed. (New York: The Devin-Adair Co, 1956, originally 1948): which is an early attempt at image history. John Orman, Comparing Presidential Behavior: Carter, Reagan, and the Macho Presidential Style. (New York: Greenwood Press, 1987): which studies projected images (in this case, machoism). Paul R. Henggeler, The Kennedy Persuasion: The Politics of Style Since JFK. (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1995): which studies the politics of style, combined with image construction in the quest for vote-getting. Peter Meyer, James Earl Carter: The Man and the Myth. (Kansas: Sheed Andrews and McMeal, 1978): which analyzes the mythos of a president, but not with any sense of change over time; instead, this book just debunks perceived “lies” about Carter; a biased account, by a biased writer. David Greenberg, Nixon’s Shadow: The History of an Image. (New York: W.W. Norton and Co, 2003): introduces psychohistory into the mix, though it expresses a dubious suspicion of the practice; this work does address the changing conception of Nixon in the eyes of scholar, but not anyone outside of the academy. Carol L. Stone, “When „Conservation‟ Became „Ecology‟,” The American Biology Teacher Vol. 47, No. 2 (Feb. 1985): p 85-90; this work tracks the evolving concept of ecology, a common theme, but fails to add the myth of TR into the analysis due to its brevity.

Juan Hill, fighting big industry to help consumers, working to preserve America‟s natural heritage. This nostalgic portrait of Theodore Roosevelt also allowed Clinton to avoid some of TR‟s less savory characteristics- his rather overt racism, sexism, and imperialism do not figure into Clinton‟s hagiography.5 It is clear what implications this has for a history of myth construction. The advantages of usurping the name of a famous personage to foster a particular initiative are many and lucrative. In another passage, the authors write The U.S. political system has always packaged its presidents; William Henry Harrison was a war hero with “log-cabin” roots, Abraham Lincoln the backwoods rail-splitter, Theodore Roosevelt the Rough Rider war hero, and Jimmy Carter the simple southern peanut farmer. Constructed images of presidents whatever their source, become critical in the demarcation and evolving articulation of a presidentiality that defines the presidency and the people who occupy the office. Such depictions also reveal how there really is no meaningful distinction between image and “reality” for the U.S. political culture, and how, at bottom, U.S. presidents are the personification of hyperreality.6 To borrow the ideas of one more eminent historian, William Cronon once made an argument that since there “has been no timeless wilderness in a state of perfect changelessness, no climax forest in permanent stasis” (the prevailing thought before the advent of ecological science and environmental history), “ecosystems have histories of their own.”7 This concept has been taken to heart herein. Historians admit the value of myth construction to politics; they study the application of those images by specific subjects; and they see the history inside each ecosystem. This is a history of a tool; a biography of a man who once lived, but who was immortal as a paragon of conservation; and a story of evolving definitions for words that changed in every way except spelling. To highlight this point, I shall close this introduction with an apocryphal quote by Calvin Coolidge: “All artificial distinctions have fallen from Theodore Roosevelt; he belongs to all Americans. Reaching beyond our shores, he is the possession of all men, whatever

5 Shawn J. Parry-Giles and Trevor Parry-Giles, Constructing Clinton: Hyperreality & Presidential Image- Making in Postmodern Politics. (New York: Peter Lang, 2002): 93. 6 Ibid., 187-8. 7 William Cronon, Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England. (New York: Hill and Wang, 1983): 11-2.

their race, whatever their color, whatever their creed, who are willing to live by his principles and follow his example.”8

8 Wood, Roosevelt as We Knew Him, prefatory note, viii.

In one moment I‟ve seen what has hitherto been Enveloped in absolute mystery. And without extra charge I will give you at large A lesson in Natural History.

-Lewis Carroll, “The Hunting of the Snarks”

CHAPTER I

LITERARY REVIEW: HISTORY HUNGERS FOR BREAD

The outstanding characteristic of perception is that it entails no consumption and no dilution of any resource. The swoop of a hawk, for example, is perceived by one as the drama of evolution. To another it is only a threat to the full frying-pan. The drama may excite a hundred successive witnesses, the threat only one- for he responds with a shotgun.

-Aldo Leopold, “The Land Ethic”

Explanation The questions that have been asked in the field of environmental history concern the changing political face of the Conservation and Preservation Movement over the last 100 years, the place of Theodore Roosevelt within that movement, and the nature of Conservationism today. Many Environmental Historians have attempted to answer these questions in the past, but they have never directly addressed the issue of the evolving image of Theodore Roosevelt from the perspective of federal policy-makers. Histories of either the conservationists or the preservationists exist, but seldom is a synthesizing thesis offered of how both interacted with contemporary political figures to effect government dispositions on the environment and how this synthesis was manifested in rhetorical use of the name Theodore Roosevelt. It seems advisable here to make special note that the evolving idea of TR in the historical literature, as with the popular/political literature (as will be seen in the main body chapters of this work) do not necessarily insinuate normative judgments. Sometimes historians or politicians are wrong or even consciously obfuscating the facts. For the most

part, however, writers are doing their honest best to portray a theme in the most accurate way possible. Objectivity, an unattainable ideal, is the mark for which the authors discussed throughout this chapter hopefully aspire. But just as Peter Novick so admirably elucidated, objectivity has a tendency to change with the times.9 Therefore, it should not be seen as condemning to discuss the absence of a theme from one period of literature as opposed to another; it is not to mean that one period was wrong and the other right, but that both were different, just as an evolving species may not necessarily be “better” than a previous one, simply more suited to the conditions in which it finds itself. So too is the biographic and historical literature on TR best viewed. To understand that the literary canon on TR evolves along lines parallel to those of the social image of TR helps to explain how that image changed. Perhaps, then, one opens themselves to the fatal mistake of presentism in comparing literature of one age to another and expounding on differences. The best defense is to say that it is not done to criticize the past ages, but to help to make clear the changes that have occurred and to add a new perspective to the modern image of Theodore Roosevelt.

Biographic Literature, 1900-1963 It did not take an historian of vision to recognize that in life TR was a singular force in American history and, thusly, it took very little time for biographies to begin appearing in the book stores. While TR was alive, none of the biographers had much interest in his preservationist work and none whatsoever in John Muir; instead, their interest, such as it was, focused on his conservationist work. For the most part, they were not even particularly interested in Pinchot, though he was usually at least mentioned as an advisor to the President. In a broad history of the times, one scholar anointed Pinchot with great laurels, writing that “to Gifford Pinchot is due the title of “Father of the Conservation Movement.”10 This indicates that he was certainly seen by scholars to be some part of the picture. Many authors downplayed conservation, but others already had the notion that it would be among the most enduring aspect of Roosevelt‟s legacy. One

9 Peter Novick, That Noble Dream: The “Objectivity Question” and the American historical Profession. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988). 10 Paul L. Haworth, The United States In Our Times, 1865-1924. (New York: Charles Scribner‟s Sons, 1920). This book deals with matters such as National Parks and game preserves, but in the context of protecting something with economic value.

remarked “the greatest of Roosevelt‟s works as a legislator were those which he carried through in the fields of conservation and reclamation.”11 Few scholars in the era took note of his National Parks or contributions to preservation; these matters would have to await scholars of a future day. This forms the basis for observable change. The image of TR, as created by his biographers, was a substantially more utilitarian person than he would later be portrayed as being. To say one image is necessarily more accurate than the other would be ahistorical, it is the subtle change over time that provides insight into the evolving image of Roosevelt. Exceptions existed, though; one author praised TR for setting aside park land “to the perpetual happiness and mental and moral benefit of the people.”12 These rarities at the beginning of the century would see themselves becoming standard practice by the end of it. TR, a once living legend, became a subject of endless biographies written in the period after he became the more immortal kind of legend. For the most part, the story was highly reminiscent throughout the 1920s and 30s of those written in his life time. Not surprising, considering the colossal influence his personality had upon those around him and the proximity scholars enjoyed to TR chronologically. The story of conservation continued to revolve around utilitarian, wise use policies and was ascribed to Gifford Pinchot to at least some extent. Overall, however, the conservation policies of TR were not the principal motif of the scholars. Primarily, they only appeared as an aspect of his political accomplishments. Studies of his life outside of the White House mostly omitted any mention to conservation whatsoever, let alone Gifford Pinchot. It was in this era that John Muir and the preservationist impulses he represented utterly disappeared from the historiography.13 The same pattern is repeated in the works of broader histories composed

11 Quote from William Roscoe Thayer, Theodore Roosevelt: An Intimate Biography. (New York: Grosset and Dunlap, 1919): 236; this work does give credit to Pinchot for his contributions. For a biography from the era that includes no mention of Muir or Pinchot, see Joseph Bucklin Bishop, Theodore Roosevelt and His Time: Shown In His Own Letters. 2 Vols. (New York: Charles Scribner‟s Sons, 1920). Surprisingly, on the other side of the issue, one work on conservation omitted any mention to even TR, see Albert A. Hopkins, Our Country and Its Resources. (New York: Munn and Co., 1917). 12 Ferdinand Cowle Iglehart, Theodore Roosevelt: The Man as I Knew Him. (New York: The Christian Herald, 1919): 218-20. 13 For example, studies that discuss Pinchot but not Muir: Henry F. Pringle, Theodore Roosevelt: A Biography. (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co, 1931) and James Ford Rhodes, The McKinley and Roosevelt Administration, 1897-1909. (New York: Macmillan, 1922). This latter work in particular has a strict definition of conservation as dealing with minerals, the National Forests and reclamation; these are also the only areas that Pinchot is associated with. For an example of a biography that discusses neither

by the scholars of the day.14 In some cases, more credit is given to Pinchot by the historians, due most likely to the fact that he was still alive in this period, and still an active political force.15 This period in the literature highlights the side of the spectrum in historical thought placing TR squarely in the realm of utilitarian conservationists; an image that would persist, though with some amelioration, for several more decades. In the 1940s through the early 1960s, the changes in the biographic literature were subtle but perceptible. Many works, of course, focused on issues of diplomatic history, or were diatribes composed for some specific political agenda, but controlling for them, biographies that have a scholarly appraisal of Roosevelt‟s domestic policies contain a discussion of the impact of Pinchot, and yet utterly exclude Pinchot.16 At least one work does mention, in passing, the camping trip between Muir and TR in 1903. Interestingly, this book downplays the importance of Pinchot, a certain social trend, as it only mentions him in the context of being dismissed by Taft. 17 Historians interested in broader works, on the other hand, kept a place for Pinchot, one even claiming Pinchot was TR‟s “most enthusiastic lieutenant” in conservation. Once again, though, Muir was absent from these pictures.18 This era, therefore, saw a new interest in conservation matters, but had only intermittent interest in conservation personalities besides TR himself. This indicates a

Muir nor Pinchot, see Earle Looker, Colonel Roosevelt: Private Citizen. (New York: Fleming H. Revell Co, 1932). 14 For example, see Frederic L. Paxson, Recent History of the United States, 1865-1929. Revised Ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co, 1929, originally 1921). 15 Louis M. Hacker and Benjamin B. Kendrick, The United States Since 1865. (New York: F.S. Crafts, 1932): 410-2, all talk of conservation is utilitarian; states “None contributed more to this awakening [concerning resource conservation] than Gifford Pinchot.” The 3rd edition of this book, which appeared in 1946 is unaltered on these pages. John D. Hicks, The American Nation: A History of the United States From 1865 to the Present. (Boston: Houston Mifflin, 1945, originally 1941): 397 gives Pinchot all the credit for convincing TR about the importance of resource conservation. Neither of these books mention Muir. For an example of a study that shifts credit away from Pinchot in favor of another, see Claude Moore Fuess, Carl Schurz: Reformer (1829-1906). (New York: Dodd, Mead and Co, 1932). 16 For works that discuss the impact of Pinchot‟s policies but excludes Pinchot himself, see for example, Herman Hagedorn, The Roosevelt Family of Sagamore Hill. (New York: The Macmillan Co, 1954): 162. George E. Mowry, The Era of Theodore Roosevelt, 1900-1912. (New York: Harper and Row, 1958). George E. Mowry, Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Movement. (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1946). Stefan Lorant, The Life and Times of Theodore Roosevelt. (Garden City: Doubleday and Co, 1959). For a diplomatic history that does not discuss Pinchot or Muir, see Howard K. Beale, Theodore Roosevelt and the Rise of America to World Power. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1956). Muir and his philosophy is absent in all of these works. 17 Edward Wagenknecht, The Seven Worlds of Theodore Roosevelt. (New York: Longmans, Green and Co, 1958): Muir, p 109; Pinchot, p 132. Surprisingly, though, nature is not one of the seven worlds alluded to in the title. 18 Oscar Theodore Barck, Jr., and Nelson Manfred Blake, Since 1900: A History of the United States in Our Times. (New York: Macmillan, 1947): 50; this work contains many other mentions of Pinchot as well.

significant change in social perception: i.e. a crescendo of interest in the natural environment that, as with the environmental movement, was only in its infancy in the 1950s. Juxtaposing strangely to this is a sudden interest of biographers in Pinchot as a stand alone subject for study. In many ways, this foreshadows the movement of scholars to divorce the image of TR from Pinchot while simultaneously finding new levels of interest in their accomplishments (see below). Two biographies of Pinchot in particular came out in the early 1960s. Both of them focused extensively on the National Forests. More tellingly, neither mentioned Muir nor the National Parks. Scholars still read an unbridgeable gulf between the forces of Pinchot-style conservation and the aesthetic policy of the Muir-style preservationists. 19 This created two incommensurable paradigms of conservation that could not be resolved in biographic literature; this work would be undertaken by environmental history.

Early Environmental History The duality created by the conservation/preservation debate could not be resolved overnight, but a new field of study would devote itself to understanding and explaining humanity‟s relation with the natural environment and attempt to formulate an answer. Launched just as the Environmental Era began, this field of study offered an entirely new perspective on Theodore Roosevelt that would have significant consequences for the future image of TR, and would influence future biographic literature. One thing all Environmental Historians have in common is a connection to the environmental movement of the early 1960s. In that era of so-called deep ecology, a new interest in the natural world swept the nation. It did not take long for that interest to extend to the academy; the result: Environmental History. The scholars that wrote in this era drew from a pantheon of great figures. The oldest of whom wrote in the middle of the 19th Century, and was one of America‟s best writers; no less a personage than Henry David Thoreau, author of Walden. In his magnum opus he wrote “I turned my face more exclusively than ever to the woods, where I was better known” and he was not far off the

19 M. Nelson McGeary, Gifford Pinchot: Forester-Politician. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960). Martin L. Fausold, Gifford Pinchot: Bull Moose Progressive. (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1961).

mark; for a century after publication, his work was not widely read.20 This was true also of a man thought to have continued the tradition of Thoreau at the turn of the century: John Muir, or John of the Mountains as he was sometimes known. Muir wrote passionately about the wild places of the nation and especially about the National Parks.21 He was instrumental in many early preservationist initiatives in the country, but, like Thoreau, did not have a wide readership outside a core group of enthusiasts. Following in the tradition of ill-recognition came Aldo Leopold. More than any predecessor, Leopold foreshadowed the era of Environmental History in his writings of the 1930s and 40s. He was prescient to trends in human activity that were more than simply profound, but indeed prophetic. He observed: “Homo sapiens patters no more under his own vine and fig tree; he has poured into his gas tank the stored motivity of countless creatures aspiring through the ages to wiggle their way to pastures new. Ant- like he swarms the continents… This is Outdoor Recreation, Latest Model.”22 Besides picking up on trends that would grow from a trickle to a torrent in the 1950s, he also expounded on a new conception of the very ground on which we stand. When he wrote that “There is much confusion between land and country” he explained that, “Land is the place where corn, gullies, and mortgages grow. Country is the personality of land, the collective harmony of it soil, life, and weather.”23 It was thoughts like these that would later usher in a renewed interest in the earth and the things that dwell upon it. Besides presaging the thoughts of the environmental movement, however, he left writings to inspire the scholars of future years when he challenged “When the logic of history hungers for bread and we hand out a stone, we are at pains to explain how much the stone resembles bread.”24 Of course, in the end, Leopold‟s challenge went both unanswered and unheard for two decades. It was not until the world was shocked into attentiveness by the eye-opening words of Rachel Carson in Silent Spring.25

20 Henry David Thoreau, Walden. (New York: Barnes and Noble Classics, 2003, originally 1854): 21; see the editor‟s notes on the work‟s reception during the author‟s life. 21 For example, see John Muir, Our National Parks. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1901). 22 “The Land Ethic, Conservation Esthetic”, from Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac, With Essays on Conservation From Round River. (New York: Ballantine Books, 1966, originally, 1949 (Almanac) and 1953 (Round River)): 281. 23 “A Taste for Country”, from Ibid., 177. 24 “The Land Ethic”, from Ibid., 246. 25 Rachel Carson, Silent Spring. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962).

In the world of conservation, there has always been a split between those that wish to use resources wisely and efficiently for economic benefit, and those that want to preserve and leave inviolate the wild places for spiritual/cultural benefit. Often, the two branches find themselves in conflict with one another when a scenic area contains valuable resources. This conundrum immediately found its way into the newly emergent branch of Environmental History. Most Environmental Historians would agree that the most significant work to come out of the 1950s was The Gospel of Efficiency, written by the incomparable Samuel P. Hays. A pioneer in more ways than one, Hays described the bitter differences between conservation and preservation and also offered examples of how TR could be seen not only as a conservationist but also as a preservationist (when none of his academic colleagues were doing so). Moreover, he wrote that the Boone and Crocket Club (and other such organizations) were quite preservationist in their intention to save trees and wildlife “as objects of beauty, scientific curiosity, and recreation.”26 In the end, TR and Pinchot moved away from the desires of the Boone and Crocket Club to add land to the National Parks, particularly Yellowstone, focusing instead on more National Forests. It was Richard Ballinger, Taft‟s Secretary of the Interior, who Hays identifies as the most preservationist inclined federal official of the era; justified considering that he actively supported protecting the Hetch Hetchy, which Pinchot opposed and to which Roosevelt would not commit. Of course, Hays‟ thesis concerning what conservation was fit nicely with the predominant definition of the time: a good mix of forestry, resource management, elimination of wasteful practices, and wise use of available lands.27 Not every work written with an interest in the environment dealt with TR, but many did.28 More significantly, Muir became just as integral to the historical narrative as Pinchot. No longer was Roosevelt-style and Pinchot-style conservation synonymous. Now TR was seen as straddling a line between Pinchot and Muir; although he was still

26 Samuel P. Hays, Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency: The Progressive Movement, 1890-1920. (New York: Atheneum, 1975, originally, Harvard University Press, 1959): 189. 27 Ibid., 40 and 198. 28 For example, see Leslie Alexander. Lacy, The Soil Soldiers: The Civilian Conservation Corps in the Great Depression. (Radnor: Chilton, 1976): contains no mention whatsoever to Muir, Pinchot or TR.

seen as coming down mostly on the side of Pinchot.29 Historians found a promising new subject for study in Muir and one scholar went so far as to claim that Roosevelt‟s strengthened conservation policies were a direct result of spending three days with Muir in Yosemite National Park.30 Among the most able of the environmental historians of this era were Roderick Nash and John Reiger; both of whom had divergent views of the origin of conservation in the United States. Nash, a proponent of the value of wilderness being the impetus for conservation, played up Roosevelt‟s relation to Muir, and Nash also highlighted how TR was “not uncomfortable” supporting Muir and preservation, though he was often siding with conservations out of a sense of duty.31 Reiger, on the other hand, believed in the power of sport hunters in instigating conservation reforms at the turn of the century. Therefore, Reiger claimed that, despite the popular notion, TR and Pinchot did not start conservation. Despite this, Reiger saw TR and Pinchot as two peas in a pod; joined in a close partnership of political action and philosophic convictions.32 He admits that TR‟s motives for conservation were both aesthetic and utilitarian, but leaves Muir separate from Roosevelt. Muir, he also emphasizes, is given too much credit by other historians.33

Biographic Literature, 1964-Present In most of the biographic work on TR in the 1960s and 70s, the image persisted of “The Hunter-President as Conservationist.”34 Pinchot often figured prominently in

29 For example, see Frank Graham, Jr., Man’s Dominion: The Story of Conservation in America. (New York: M. Evans and Co, 1971). Of course, some placed him more solidly on the use side of the debate. Hays, for instance wrote that conservation was purely a matter of efficiency and considered TR and Pinchot the conservationists, not necessarily Muir. These statements were written in 1970 and reprinted in Samuel P. Hays, American Political History as Social Analysis: Essays by Samuel P. Hays. (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1980): 234-5. 30 Linnie Marsh Wolfe, ed. John of the Mountains: The Unpublished Journals of John Muir. (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1979): editor‟s note on page 427. 31 Roderick Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind. 3rd ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982, originally, 1967): quotation from 164; see also 138-9 and 162-3. 32 John F. Reiger, American Sportsmen and the Origins of Conservation. 3rd ed. (Corvallis: Oregon State University Press, 2001, originally 1975): 67-9 and 172. 33 Ibid., 143-4 and 159-60. 34 R. L. Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt: Outdoorsmen. (New York: Winchester Press, 1971): 152-71. For other works that discuss Pinchot and conservation but not Muir, see William Manners, TR and Will: A Friendship That Split the Republican Party. (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1969). Gilbert Black, ed. Theodore Roosevelt, 1858-1919: Chronology-Documents-Bibliographic Aids. (Dobbs Ferry: Oceana Publications, 1969). For an exception which discusses no side of conservation, see John Morton Blum, The Republican Roosevelt. (New York: Atheneum, 1972).

biographies, while Muir was only a footnote mention concerning Roosevelt‟s trip to Yosemite. One notable work in the historiography came with Edmund Morris‟ Pulitzer Prize winning biography The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt. He gave all due credit to Pinchot and fully elucidated the great white hunter. He explained many of TR‟s conservation initiatives in terms of game protection and the need for places in which to have “manly” adventures, but he also went into the spiritual side of TR, and his “profound, almost Indian veneration for trees.”35 Like other historians of this and previous eras, however, Muir was still a marginalized figure; this is explained in great measure, however, in that the biography only covered the time of TR‟s life before becoming President. Morris does mention “Crusty John Muir” in the prologue as one of the many people who learned to love TR.36 Another significant development in the historical literature of the time is a burgeoning interest in TR and conservation in other Presidential biographer‟s works. Whether it was movements to build statues to TR or comparing the conservation record of a modern president to that of Roosevelt, historians of the era found an area of study rich in material.37 Some historians even fought against popular notions in the new light of environmentalism.38 More biographies are being produced now than ever before. In the present era, TR is more popular than he ever was as a subject as his biographers continue to find a man whose life can still speak to the public after a century of study. In terms of conservation, the confusion between the image of TR the conservationist and TR the preservationist persists. Of course, the traditional perception of TR remains the most popular. Most monographs about TR that discuss conservation keep their focus on forestry, Pinchot, utilitarianism, efficiency and other traditional ideas of conservation; and no mention of the influence of John Muir.39 Several recent books have been published which focus on

35 Edmund Morris, The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt. (New York: The Modern Library, 2001, originally 1979): 389. 36 Ibid., xxx. 37 For examples, see Theodore H. White, The Making of the President, 1968. (New York: Atheneum, 1969): 101 and 115. Tom Wicker, JFK and LBJ: The Influence of Personality Upon Politics. (New York: William Morrow and Co, 1968): 56. 38 For example, Joan Hoff, Nixon Reconsidered. (New York: Basic Books, 1994): 21, finds praise for the conservation works of Nixon and his chief environmental advisor, Ehrlichman, is described as the best environmentalist since Pinchot (who was not really an environmentalist, but the thought is still there). 39 For examples, see any of the following which include no mention of Muir and at least some discussion of Pinchot-style conservation: Sidney M. Milkis, Theodore Roosevelt, the Progressive Party, and the

the violent aspects of Roosevelt‟s life and ignore his love of nature and tireless work on behalf of conservation.40 Some go even further. One author, believing that the National Parks were the sole focus of TR‟s conservation efforts, decided that the Parks were hurting the image of Roosevelt. The author contended, without evidence, that Roosevelt‟s conservation “schemes actually squandered resources.”41 This sort of interpretation is certainly the exception as opposed to the rule. Taking out the traditional idea of TR, and the outliers that either ignore conservation or see conservation as some sort of evil, this era saw an upswing in a new interpretation of TR. When the biography focuses on a different part of Roosevelt‟s career and only a passing reference to conservation is made, it‟s just as likely to be one of the handful of National Parks he created or defended rather than the millions of acres of National Forests he created.42 One biographer suggested that TR was reluctant to side with Pinchot over Muir but did so anyway.43 Many biographers in this era, however, integrate John Muir and preservationism into the story of Roosevelt‟s life in conjunction

Transformation of American Democracy. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2009). Patricia O‟Toole, When Trumpets Call: Theodore Roosevelt After The White House. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2005). Paul M. Rego, American Ideal: Theodore Roosevelt’s Search for American Individualism. (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2008). Richard D. White, Roosevelt the Reformer: Theodore Roosevelt as Civil Service Commissioner, 1889-1895. (Tuscaloosa: The University Alabama Press, 2003). Nathan Miller, Theodore Roosevelt: A Life. (New York: William Morrow and Co, 1992). This is also true of broader histories of the era. See: Steven J. Diner, A Very Different Age: Americans of the Progressive Era. (New York: Hill and Wang, 1998). Robert M. Crunden, Ministers of Reform: The Progressives’ Achievement in American Civilization, 1889-1920. (New York: Basic Books, 1982). John Morton Blum, The Progressive Presidents: Roosevelt, Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson. (New York: W.W. Norton and Co, 1980). James MacGregor Burns, The American Experiment Volume II: The Workshop of Democracy. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985): 349. Sometimes, Muir is mentioned but not in the context of TR, see Richard H. Stroud, ed. National Leaders of American Conservation. (Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1985): 274; on 331, TR and Pinchot are discussed in conjunction. 40 For example, see Sarah Watts, Rough Rider in the White House: Theodore Roosevelt and the Politics of Desire. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2003): on pages 173-4, there is a fleeting reference to Pinchot, mentioning that he was a member of the Boone and Crocket Club along with TR, Aldo Leopold, Henry Fairfield Osborne and Henry Cabot Lodge. An even more preposterous interpretation can be found in Jim Powell, Bully Boy: The Truth About Theodore Roosevelt’s Legacy. (New York: Crown Forum, 2006). A scholar does not often like to use the term “wrong” when it comes to interpretations, but one could certainly be tempted. 41 Powell, Jim. Bully Boy, 13; see also pages 43, 183 and 260-2. 42 For example, see Kathleen Dalton, Theodore Roosevelt, A Strenuous Life. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2002): 247. Naturally, as in previous eras, conservation is not ubiquitous in the biographical literature dealing with TR. For an example of work that omits any discussion of Roosevelt‟s conservation, see David McCullough, Mornings on Horseback. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981). 43 Paul Russell Cutright, Theodore Roosevelt: The Making of a Conservationist. (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985): 216. This monograph is significant in itself by its indication of the rising importance of TR‟s conservation impulses.

with Pinchot and his influence.44 Pinchot remained dominant in most studies that focused on conservation, but Muir‟s presence was not absent. The best new biography to come out on TR in this era also had a perception of TR that would have been all but unthinkable before 1960. Edmund Morris, who had written the excellent biography of TR before being President, wrote a follow up of his time as Chief Executive. Morris focuses, naturally, on the many conservation activities that TR pursued with Pinchot and his work in forestry. He also brings Muir into the picture and remarks that it would be both for his Forests as well as his Parks that TR would be well remembered. Morris describes in detail the famous 1903 trip to the Yosemite of TR and Muir and comments that TR did take some new ideas away from the meeting; though he was not converted to Muir‟s way of thinking. In many ways, this is the fair and balanced look at Roosevelt‟s ideas on conservation that was missing for most of the 20th Century.45 Biographies of Muir and Pinchot, a mere trickle in the previous era and nonexistent before then, had grown into a mighty torrent after 1980. Those that chose Muir as their subject, one would think, should be quick to highlight the influence he enjoyed with TR.46 This is occasionally true, more so in earlier eras, but there are many striking exceptions. One scholar argued that while modern environmentalism most likely owes more to Muir than Pinchot, Muir enjoyed fairly little influence over TR and the conservation programs of the day; and in fact Muir consciously led his branch of

44 For examples, see: Natalie A. Naylor, Douglas Brinkley and John Allen Gable, eds. Theodore Roosevelt: Many-Sided American. (Interlaken: Heart of the Lakes Publishing, 1992). James MacGregor Burns and Susan Dunn. The Three Roosevelt’s: Patrician Leaders Who Transformed America. (New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2001). H.W. Brands, T.R.: The Last Romantic. (New York: Basic Books, 1997). For an example in a broader history, see Maureen A. Flanagan, American Reformed: Progressives and Progressivisms, 1890-1920s. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007): 160-4. Albert Bushnell Hart, and Herbert Ronald Ferleger, eds. Theodore Roosevelt Cyclopedia. Revised 2nd ed. (Westport: Meckler, 1989): in this work there is one entry on Muir, but without mention of his influence on TR; Pinchot is much more important, and one of the entries under his name tellingly says only “See Conservation.” (Pages 358 and 430). A more balanced view can be seen in Rachel White Scheuring, Shapers of the Great Debate on Conservation: A Biographic Dictionary. (Westport: Greenwood Press, 2004): especially 11 and 41. In another broader study, Pinchot and Muir are highlighted and TR downplayed in terms of conservation, but this is rare. See, John D. Buenker, and Edward R. Kantowicz, eds. Historical Dictionary of the Progressive Era, 1890-1920. (New York: Greenwood Press, 1988): 87-8, 294-5 and 367. 45 Edmund Morris, Theodore Rex. (New York: The Modern Library, 2002, originally 2001): see especially 519 and 554; on Muir, see 229-31; on Pinchot, see 486; on preservation, see 225-7; on conservation, see 76 and 115. 46 This approach is very apparent in Thurman Wilkins, John Muir: Apostle of Nature. (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1995): see especially 214-25 and 253.

preservationists away from TR and Pinchot and their utilitarian conservation.47 Another, more balanced, perspective is seen in Frederick Turner‟s work Rediscovering America in which he downplays TR but does stress that Muir had significant contact with him. Like most historians on the topic, he believes that conservation politics was far more Pinchot‟s realm.48 Michael Cohen trail blazed an interesting theory of the life of John Muir in which he posits that mountains can be primary source material in a biography and that a socially constructed John Muir has been built up from secondary material, including the works of Muir himself; “It is the Muir who has been edited.”49 This author defends the point that Muir got along well with TR and claimed that Roosevelt‟s appointment of C. Hart Merriam to the Department of Agriculture‟s Biological Survey demonstrated that TR did sympathize with Muir and the other preservationists.50 The final assessment, though, is that TR was “the nationalistic and conservationist enemy” to Muir, as far as preservationist intentions goes, despite concessions like Petrified Forest National Park.51 Another sign of the times would be the fact that while biographies of Muir exploded in the modern era, the literature on Pinchot was rather scarce. Works that address the life of Pinchot still feel compelled to devote space to a discussion of John Muir. The opinion was that Muir was an integral part of the story of conservation at the turn of the century and thus cannot be divorced from the work of Gifford Pinchot.52 At the same time, as Muir was taken to be the standard bearer of environmentalism, Pinchot was becoming the avatar of an old-fashioned and intrinsically less ecological conservation. One scholar summarized the personality of Pinchot, and the nature of the advice he imparted on TR, thusly: “Pinchot typified the new conservationist. Honest, ambitious, energetic as he was, yet there was a spareness to him more than physical. The

47 Sally M. Miller, ed. John Muir: Life and Work. (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1993): from the editor‟s introduction, pages 6-11. Later in the book, Mark Stoll in “God and John Muir: A Psychological Interpretation of John Muir‟s Journey from the Cambellites to the „Range of Light‟,” does mention that Muir befriended TR and Taft and insinuated some degree of influence over federal policy. 48 Frederick Turner, Rediscovering America: John Muir in His Time and Ours. (New York: Viking, 1985): 331. 49 Michael P. Cohen, The Pathless Way: John Muir and American Wilderness. (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1984): 276-7. 50 Ibid., 295 and 303. 51 Ibid., 327. 52 Char Miller, Gifford Pinchot and the Making of Modern Environmentalism. (Washington: Island Press, 2001).

woods were not home to him, and he seems never to have been touched by their mystery.”53 This appraisal would seem to be in contradistinction to the image of Pinchot that Muir himself painted as a young man (as discussed in Chapter 2). Some of the developments in the biographic literature on TR has bled over to the historiography of the other Presidents, particularly the modern ones. A paradigm shift has occurred in the assessing of a President‟s legacy by scholars. Before Lyndon Baines Johnson, no president‟s biography had any mentions of environmental policy; including books written a hundred years ago as well as last month.54 Presidents after Johnson, however, have obligatory mentions of environmental policy. It is difficult to find a book that fails to allude to it in at least some way. The word environment has become a mainstay of the index in presidential biographies. The champion of conservation, who is used as a measuring stick by which Presidential subjects are judged in this field, has been Theodore Roosevelt.55

Recent Environmental Historical Literature Along with biographic literature, the field of Environmental History amassed a substantial canon in the last thirty years as well. Also in this field, a paradigm shift had occurred in the view of Theodore Roosevelt. This is evident in that there was no single idea of TR that permeated the entire field. Samuel Hays, the champion of efficiency, in his history of the birth of environmentalism mentioned TR in the context of bird refuges rather than in forestry or another traditional form of conservation.56 Overall, though,

53 Turner, Rediscovering America, 322-3. 54 These books are representative samples that include plenty on environmental laws, but is hardly an exhaustive list. Herbert S. Parmet, George Bush: The Life of a Lone Star Yankee. (New York: Scribner, 1997). Collin Campbell and Bert A. Rockman, eds. The Clinton Legacy. (New York: Chatham House Publishers, 2000). Colin Campbell and Bert A. Rockman, eds. The George W. Bush Presidency: Appraisals and Prospects. (Washington D.C.: CQ Press, 2004). 55 For a very obvious case, see Karl Boyd Brooks, ed. The Environmental Legacy of Harry S. Truman. (Kirksville: Truman State University Press, 2009): xxiii, 78-9. For an example outside of environmental literature, see Burton I. Kaufman and Scott Kaufman. The Presidency of James Earl Carter Jr. 2nd ed. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2006): 215. As an important additional note to this source, this comparison did not exist in the first edition released in 1993; an indicator of the rising importance in presidential history of TR as a measuring stick of conservationism. 56 Samuel P. Hays, Beauty, Health, and Permanence: Environmental Politics in the United States, 1955- 1985. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987): 101; Hays does maintain his initial theories concerning the importance of forestry and efficiency and the rise of conservation, see page 17. For other views of TR‟s conservation, see Ronald Rainger, An Agenda for Antiquity: Henry Fairfield Osborn and Vertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History, 1890-1935. (Tuscaloosa: The

Hays proliferates the image of TR the conservationist. More to the point, he highlighted the relationship that TR had with Pinchot and, in turn, the nature of Pinchotism in relation to conservation. Pinchot, wrote Hays, was actively hostile to preservationism and the drive to create parks. Hays summarized the relationship in an essay when he wrote: The spiritual leader of forest conservation was Gifford Pinchot, who emphasized the primacy of wood production in forest management, expressed disdain for amenity values in woodlands, and spawned a host of public lands activities and professionalizing measures to establish himself firmly as the founding father of the entire forestry movement. All these ideas moved forward rapidly during the administration of Theodore Roosevelt.57 At the same time, other historians attributed preservationist intentions to TR even more so than conservationist. TR, in this era, is remembered by many for being the friend of Muir and the epitome of the drive to protect wilderness.58 Roderick Nash, among others, wrote that TR and Pinchot teamed up to bring conservation to politics and publicize it; at the same time he kept the ideology of Muir and Pinchot at opposite ends of the spectrum.59 The argument is posited that TR led conservation to victory over preservation and that TR represented the consummate wise

University of Alabama Press, 1991): 117; Rainger here also ascribes ulterior motives to TR, i.e. that TR‟s brand of preservationism was aimed at maintaining a social status quo. Philip Shabecoff, A Fierce Green Fire: The American Environmental Movement. (New York: Hill and Wang, 1993): 68 highlights the environmental accomplishments of TR, and lists only National Parks; he also paints his actions in a proto- environmentalist light. 57 “Three Decades of Environmental Politics: The Historical Context,” Government and Environmental Politics: Essays on Historical Developments Since World War Two. Ed. by Michael J. Lacey. (Lanham: The Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 1989), reprinted in Samuel P. Hays, Explorations in Environmental History: Essays by Samuel P. Hays. (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1998): 337-8. On Pinchot and his relationship with preservationists, see also “The Limits to Growth Issue: A Historical Perspective,” Growth in America. Ed. by Chester L. Cooper. (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1979), also reprinted in Ibid. 58 Carolyn Merchant, “Reinventing Eden: Western Culture as a Recovery Narrative,” page 147 and Kenneth R. Olwig, “Reinventing Common Nature: Yosemite and Mount Rushmore- A Meandering Tale of a Double Nature,” page 398. Both from William Cronon, ed. Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. (New York: W.W. Norton and Co, 1996). A picture of the scientific (proto-ecological) side of Pinchot is given in Hal K. Rothman, Blazing Heritage: A History of Wildland Fire in the National Parks. (Oxford: University Press, 2007): see especially page 16. This is yet another side to the debate. 59 Roderick Frazier Nash, The Rights of Nature: A History of Environmental Ethics. (Madison: The University of Madison Press, 1989): 63 and 41. This theme is also apparent in other works. See: Shepard Krech III, The Ecological Indian: Myth and History. (New York: W.W. Norton and Co, 1990): 24. Neil M. Maher, Nature’s New Deal: The Civilian Conservation Corps and the Roots of the American Environmental Movement. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008): 187.

user of resources.60 Some biographers of environmental figures have related their subject in some way to TR and simultaneously enhanced the significance of their topic and added another layer to the image of Theodore Roosevelt. In a biography of Francis Newlands, Roosevelt‟s legacy was said to be comprised in grand part by his devotion to reclamation; by a different standard, self-reliance and efficiency were the key factors of Roosevelt‟s personality in a biography of the self-reliant and efficiency-minded George Perkins Marsh.61 Others are interested in refurbishing Reiger‟s argument concerning the effect that sportsmanship among hunters had in the genesis of conservation, but focused more on TR.62 Roderick Nash also gives a view of the preservationist Roosevelt. Subtle alteration of wise-use from a purely economic idea to an idea of using something to the best effect (an idea that was hardly foreign to TR himself) allowed Nash to write that, “For Theodore Roosevelt the idea of preserving wild country in order to retain a remnant of the frontier was a primary consideration.”63 A collection of readings in environmental history that Nash edits allows another glimpse into the delicately changing story. The 1990 edition is missing a reading by Pinchot that was present in the first.64 Space constraints may have forced his hand, and this need not be viewed as a purposeful attempt to separate Pinchot from the story of TR by Nash, but that effort is obvious in the work of other writers. Stewart Udall, the Secretary of the Interior for Kennedy and Johnson, won acclaim with his work The Quiet Crisis, released shortly after the death of JFK, which details the history of the federal conservation movement. In 1988, he released a new edition; in it, the new references to Pinchot are completely divorced from those of TR and Muir. Moreover, the new material contains a great deal more focus on Muir than did the previous edition. This is clearly a conscious attempt to more deeply integrate the

60 Mark Cioc, The Game of Conservation: International Treaties to Protect the World’s Migratory Animals. (Athens: Ohio University Press, 2009): 7; on page 58 and 83-4, the author does discuss TR‟s bird and animal refuges, but as a part of conservation rather than an expression of preservationist sentiment. 61 William D. Rowley, Reclaiming the Arid West: The Career of Francis G. Newlands. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996): 2 and 104. David Lowenthal, George Perkins Marsh: Prophet of Conservation. (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2003, originally, 2000): 184-5 and 416. 62 Tara Kathleen Kelly, The Hunter Elite: Americans, Wilderness, and the Rise of the Big-Game Hunt. (PhD Diss. The Johns Hopkins University, 2007). 63 See Roderick Frazier Nash, “The American Cult of the Primitive,” American Quarterly, XVIII (1966), reprinted in Roderick Frazier Nash, American Environmentalism: Readings in Conservation History. 3rd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1990): page 109. 64 Ibid., 1st ed., 1968, 3rd ed., 1990.

image of Muir into that of TR while downplaying the scientific austerity of Gifford Pinchot.65 It could be argued that the images of TR as conservationist and preservationist are competing ones, even incommensurable ones, but nothing could be further from the truth. What in fact is happening is different scholars are focusing upon different aspects of the multi-faceted personality of a particularly complex figure in American history. One of the most nuanced presentations of TR can be found in Robert Righter‟s Battle Over Hetch Hetchy. He describes the preservationist yearnings of TR and his desire to protect land from needless exploitation; at the same time, he faithfully portrays Roosevelt‟s‟ utilitarian commitment to do right by the majority of the people. Righter also gives an insightful analysis of his relationship with Muir, always cordial and friendly like fans of a common interest, in juxtaposition to Pinchot, more the relationship of partners in a common cause.66 Of course, this image has emerged as the most popular notion of TR: both conservationist and preservationist; torn between protecting the land he loved and safe-guarding the well-being of the American people, whom he vowed to serve as President.67

Conclusions What then does this have to do with the image of Theodore Roosevelt? Aldo Leopold excoriated us all to offer bread to history, rather than explain how a stone can be like bread. The bread found herein draws from the canon discussed above. This thesis fits well within the trends of Environmental History and helps to fill a historiographic gap in the understanding of how society links the image of Theodore Roosevelt with modern efforts to save the planet. This project will be one of chronological breadth; tracing changes over time, broad in scope, yet narrow in its concept. Following in the footsteps of Righter, this thesis will attempt to place decisions and actions of past figures in a wider context of evolving environmental ideas.

65 Stewart L. Udall, The Quiet Crisis and the Next Generation. (Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith Books, 1988): see especially, 213-7. 66 Robert W. Righter, The Battle Over Hetch Hetchy: America’s Most Controversial Dam and the Birth of Modern Environmentalism. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005): see for example, 67-8, 72, and 192. 67 For an excellent example of this idea, see Ted Steinberg, Down to Earth: Nature’s Role in American History. 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009): 137.

The very fact that enough material existed to write a thesis about the changing image of Roosevelt the Environmentalist indicates that his legacy reverberates with a deeper social pathos than his corporeal accomplishments; the idea of TR transcending time and winning for conservation more than he could in life, and perhaps more than he even would have dreamed. The trend in Environmental History most impactful on this work has been the numerous environmental biographies. This work, though not a biography in the strictest sense (as discussed in the introduction), is a biography of an image and owes a great debt to those authors who demonstrated that studying the life of an individual could offer insights into larger socio-political trends.68 Thus, this work should be the next step in the history of Environmental History and the proverbial bread I offer to those who hunger for it.

68 For examples, see Frederick Rowe Davis, The Man Who Saved Sea Turtles: Archie Carr and the Origins of Conservation Biology. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007). Lowenthal, George Perkins Marsh. Richard Rhodes John James Audubon: The Making of An American. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004).

I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived. -Thoreau, Walden, p. 86

CHAPTER II

THE PROGRESSIVE ERA, 1900-1920

The conservation movement was a direct outgrowth of the forest movement. It was nothing more than the application to our other natural resources of the principles which had been worked out in connection with the forests. Without the basis of public sentiment which had been built up for the protection of the forests, and without the example of public foresight in the protection of this, one of the great natural resources, the conservation movement would have been impossible. -Theodore Roosevelt69

When President Roosevelt became fully advised of the necessity for the change in our disposition of public lands, especially those containing coal, oil, gas, phosphates, or water-power sites, he began the exercise of the power of withdrawal by executive order… The precedent he set in this matter was followed by the present administration. -William Howard Taft70

Introduction Any discussion of this era must be prefaced with the fact that Theodore Roosevelt was still alive; he was taking an active role in the formation of his legacy and the interpretations being formed about him by others. The bullet of crazed anarchist Leon Czolgosz catapulted TR to the presidency and he quickly became one of the nation‟s most beloved political figures. He hand picked William Howard Taft to succeed him in 1908. In a very real way, he also was personally responsible for having Woodrow Wilson elected, since he took so many votes away from Taft running as the prodigal Republican

69 Wayne Andrews, The Autobiography of Theodore Roosevelt: Condensed from the Original Edition, Supplemented by Letters, Speeches, and Other Writings. (New York: Charles Scribner‟s Sons, 1958): 218. 70 From the First Appendix to the Second Annual Message- Address to the National Conservation Congress in St. Paul, Minnesota on 5 September 1911 in David H. Burton, General Editor. The Collected Works of William Howard Taft. (Athens: Ohio University Press, 2002): 84-5.

in 1912. Wilson, Taft and all their contemporaries were aware that anything said or written about TR, he would have the opportunity to comment on, rebut, or even rebuke. For both Wilson and Taft, TR was at one time a political opponent and a quintessential element of their rise to the highest office in the land. This chapter is not a history of an image, but perhaps a study of a cult of personality, or less grand, a perception of a larger than life yet still contemporary figure. With TR still alive, he could control to some extent what would be perceived as his legacy. What he left behind him in the way of writings, speeches and relationships with others would form the foundation of future perceptions of Roosevelt. This chapter creates a quintessential base upon which the rest of this argument shall be built. Understanding TR in his own words, and those of those that knew him, will shed light on the ideas held by his later successors. What will come through is an image of TR as a conservationist President, but perhaps a good bit different from our modern conception of what a good conservationist is. Bird refuges, National Parks, John Muir; they are all here, but as a separate entity to conservation from the federal standpoint. The image of TR in this era reflected Progressive Era ideas of progress and reformism, which were highly technocratic and had none of the ecological flavor that would be added to conservation in the environmental era. Ergo, the image of TR reflects a worldview not yet touched by the ideas of ecology, or the concomitant philosophy. The image of Roosevelt as a conservationist in this time period is just as real as that of later eras, and yet still radically different. Roosevelt the Conservationist, in other words, is a constructed idea, and it is with TR himself that that construction begins.

TR in His Own (Written) Words: Letters and Writings This thesis, if at all successful, will demonstrate how there can be as many images of Roosevelt as there are people with pen and paper. Here, however, one more layer shall be added to the complicated historical figure that is Theodore Roosevelt. In the letters of Roosevelt, many things shine through: his belief in “the strenuous life,” his affection for “manliness” of character, even the antics of his cat, Tom Quart. Occasionally, his rather bizarre sense of humor would be apparent, for example when he was discussing with his

son Ted several Dickensian references. He included in a list “some newspaper editor, or Senator or homicidal rowdy;” not a standard group to be sure.71 For the purposes of this study, one item that stands above the rest is an affinity for the great outdoors. Even as President, TR loved to romp around outside in the limited green spaces of Washington D.C.; Rock Creek being the preferred venue for such an outing. Often he went with a group of his, and other, children for a “scramble” in which he got all muddy and found himself being raced up hill. He was later worried that it might be below the dignity of a President to be thus engaged, but that did not prevent him from loving every minute of it.72 TR often described conservation issues. As was appropriate for the time, his view of conservation dealt with “the intention to preserve the timber, the water, and the grass by using them fully, but wisely and conservatively.” His descriptions of conservation never strayed from land reclamation, forestry and the occasional protection of specific animals (usually either delicious animals or birds). Irrigation also often entered the discussion. Issues such as creation of National Monuments, unlike National Forests, were categorized elsewhere.73 Even in speeches, TR described conservation solely in terms of resources, water, land, and often standing as first among equals, forests.74 He defended his programs by pointing out that forest reserves were important for flood control and as an economic benefit. He often brought in the need to preserve them for future generations. In the end, though, he always came back to the standard of financial incentive: “Such reserves would be a paying investment, not only in protection to many interests, but in dollars and cents to the government [through the sale of timber].”75 Similarly, in his speeches Roosevelt often described conservation issues purely in terms of natural resources and their importance to the health of the national economy. In

71 Letter to Ted Roosevelt, 20 May 1906. From Joeseph Bucklin Bishop, ed. Theodore Roosevelt’s Letters to His Children. (New York: Charles Scribner‟s Sons, 1923): 164-5. 72 Letter to Mr. and Mrs. Emlen Roosevelt, dated 4 January 1905. From Ibid., 112-113. 73 From a letter from TR to Pinchot, 24 August 1906; H.W. Brands, ed. The Selected Letters of Theodore Roosevelt. (New York: Cooper Square, 2001): 429-33. 74 For example, see a speech of August 1910 reproduced in Theodore Roosevelt, Letters and Speeches. Ed. by Louis Auchincloss. (New York: Library of America, 2004): 808-9. 75 From an address by TR on 19 October 1905 reprinted in National Geographic Vol. XVI, No. 11 (Nov. 1905): 515-6. Note: many of the most prominent scientists and naturalists of the era published in the magazine. In addition to this one, Roosevelt wrote five articles, Taft 13, Wilson one and Franklin K. Lane six more.

a Special Message to Congress on 22 January 1909, he sounded the clarion call with such phrases as “We know now that our mineral resources once exhausted are gone forever.” He was proud of what his administration had accomplished on conservation matters, and glad that finally the federal government was working to ensure that those exhaustible resources would be used wisely and responsibly.76 TR also took a highly utilitarian view of more abstract resources such as rivers, of which he wrote “our streams should be considered and conserved as great natural resources.” To this end, he created the Inland Waterways Commission; a board on which he gave Gifford Pinchot a prominent seat.77 Even on the virgin territory of Alaska, TR struck a use-over-preservation note: No country has a more valuable possession- in mineral wealth, in fisheries, furs, forests, and also in land available for certain kinds of farming and stock-growing. It is a territory of great size and varied resources, well fitted to support a large permanent population… The forests of Alaska should be protected, and, as a secondary but still important matter, the game also, and at the same time it is imperative that the settlers should be allowed to cut timber, under proper regulations, for their own use.78 In this brief passage are many of the tenets of conservation in the language of TR. With a focus on timber, mineral and agricultural resources, the key issue was regulating use, not forbidding it. He recapitulated these ideals in his autobiography where he described the entire conservation movement as an outgrowth of the processes developed for forestry in that era, applied to other resources across a broad spectrum.79 Naturally, it is also possible to find many instances in the letters in which TR indicated his sympathy for preservationist issues. After visiting the Grand Canyon in 1903, TR wrote that he “could have sat and looked at it for days.”80 Of the same trip, he wrote his friend and ally Senator Henry Cabot Lodge that the sights of the Grand Canyon and other astounding sights of the west “impresses one… with awe and a sense of

76 Theodore Roosevelt, Presidential Addresses and State Papers and European Addresses: Volume VIII: December 8, 1908, to June 7, 1910. (New York: The Review of Reviews Co, 1910): 2093. 77 From a letter 17 March 1907, in Theodore Roosevelt, Presidential Addresses and State Papers and European Addresses Volume VI: January 16, 1907, to October 25, 1907. (New York: The Review of Reviews Co, 1910): 1181-2. 78 Message of the President of the United States Communicated to the Two Houses of Congress at the Beginning of the Second Session of the Fifty-Seventh Congress, in Theodore Roosevelt, Presidential Addresses and State Papers and European Addresses Volume II: December 3, 1901, to January 4, 1904. (New York: The Review of Reviews Co, 1910): 638. 79 Roosevelt, Autobiography: Condensed, 218. 80 Letter to Ethel Roosevelt, 16 April 1903, from Roosevelt, Letters to His Children, 45.

grandeur and sublimity, a sense of the majesty of the ages.”81 When he returned to the east TR would set it aside as a National Monument; setting in motion the events that allow us still to this day to sit and stare into the vastness. TR, however, did not reserve his good graces for interesting geological oddities alone. In a letter to Frank Chapman, the noted scientist, he expressed his sympathy for the work of the Audubon Society and his wish that more efforts would be made to protect the birds of the country; not just the useful and beautiful, but also the wild and less known. In a passage that nearly anticipated Rachel Carson‟s impassioned plea, he wrote that “Spring would not be spring without song birds, any more than it would be spring without buds and flowers.” He lamented the destruction of any species and equated it to the loss of the works of a great poet.82 At the famous Conference of Governors in 1908, most of the talk dealt with resource conservation. Preservation was brought up more in line with matters of withdrawing mineral lands, water-power sights, or lands containing coal, phosphate or oil from public sale; not in perpetuity but to await Congress “to pass wise laws dealing with their use and disposal.”83 Preservation of aesthetic areas did enter into the conference, except as nearly a footnote in Roosevelt‟s reminiscences of it. In his autobiography, TR was glad of his work “to preserve from destruction beautiful and wonderful wild creatures whose existence was threatened by greed and wantonness.” He considered it among his great accomplishments that he established five National Parks, four big-game refuges, 51 bird reserves and wildlife protection laws for Alaska, the District of Columbia, and National Bird Refuges; a list of actions he considered unparallel excepting the founding of Yellowstone National Park.84 Among TR‟s many friends, none were more important in terms of the environment than the two activists, naturalist John Muir and Gifford Pinchot, Chief Forester of the country. Both men indicated profound affection for TR and that he, in

81 Letter dated 11 May 1903, from No Author, ed. Selections From the Correspondence of Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge, 1884-1918. (New York: Charles Scribner‟s Sons, 1925): 13. Of note, this is also the only letter in the collection that John Muir‟s name comes up. TR mentions offhandedly that he will be spending several days with Muir when he reaches the Yosemite. 82 Letter dated 16 February 1899, from Roosevelt, Letters and Speeches, 167. 83 Roosevelt, Autobiography: Condensed, 220. 84 Theodore Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt: An Autobiography. (New York: Charles Scribner‟s Sons, 1929, originally 1913): 420-2.

turn, tried to be a good friend to both of them. It is hard to read anything written by Roosevelt in 1903 that fails to mention his memorable time in Yosemite National Park with John Muir. Shortly after returning to the White House, TR wrote Muir a letter in which he expressed his appreciation for his company and said: “I shall never forget our three camps; the first in the solemn temple of the giant sequoias; the next in the snowstorm among the silver firs near the brink of the cliff; and the third on the floor of the Yosemite, in the open valley, fronting the stupendous rocky mass of El Capitan, with the falls thundering in the distance on either hand.”85 Years later, Muir would use his relationship with TR to garner support for his fight to save the Hetch Hetchy Valley from being dammed as a water supply for the expanding city of San Francisco. TR sent a letter in reply to Muir‟s request in which he promised all possible support and said he directed Pinchot and Secretary of the Interior James Garfield to study the possibility of using a different water source. He cautioned Muir, however, that the needs and desires of the people would have to be taken into account in the final reckoning. TR said he must avoid “seeming to interfere with the development of the State [of California] for the sake of keeping a valley, which apparently hardly anyone wanted to have kept, under national control.”86 He does conclude on a more hopeful note when he writes that he wishes he could see Muir in person; not to discuss the situation, however, but to relive the glory days “camping out under those great sequoias or in the land under the silver firs.”87 In his autobiography, TR wrote of the days he spent glorying in Yosemite with Muir. His description of the scenery was full of praise and purple prose for the trunks that appeared “like the pillars of a mightier cathedral than ever was conceived even by the fervor of the Middle Ages.” Unlike the scenery, he was not always positive about Muir. He enjoyed Muir‟s company thoroughly, and warmly regarded Muir as a friend. He was, on the other hand, disappointed “and a little surprised to find that, unlike John Burroughs [with whom he had spent time in Yellowstone National Park the same year], John Muir cared little for birds or bird song, and knew little about them.” Roosevelt determined that he and Muir did share at least one favored feathered friend (the water-ouzel) but overall

85 Letter to Muir, 19 May 1903 from Brands, Selected Letters, 293. For another description of his visit see a letter from TR to John Hay, 9 August 1903, in Roosevelt, Letters and Speeches, 275. 86 Letter to Muir, 16 September 1907, from Brands, Selected Letters, 456. 87 Ibid. Ultimately, Muir did lose the fight for Hetch-Hetchy and it was dammed. Controversy still surrounds the dam and many wish to blow it up and let the river run free once more.

“The hermit thrush meant nothing to him, the trees and the flowers and the cliffs everything.”88 It is a bit surprising to find anyone criticizing John Muir for not loving nature enough, but for TR, something was lacking in nature without birdsong and that difference between them stood out in his memory long after their meeting. In one of Roosevelt‟s other post-Presidential books, Muir found himself listed in odd company when TR boasted: “I went to the Yellowstone with John Burroughs, and to the Yosemite with John Muir, and to the Colorado with an assorted collection of Rough Riders, most of them with homicidal pasts.”89 While TR was a good acquaintance of John Muir, he was an old friend of Gifford Pinchot. Where he addresses letters to “My dear Mr. Muir,” to the Chief Forrester he often writes a far less formal “Dear Gifford.” In letters to his subordinate, he usually just discusses progress made in issues such as forestry reserves or other issues of conservation. On the other hand, TR could be moved to deeper writing on occasion. When he learned that Pinchot had been removed from his position by President Taft, TR wrote him that “I do not know any man in public life who has rendered quite the service you have rendered.” In this same letter, he related details of his hunt in Africa and asked about the well being of a whole party of friends and relations; just the sort of filler one would expect in a letter to an old friend.90 Moreover, in the collections of Roosevelt‟s letters, only a handful will be from, to, or about Muir; at the same time, dozens will concern Pinchot. Muir was an acquaintance, while Pinchot was a member of the administration; it only makes sense that far more official correspondence would pass between the President and the Chief Forester. 91 Letters between TR and his family reveal more of the friendship as opposed to the professional relationship between him and Pinchot. In letters to Theodore Roosevelt, Jr.,

88 Roosevelt, Autobiography, 322 contains the previous three quotations. 89 Theodore Roosevelt, Cowboys and Kings: Three Great Letters by Theodore Roosevelt. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1954): 1-2. It is of particular note that this book is the only book either written by TR or composed of his personal papers that mentions Muir and not Pinchot. Of course, it does not mention Secretary of the Interior Garfield or conservation either; generally Pinchot and conservation go together as one in the same. 90 Letters to Pinchot, 27 November 1905 and 17 January 1910, from Brands, Selected Letters, 401 and 529- 30 respectively. 91 One collection with almost no mention of Muir would be Elting E. Morison, ed. The Letters of Theodore Roosevelt. 8 Vols. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1954). Collections with no mention whatsoever to Muir include Anna Roosevelt Cowles, ed. Letters from Theodore Roosevelt to Anna Roosevelt Cowles, 1870-1918. (New York: Charles Scribner‟s Sons, 1924).

TR mentioned how what little exercise he can get at the White House usually involves walking with Pinchot or losing to him on the tennis court. Pinchot, among others, often joined the President for “a good scramble” followed by dinner. On one playful instance, TR wrote to his youngest son Kermit how he, Pinchot, and several others took a three hour walk after a one-inch snow. He wrote “I fell down twice full length, and all the others from once to six or eight times apiece. None of us were hurt, and we had a lovely walk.”92 Even when others among Roosevelt‟s allies began to turn on Pinchot, TR remained steadfast; once commenting to Senator Lodge, “I don‟t agree with you about not seeing Pinchot. I am delighted to see him… when Pinchot said he wanted to see me I said I should be more than delighted.”93 Pinchot held a special place in Roosevelt‟s affections. Oftentimes, he would comment that Pinchot “is the man to whom the nation owes most” for conservation initiatives.94 On 10 June 1907, TR gave a speech before the National Editorial Association at Jamestown, Virginia. His praise for Pinchot was both lavish and unmistakable: So much for what we are trying to do in utilizing our public lands for the public; in securing the use of the water, the forage, the coal, and the timber for the public. In all four movements my chief advisor, and the man first to suggest to me the courses which have actually proved so beneficial, was Mr. Gifford Pinchot, the chief of the National Forest Service. Mr. Pinchot also suggested to me a movement supplementary to all of these movements; one which will itself lead the way in the general movement which he represents and with which he is actively identified, for the conservation of all our natural resources. This was the appointment of the Inland Waterways Commission.95 What more could TR say of his beloved forester? The “chief advisor” and instigator of conservation; this is high praise of a man about whom most school children have never heard of before. Furthermore, TR grants Pinchot the compliment of not only being

92 See Roosevelt, Letters to His Children, 145-8; Roosevelt, Letters and Speeches, 312, 418-9. Quote from a letter dated 24 January 1904 from Will Irwin, ed. Letters to Kermit from Theodore Roosevelt, 1902-1908. (New York: Charles Scribner‟s Sons, 1946): 55; for additional personal letters indicating a good friendship with Pinchot, see pages 24, 73, 124, 186 and 217. 93 Letter from TR to Lodge, 6 April 1910, from No Author, Correspondence, 366. 94 Roosevelt, Autobiography, 394. 95 Roosevelt, State Papers Vol. VI, 1317-1318.

“identified” with conservation, but actually its very representative; ergo, to Roosevelt‟s thinking, Pinchot-style conservation and conservation in general were identical.

Pinchot and Muir Of all of Roosevelt‟s contemporaries, none has had more impact on the modern environmental movement than John Muir. Through his writings and actions, he popularized the wild places of the nations to an unprecedented degree. In The Yosemite, Muir wrote about the trees and flowers and birds, but his chapter “How Best to Spend Your Yosemite Time” deals exclusively with geologic sites. It was in this book that Muir declared “Dam Hetch Hetchy! As well dam for water-tanks the people‟s cathedrals and churches, for no holier temple has ever been consecrated by the heart of man.”96 This statement was one of many in a long war of words against the wise-use conservationists who wanted to build a reservoir for San Francisco. As Muir, the arch-preservationist led his camp, the opposing camp was led by the arch-conservationist Gifford Pinchot. Both men relied upon their friendship with Theodore Roosevelt. “I am now an experienced lobbyist; my political education is complete… And now that the fight is finished and my education as a politician and lobbyist is finished, I am almost finished myself.” These were the words of John Muir in a letter to fellow preservationist Robert Underwood Johnson on the 24th of February, 1905. Muir was writing to tell him the story of how in 1903 he had convinced Theodore Roosevelt of the importance of protecting Yosemite Valley and “won him to our side, and since then the movement was like Yosemite avalanches.”97 In this, Muir was quite correct; TR did aid in the successful movement to have the Yosemite Valley ceded to the National Park and therefore be forever protected. In 1908, Muir wrote a letter direct to TR elucidating the many reasons why the Hetch Hetchy Valley should be protected just as the Yosemite had been. He even ended the letter with a Post-Script reading “Oh for a tranquil camp hour with you like those beneath the sequoias in memorable 1903” to remind the President of

96 John Muir, The Yosemite. (New York: The Century, 1912): 262. 97 Terry Gifford, ed. John Muir: His Life and Letters and Other Writings. (London: Baton Wicks, 1996): 349-50. For his part, TR did not tend to place Muir on so high a pedestal as Muir seemed to think he did. In his article “Nature Fakers” in Everybody’s Magazine TR lists Muir with a dozen other naturalists as all people the nation owes for contributions to the natural sciences, but this is one of the very few references to Muir in the published Roosevelt Papers, see Roosevelt, State Papers, 1336-7.

the good times they had shared in the scenic park. 98 As was discussed above, the result of this letter was less than encouraging. Roosevelt was a good man and did all he could for Muir and his cause, within reason, but while the Valley was not dammed during Roosevelt‟s tenure in the White House, little was done to stop the inevitable transmogrification of the valley into a reservoir. Surprising to some, John Muir and Gifford Pinchot were once fairly good friends. Ironically, they were probably better friends than John Muir and Theodore Roosevelt ever were. In 1893, Muir was a guest of the Pinchots in New York where he was treated to a meal “in grand style.”99 Afterwards, the two men often found themselves hiking together, discussing nature and pursuing their common desire to save the nation‟s resources. In 1896, Pinchot joined Muir for a hiking expedition around Crater Lake in Oregon. All had an enjoyable time and Muir was quite struck with Pinchot‟s habit of sleeping outside of the tent at night.100 In 1897, Muir and Pinchot spent time together in Seattle and in 1899 they travelled through the wilds of California with C. Hart Merriam, the noted biologist. Pinchot was “Much delighted to see Mr. Muir again” and found Muir (and Merriam) “Two wonderful men to travel with.” Muir seemed to have a strong influence on Pinchot for a while, as Pinchot spent time pondering and planning for an Appalachian National Park in 1900. A few years later, however, he was devoted without reservation to creating National Forests and nothing but.101 In his writings, Pinchot occasionally mentioned Muir, as in a study of forest fires where he praised Muir as being among the first to notice the correlation between fire and the reproduction of a certain tree.102 Muir and Pinchot had a dropping out over conflicting ideas of what to do with

98 Letter dated 21 April, Gifford, John Muir: Letters, 378-9. This volume also contains a letter from William Frederic Bade who wrote that on a visit to Sagamore Hill, TR had spoken of his 1903 trip with Muir and seemed to have been genuinely influenced by it. This does not seem to have effected Roosevelt‟s position on Hetch Hetchy however. 99 From a letter dated 13 June 1893, from Gifford, John Muir: Letters, 310. 100 Entries dated 27 August to 30 September 1896, from Linnie Marsh Wolfe, ed. John of the Mountains: The Unpublished Journals of John Muir. (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1979, originally 1938): 356-63. 101 Harold K. Steen, ed. The Conservation Diaries of Gifford Pinchot. (Durham: Forest History Society, 2001): entries dated 5 September 1897, 30 September 1897, and 16 April 1900, pages 83, 97, and 99. 102 Gifford Pinchot, “The Relation of Forests and Forest Fires” National Geographic. Vol. X, No. 10 (Oct 1899): 393-403. This article concludes that though one tree may benefit from fire “I hasten to add that those facts do not imply a desirability in the fires which are now devastating the West.” Pinchot‟s views on fire suppression, as they were practiced as standard procedure for decades to come, indicate how long his conceptions of conservation dominated the field. Also along this vein, Pinchot and the Forest Service led

land protected from exploitation and both of them did their best to convince Roosevelt to side with them. Pinchot would certainly seem to have been the winner in that struggle, but he was not just a lobbyist for a philosophy, he was also becoming good friends with TR. In 1902, Pinchot noted in his diary that TR was “getting in [the] habit of calling me by [my] first name.”103 Roosevelt‟s other friends and his family members also saw the prominence of Pinchot‟s position in the history of conservation. A long time friend of TR‟s from Harvard, Owen Wister, though he did not much care for Pinchot, lambasted any historian that downplayed his importance. He wrote: “Gifford Pinchot was tall and spare, and as active on the tennis court as in his forestry work. That service to the nation cannot be wholly obliterated by his subsequent career. This his early career, under the restraining hand of Roosevelt, had prepared few to expect. As I cannot speak well of it, I will not speak of it at all.”104 He added that Pinchot “deserves all the greater credit because he was rich and had no need to work.”105 This “subsequent career” which Wister mentioned, will be addressed briefly in subsequent chapters. For the moment, what is important is that Wister recognized that Pinchot‟s work in forestry was of great significance. More implicit combining of the names of Pinchot and Roosevelt in terms of conservation came in the writings of Nicholas Roosevelt, Theodore‟s cousin‟s son, who interacted with the President a great deal in his youth. Of Pinchot, he admits he was technically “not of cabinet rank.” Nevertheless, Nicholas would not hear of omitting him from a list of cabinet members since Pinchot was Roosevelt‟s “guide in everything pertaining to conservation.” The author goes on to say “had it not been for Pinchot, working through TR, there would be little left today anywhere in the United States of the nation‟s scenic resources.” In his chapter entitled “Prophet of Conservation” Nicholas relates the importance TR placed on wild lands such as the Grand Canyon and his desire to allow others to experience what he had in the unspoiled wilderness. He was also full of praise for Pinchot (and Garfield) for being the only two men in 1912 to support TR to the

the way in this era in predator control (destruction) that would be the norm for over fifty years. See “Wolves” National Geographic Vol. XVIII, No. 8 (Aug. 1907): 145-6. 103 Steen, Diaries of Gifford Pinchot, entry dated 6 March 1902, page 99-100. 104 Owen Wister, Roosevelt: The Story of a Friendship, 1880-1919. (New York: Macmillan, 1930): 174-6. 105 Ibid.

utmost.106 Wister and Nicholas were hardly alone in their view that on conservation matters, Pinchot was an integral part of the story, while at the same time there was no irrefutable evidence they had ever even heard of John Muir, let alone thought he was having some sort of influence over TR and his policies.107 Roosevelt‟s Military Aide said it best when he remarked that “there is no doubt of the devotion of President Roosevelt to Pinchot and his belief in him.”108 Roosevelt himself told an amusing story about the relationship he and his chief forester enjoyed that was retold later by his Military Aide. “Now there is Gifford Pinchot,” he [TR] said. “We have literally nothing in common, yet he has a sort of fetish worship for me. He thinks that if we were cast away somewhere together and we were both hungry, I would kill him and eat him. AND I WOULD TOO,” he said, turning to me, grinning and showing his teeth in the semi-humorous yet ferocious way he had when he wanted to say something seriously, yet in a half Pickwickian vein.109 Different sources recorded different perceptions. A mutual friend, TR was devoted to Pinchot, and Pinchot returned the courtesy.

Roosevelt and His Contemporaries Not everyone who lived through the TR days in the White House considered conservation the end all say all of the era, nor did they see TR as the arch-conservationist. Enos Mills, the John Muir of the Rocky Mountains, composed an entire book without so much as a mention of Roosevelt the Conservationist. Emily Newell Blair, a diarist who had seen and done much in her lifetime from 1877-1951, recorded of TR only that when people in New York City had seen him standing up in an automobile waving his hat, they had assumed he was intoxicated.110 That is to say, that while conservation was to become an essential part of the legacy of TR, it was not always apparent at the time.

106 Nicholas Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt: The Man As I Knew Him. (New York: Dodd, Mead and Co, 1967): 39, 44, 90-91; for Chapter on conservation see 126-37. 107 For an example of a substantial collection by a contemporary which discusses Pinchot but not Muir, see Hiram Johnson, The Diary of Hiram Johnson. 7 Vols. (New York: Garland Publishing, 1983). 108 From a letter dated 31 December 1909, in Archibald Willingham Butt, ed. Taft and Roosevelt: The Intimate Letters of Archie Butt, Military Aide. Vol. I. (Garden City: Doubleday, Doran and Co, 1930): 245. 109 TR related this story to his Military Aide, Archibald Butt, who recorded it in a letter 12 June 1912. See, Ibid., 245. 110 Enos A. Mills, The Rocky Mountain Wonderland. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co, 1915). It is of significant note that Mills writes that one reason for protecting these mountains is the value they represent to scientists studying geology; a common argument in the era before ecology. Virginia Jeans Laas, ed.

Others had more flattering memories of the man often affectionately referred to as The Colonel. One friend described Roosevelt‟s colorful career, including being Police Commissioner of New York City, Governor of New York State, a rancher, and President, among other things. He concluded the list by pointing out that TR was also “a field naturalist of rare acquirements.”111 Elihu Root, in a speech to the Rocky Mountain Dinner Club, told an audience that Roosevelt “loved nature, its beauty, and its grandeur, from the great spaces of plains and mountains to the bird singing in the thicket, and he loved it with affectionate companionship, striving for definite knowledge and understanding.” This description reads almost as ecological; insinuating that TR had a conception of the interconnection of nature and a desire to protect its every facet. To clarify, Root went on to describe the nature of the relationship he saw between TR and the wild: “Like Antaeus of the Greek fable, there he renewed his matchless energy by the touch of Mother Earth.”112 TR, champion of manliness and a believer in the rejuvenating power of wilderness knew the value of wilds, and that was what he strove to protect. One of Roosevelt‟s prominent colleagues underwent an evolution of thought concerning TR. Robert M. La Follette, was a famed politician from Wisconsin, whose fight for conservation, though less well known, was no less impassioned than Roosevelt‟s. When TR was in the White House, La Follette was a great ally, always ready to aid in the drive for more and better land use laws. In February of 1909, as America bid farewell to the beloved Roosevelt and said hello to the incoming President William Howard Taft, La Follette wrote in his eponymous magazine: The Rooseveltian epoch in American history may have many or few things to make it memorable, but one alone is sufficient to give it place in history- the inauguration of the great movement for the conservation of our national resources… Roosevelt and the fine group of scientists and scholars and engineers who have been given a hearing by him on these great matters, have made us see our faults and realize our dangers… If the tide of

Bridging Two Eras: The Autobiography of Emily Newell Blair, 1877-1951. (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1999): 270. 111 Chauncey M. Depew, My Memories of Eighty Years. (New York: Charles Scribner‟s Sons, 1924, originally 1921): 169. 112 Previous two quotations from an Address given 27 October 1919, in Robert Bacon and James Brown Scott, eds. Men and Policies: Addresses by Elihu Root. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1925): 5 and 11.

waste and destruction is turned back, and a better era ushered in, it will be the chief glory of the Roosevelt administration to have set in motion the good work.113 This sort of praise did not last, however. After leaving the White House, TR went on to do many things. Firstly, he went on to be the living avatar of the Great White Hunter. Chiefly, though, he came back to embody the question of what to do with a former President. The falling out with Taft, running for President in 1912 as a Third Party candidate, and the incessant needling he gave Wilson turned many people‟s heads, and other‟s stomachs. La Follette felt that TR would have been better off gracefully stepping into the pages of history, rather than trying to stay in the headlines. By the end of La Follette‟s career, his opinion on TR was totally different, and it had a profound influence on his memory of the history of conservation. In his autobiography, La Follette wrote that not only did his fight for conservation start before Roosevelt‟s, but that TR too readily agreed to compromise on important issues, and that he would not go far enough to place resources under federal protection, thus undermining the movement. La Follette believed that TR was being influenced by lobbyists out to stop La Follette‟s efforts on behalf of conservation. He recorded that after a service of seven and one half years as President of the United State, he [TR] left no great constructive statute as an enduring record of his service. To the credit of his administration may justly be placed, however, in large measure the more recent progress of the conservation movement. But conservation did not originate with the Roosevelt administration.114 This is far more qualified praise than the unrestrained words of 1909; but for all the change of face toward Roosevelt, La Follette saved the sharp side of his pen for Pinchot. He believed that TR‟s record was as good as it was “due in large degree to the zeal and activity of the Chief Forester.” But he believed that he often exceeded his position, and used sneaky politics to get things done and to get people out of the way. In certain passages of his book, La Follette portrays Pinchot as a sort of mastermind of nefarious

113 From “La Follette‟s Magazine.” 6 February 1909, in Ellen Torelle, ed. The Political Philosophy of Robert M. La Follette: As Revealed In His Speeches and Writings. (Madison: The Robert M. La Follette Co, 1920, reprinted in 1975): 334-335. 114 Robert M. La Follette, La Follette’s Autobiography: A Personal Narrative of Political Experiences. (Madison: The Robert M. La Follette Co, 1913): 481; see also 380-90.

politics. Clearly, La Follette would be the first of many to see TR in an utterly different light than how they first glimpsed him.115

William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson La Follette segues well into William Howard Taft. Like La Follette, Taft started as a great friend and ally to TR but, over time, the relationship soured. Taft and TR did eventually bury the hatchet, but not until they had bungled the 1912 election, thereby paving the way to the White House for Woodrow Wilson. TR had made many vicious attacks on the policies of Taft, and this in turn painted a less than rosy gloss over Taft‟s view of TR. The animosity that plagued their relation for so long, one would think, would taint Taft‟s opinions on TR‟s conservation legacy, but in fact, Taft still praised Roosevelt‟s work and referenced him as precedent for his own work. Many have accused Taft of betraying the legacy of conservation left to him by TR; indeed, that was a key point behind the split between him and Roosevelt exemplified by the Pinchot-Ballinger debacle. Not everyone at the time agreed with that rather harsh assessment, however. The Senior Senator from Illinois at the time recorded that among Taft‟s most significant accomplishments were putting the policies of conservation of natural resources “upon a safe and sane basis.”116 One man close to Taft wrote that the president was beginning to think that his detractors that accused him of betraying conservation were part of “a well-organized conspiracy to injure him throughout the West.” Taft was very upset when Pinchot became a frequent visitor to Roosevelt‟s home in the months leading up to the 1912 election. In the end, it is hard to say that either Taft betrayed conservation or that a conspiracy was trying to take him down, but it was evident that he had no tolerance for Pinchot‟s reformer zealousness; “The President is not over-indulgent toward reformers,” as one man recorded.117 But, how did Taft see TR in the light of conservation? In the time before he was President, Taft seems to have given very little thought to conservation matters. In a

115 Ibid., quote from 482; see also 590-600 and 611-3 on Pinchot‟s use of dirty politics and portrayal as a mastermind. 116 Shelby M. Cullom, Fifty Years of Public Service: Personal Recollections of Shelby M. Cullom, Senior United States Senator From Illinois. (Chicago: A.C. McChery and Co, 1911): 426. 117 Butt, Letters, conspiracy quote on page 244-5 from a letter dated 31 December, 1909; reformer quote from 193 in a letter dated 6 September 1909; on Pinchot‟s visits to TR, see page 416 in a letter dated 27 June 1910.

speech in 1906, Taft listed an exhaustive number of Roosevelt‟s accomplishments, but none came even close to conservation.118 But by the time he was living in the White House, Taft had changed his tune. He acknowledged the role that Pinchot played in influencing Roosevelt‟s conservation decisions and he believed that TR had a deep connection to nature; he wrote “he passionately loved a study of nature, a study of fauna and the excitement of hunting.” 119 As to the specifics of what kind of conservation TR practiced, in Taft‟s view it was a purely utilitarian, wise-use conservation dealing with timberlands and mineral resources; a path trail blazed and championed by Pinchot. Taft was the first man to take the helm of state after Roosevelt and he was the first to justify his conservation policies invoking the name of Roosevelt; in neither case would he be the last to do so. When defining conservation, he struck a very Pinchot-esque rhetorical pose: “Conservation as an economic and political term has come to mean the preservation of our natural resources for economical use, so as to secure the greatest good to the greatest number.” He went on in that speech to say, When President Roosevelt became fully advised of the necessity for the change in our disposition of public lands, especially those containing coal, oil, gas, phosphates, or water-power sites, he began the exercise of the power of withdrawal by executive order… The precedent he set in this matter was followed by the present administration. 120 It is evident that Taft, though at loggerheads with TR ostensibly on conservation matters, actually justified his actions by claiming to be following the precedent set by Roosevelt himself. Woodrow Wilson owes his tenure in the White House to Roosevelt just as much as Taft does121; but Wilson, unlike Taft, started out as an opponent of Roosevelt, in politics at least. The Progressive Democrat could not give too much credit for any

118 Speech given 3 November 1906, from William H. Taft, Present Day Problems: A Collection of Addresses Delivered on Various Occasions. (Freeport: Books for Libraries, 1908, reprinted 1967): 138-9. 119 Quote from a prefatory essay by Taft in Wm. Draper Lewis, The Life of Theodore Roosevelt. (n.c.: The United Publishers, 1919): xx. This essay includes other mentions of TR-conservation policies and Pinchot‟s active influence. See also, Burton, Works of Taft, 133. 120 From the First Appendix to the Second Annual Message- Address to the National Conservation Congress in St. Paul, Minnesota on 5 September 1911 in Burton, Works of Taft, 78, 84-5. 121 Wilson actually remarked on 10 March 1912 in a letter: “Nothing new is happening in politics, except Mr. Roosevelt, who is always new, being unbound by nothing in the heavens above or in the earth below. He is now rampant and very diligently employed in splitting the [Republican] party wide open; so that we may get in!” From Donald Day, ed. Woodrow Wilson’s Own Story. (Boston: Little, Brown and Co, 1952): 129-30.

initiative to the popular Progressive Republican who was hardly out of the picture for another Presidential run in 1916. TR was building a litany of complaints against Wilson as the years went on. Wilson defeated him for President in 1912, ignored his calls for mobilization in 1915, refused to grant him a commission as a Brigadier General in 1917, and even forbid him from entering the war as an enlisted man. In turn, Wilson had plenty to disdain about the busy-bodied former President. Roosevelt questioned every decision, lambasted the President‟s lack of preparation for war, and criticized his execution of war when it finally came. Even more so than between Roosevelt and Taft, the relationship between Roosevelt and Wilson was icy. This was exasperated by the fact that they were in different political parties and knew that they would likely be electoral opponents in the future.122 As if things weren‟t bad enough, TR once insulted Wilson‟s looks, saying he “looked too much like an apothecary‟s clerk to be elected President.”123 In his gubernatorial address on 17 January 1911, Wilson spoke about conservation and discussed only matters of forests and resources. In a letter of 23 April 1911, Wilson described conservation as preserving national resources and conserving the health and energy of the people.124 While running for President in 1912, Wilson occasionally spoke on conservation issues. He used all the terminology of Pinchot-style conservation (i.e. natural resources, wise-use). He maintained, though, that he was a true convert to Progressivism (including conservation) and that TR and Taft were practicing a perverted variant; he was not following Roosevelt‟s example, therefore, but starting his own tradition of conservation, so he says.125 TR and Pinchot both were constant thorns in the side of the administration. Wilson‟s friends often wrote him about Pinchot or TR saying something nasty about him.

122 This sort of animosity is apparent throughout the papers of Wilson. See for example, Volume 45: page 186 is a letter dated 2 December 1917 where Wilson is informed that TR called the Bulgarian Minister a spy, causing serious worries for those working in the diplomatic corps. Arthur S. Link, The Papers of Woodrow Wilson. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981). 123 Sigmund Freud and William C. Bullitt. Thomas Woodrow Wilson: Twenty-eighth President of the United States. A Psychological Study. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1967): 29. These authors made a big deal of this insult, claiming that Wilson was very sensitive about his looks and that he never forgave TR for this affront. 124 E. David Cronon, ed. The Political Thought of Woodrow Wilson. (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Co, 1965): 155, 168, 199. This collection also includes a statement by Wilson in which he complained that resources “locked-up” by conservation had not been released to meet the war effort needs; page 368. 125 For the report of Wilson making this attack, see “Indianans Wildly Greet Gov. Wilson” in the New York Times, 4 October 1912. At this rally, banners in the crowd described TR and Taft as “A Great Bull Loose” and “That Fat Buckeye”.

Pinchot in particular often assaulted the Democratic record on conservation. Wilson recognized the popularity and support of Pinchot on conservation matters and wrote a friend that legislation on the matter would have to be carefully thought out and skillfully executed, since the eyes of the nation would not tolerate failure; and Pinchot would not miss his chance to attack the administration. Wilson, in private, carried on the work of his predecessor, as did his subordinates. He was known to say that he valued Pinchot‟s opinion and supported the decision of one of his cabinet members to support an oil reserve set aside by TR to ensure a safe supply for the Navy facing the prospect of war. In turn, Pinchot often wrote suggestions to the President and his subordinates and promised his support if the President acted on the matters. More often than not, though, these promises of support read more like an ultimatum; support these issues or be opposed.126 Those around Wilson did not fail to notice the trouble Roosevelt and Pinchot caused him. One of Wilson‟s aides reported that TR consistently made life difficult by “clamoring for the undesirable and impossible.”127 Edith Bolling Galt, who would marry Wilson in office, wrote that after hearing some of Roosevelt‟s remarks about Wilson she wished she were larger so she could “make him eat his words or his disgusting teeth… Perhaps both.” In response, Wilson wrote: “About T.R., now, we are entirely and enthusiastically in accord! But what‟s the use of wasting good serviceable indignation on him? ... the best way to vanquish him is to take no notice of him.”128 But others took notice; of TR and Pinchot. Herbert Hoover, involved in efforts to help the victims of German aggression, wrote that Pinchot had gotten involved and was causing him a grand nuisance with his “suggestions” and demands. Wilson wrote back to him in sympathy:

126 On Wilson‟s campaign speeches see John Wills Davidson, ed. A Crossroads of Freedom: The 1912 Campaign Speeches of Woodrow Wilson. (New haven: Yale University Press, 1956): 287 and 349. Also see Link, Papers of Woodrow Wilson: Vol. 37: page 12 and 329 letters dated 10 May and 29 June 1916, on Wilson‟s friends; Vol. 36, page 360, letter dated 24 March 1916, on Wilson‟s comments on conservation legislation; Vol. 40, pages 116-7 and 420, letters dated 1 December 1916 and 6 January 1917, on valuing Pinchot‟s opinion and the naval oil reserves; and Vol. 35, pages 231-3 and 261, a letter dated 20 November 1915 and a diary entry by Colonel House dated 28 November 1915 on Pinchot‟s pledge of support. 127 Link, Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Vol. 51, dated 15 October 1918, page 341. 128 Edwin Tribble, ed. A President in Love: The Courtship Letters of Woodrow Wilson and Edith Bolling Galt. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co, 1981): 162 and 167.

“The same thing happens wherever he is involved.”129 Wilson, therefore, did often think of TR, but seldom in the context of conservation. Those who surrounded Wilson had different levels of interaction with their partisan opponents. Wilson‟ wife, Edith, seldom spoke of TR and never wrote about conservation matters. Secretary of the Navy, Josephus Daniels, mentioned in writing that Roosevelt and Pinchot‟s style of conservation had been setting up timber and mineral reserves, but was more interested in decrying Roosevelt‟s acting “seditiously [sic].”130 Wilson‟s Attorney General, Louis Brandeis, was in contact with Pinchot during the 1912 election; he asked Pinchot what conservation matters he considered to be the most important and pushed Wilson to make speeches indicating he would be just as good for conservation as TR. Secretary of the Interior Franklin K. Lane, was a supporter of damming the Hetch Hetchy Valley and once had been on good terms with Roosevelt. Nevertheless, as Secretary, he seldom wrote about TR or what he would have done in similar circumstances.131 Lane did recognize that Roosevelt‟s actions were colored by his personal feelings. He wrote in a letter that TR “hates Wilson so, that he has just lost his mind.” Regardless, the two men saw eye to eye on some matters. Lane‟s support of the Hetch Hetchy project as Interior Secretary was foreshadowed in a letter he wrote to his brother on 23 February 1912 when he concluded that “you must get water, water, and water… It is water that makes land valuable in California or anywhere else.”132 It is evident from the above that while Taft and other federal figures made public use of Roosevelt‟s name in matters of conservation, Wilson ignored TR whenever possible and thought of him more in terms of an irritant than a paragon of conservation crusading.

129 Francis William O‟Brien, ed. The Hoover-Wilson Wartime Correspondence: September 24, 1914, to November 11, 1918. (Ames: The Iowa State University Press, 1974): 103-4. 130 See Edith Bolling Wilson, My Memoir. (Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Co, 1938). On Roosevelt‟s policies, see Josephus Daniels, The Wilson Era: Years of Peace – 1910-1917. (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1944): 369. Quotation from E. David Cronon, ed. The Cabinet Diaries of Josephus Daniels, 1913-1921. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1963): 216, dated 4 October 1917. 131 For letters dealing with Pinchot and Brandeis, see Melvin I. Urofsky and David W. Levy, eds. Letters of Louis D. Brandeis: Volume II (1907-1912): People’s Attorney. (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1972): esp. 654, 660, 685. Worth noting, Brandeis was Pinchot‟s attorney during the Ballinger affair, and got to know him well during that time. For Lane‟s thoughts, see Anne Wintermute Lane and Louise Herrick Well, eds. The Letters of Franklin K. Lane: Personal and Political. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co, 1922): esp. 41-2, 272-3. 132 Lane, Letters of Franklin Lane, first letter dated 8 December 1915 from page 188; second letter from page 90.

Conclusions Roosevelt‟s contemporaries saw him as many things. A man whose strength was rejuvenated by the wilds, a man interested only in conserving natural resources, a man passionate about protecting the National Parks, a friend of Muir, or Pinchot, of birds, and hunters; a great man, the once and future king, a fallen idol, a conservationist, and on occasion a preservationist. In short, there was a nuanced view of a complicated figure. So, was Theodore Roosevelt a conservationist or a preservationist? Utilitarianism marked Pinchot‟s style; aesthetics marked Muir‟s. Placing TR within that spectrum is tricky to say the least. Throughout this work, it will be made clear that different eras placed TR in a different place upon this spectrum. In this era, setting aside the writings of Muir, it would seem apparent that TR-style conservation was defined by wise-use of resources; but Roosevelt‟s love of nature, friendship with John Muir, and his efforts on behalf of Parks and animal refuges were certainly a part of the story. As it would be for a century, the image of Roosevelt was as much a product of the times as the actual facts of his life. The Progressive Era is aptly named, giving so many of the modern conceptions we now take for granted to posterity. Among them is an appreciation of the wild places in our country. In that era, however, the lofty ideals of Muir were uncommon. More common, was the opinion that money “spent on national parks may be considered an investment which is likely to bring in a very satisfactory return upon money invested.” Commercial value was never omitted from the conservation ethic; indeed, even the most utilitarian driven had to admit that sometimes the best use of land is for its scenic value. Game preserves are an obvious example of economic interests taking on the guise of ecologic concern; more subtle are reserves for non-delicious animals. Scholars defended them, saying “The conservation of wildlife is a feature not to be despised.” The argument ran that the animals would draw “teachers and students of animal life” for “investigation and study.” Large Parks could even be used as breeding grounds to provide “wild” animals to zoos and smaller parks.133 When describing their natural lands, politicians tended to think in terms of rivers full of “edible fish,” “valuable” forests and millions of acres of land that could be made

133 All quotes are from Albert A. Hopkins, Our Country and Its Resources. (New York: Munn and Co, 1917): 97-9.

arable with irrigation. Tall trees were impressive, but so were the board-feet they would produce at the lumber mill.134 In this chapter, it has been made clear that in life, TR was seen as favoring Pinchot and his ways, but was open to aesthetic arguments for protecting land. Taft continued this legacy and often cited Roosevelt in his work, despite differences between the men. Wilson, in many ways, continued Roosevelt‟s work, often inspired by Pinchot through Louis Brandeis; but Wilson kept Roosevelt‟s name out of the discussion unless he had something derogatory to say. This is hardly surprising, considering Roosevelt‟s asperity towards Wilson. TR being alive clearly had a large impact on these men and their contemporaries, but so did Muir and Pinchot being alive. The debate on conservation was fresh and vibrant and had many charismatic and well-organized leaders. By the end of 1920, Wilson was a lame-duck and a very sick man. Taft, though he would still be a force through the Supreme Court, had his Presidential days behind him. Muir, the Prometheus who brought what Leopold would later call fierce green fire down from the mountains for all to partake in, was dead. Most dramatically, Roosevelt himself was also dead, leaving bereft the pantheon of conservationist crusaders. In the 1920s he lived on as a legend, and legends have a tendency, since they cannot speak for themselves, of being used for any purpose deemed convenient. Much of the glamour of conservationism died with Roosevelt, and with Muir gone as well, the new era would be a highly utilitarian one. Elihu Root, a close associate of Roosevelt‟s, exclaimed once that: No one ever misunderstood what Theodore Roosevelt said. No one ever doubted what Theodore Roosevelt meant. No one ever doubted that what he said, he believed, he intended, and he would do. He was a man, not of sentiment or expression, but of feeling and of action. … What we are here for is to perpetuate that teaching, lift it up, striking the imagination, enlisting the interest of the country and the world, by signally perpetuating the memory of our friend, the great teacher… Oh, that we might have him with us now!135

134 For this argument, see Senator John H. Mitchell, “Oregon: Its History, Geography, and Resources,” National Geographic. Vol. VI, (April 1895): 239-84. 135 From an address to The Rocky Mountain Dinner Club, 27 October 1919, in Bacon, Addresses by Elihu Root, 14-5.

The memory of his friend he wanted to perpetuate would capture the imagination of future generations. Indeed, his teachings thrived through the years; but, as it turned out, there was to be more than a little doubt about “what Theodore Roosevelt meant.”

Nature‟s first green is gold, Her hardest hue to hold. Her early leaf‟s a flower; But only so an hour. Then leaf subsides to leaf. So Eden sank to grief, So dawn goes down to day. Nothing gold can stay.

-Robert Frost

CHAPTER III

CONSERVATION AS POLICY, 1920-1945

[Conservation] is the bottom round of the ladder on our upward progress toward a condition in which the Nation as a whole, and its citizens as individuals, will set national efficiency and the public welfare before personal profit. -Theodore Roosevelt136

[Y]ou can even use what I said up in New York as quotation from T.R. I would say, to so manage the physical land use in the United States that we will not only maintain soil fertility, but we will hand back to the next generation a country with better productive power and a greater permanency for land use than the one we inherited from the previous generation. That is the broad objective. -Franklin Roosevelt137

Introduction As Woodrow Wilson passed from the White House, so passed The Progressive Era in American History. In the course of a few decades, Washington had seen the great academic Wilson, the trust-busting Taft, and Teddy Roosevelt the great outdoorsmen. Without the charismatic figures of John Muir and Theodore Roosevelt, the nature of the debate concerning the outdoors was starkly transformed. For the period between 1920 and 1960, Conservation would henceforth be conservation; what was once a movement had become a policy. As was suggested in the previous chapter, the passing of John Muir and the defeat at Hetch Hetchy lead to the decline of preservationism and the triumph of Pinchot-style Conservation as the Progressive Conservation ideology. The body of this

136 From a Special Message to Both Houses of Congress, 22 January 1909, in Theodore Roosevelt, Presidential Addresses and State Papers and European Addresses. Vol. VIII. (New York: The Review of Reviews Co, 1910): 2093. 137 From a press conference on 24 January 1936, in No Author, Complete Presidential Press Conferences of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Vol. VII: 1936. (New York: Da Capo Press, 1972): 93.

chapter will make clear that something hinted at before clearly became the gospel truth for an entire generation of Washington policy makers. Worth noting of interest to the sources on this era is the relation they had with Roosevelt the man. TR may have been dead before Warren G. Harding was elected, but his mighty personality still reverberated through the capitol and the nation. Anyone in power in the 1920s had been rising through the ranks in the Progressive Era and had some contact with Roosevelt. Gifford Pinchot, moreover, was still alive at this time; the living representative of Roosevelt and his policies. Therefore, the leaders of this era were getting a highly biased account of Roosevelt from the viewpoint of Pinchot. Already, TR had passed into legend, and that means that anything perceived as his policy was nearly sacrosanct. This value attached to Roosevelt‟s memory, and Pinchot‟s ability to utilize (one is tempted to say exploit) that value, colored this era with a very particular hue. One final note, it may be wondered why this chapter covers the era incorporating the administrations of Harding, Coolidge, Hoover and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The Progressive Era is an easy time period to define in Environmental History, as is the Environmental Era, to a lesser extent, that began in the mid-1960s. The period between Conservation and Environmentalism is harder to nail down. This delineation was chosen on the grounds that it leads up through the Presidency of the second Roosevelt under whom large scale projects were started in the field of conservation. The fervor and sense of immediacy that laced the conservation projects at the turn of the century was lacking in the New Deal (except in the sense of providing relief to the people), but in many ways the dreams of TR were realized: men living the strenuous life, land being used for the betterment of the people, park lands being made accessible and usable by a wide swath of the population. The three predecessors to FDR also followed a line laid out expressly by TR, or at least, so they said. Therefore, this era represents the quiet continuation of the ideas of conservation laid out in the Theodore Roosevelt administration and brought into practice by the Franklin Roosevelt administration. It will be left to future chapters to explain how those policies evolved in the era after the New Deal.

Harding, Coolidge and Hoover The new era that was being ushered in would be marked by many things; a concern for the natural environment would not be one of them. Few at the time cared, and few that recorded those loves and studied them in the future cared as an extension of that.138 When it comes to Warren G. Harding, few historians are very kind. He is often ranked as the worst, or at best one of the worst, presidents in history. As far as his record with the environment goes, it is not hard to see why.139 During the infrequent instances when he did have something to say about conservation, however, he invoked the memory of the great 20th Century Republican Theodore Roosevelt. While still campaigning, Harding praised Roosevelt‟s work in reclamation legislation in the west and vowed to continue it if elected. In the same speech, he indicated a desire to combine the efforts of reclamation and conservation in the west; it would seem he combined them into the same category of neglect.140 Of course, as the bitingly sardonic social commentator H.L. Mencken observed of the man he referred to only as Gamamil141 that both Harding and TR had similar platforms since both “resembles words scrawled on a wall by feebleminded children.”142 An untimely death meant two things for Warren Harding: firstly, it meant he would not have time to compile memoirs and other recollections of his presidency that may have shed more light on his ideas concerning conservation; secondly, it brought his Vice-President, Calvin Coolidge, to the highest office in the land and Silent Cal certainly

138 In many general studies of the era, conservation is used to mean ideas as disparate as coal protection to race conservation. Politically, the issue was fringe at best. See David Pietrusza, 1920: The Year of the Six Presidents. (New York: Carroll and Graf, 2007) and John D. Hicks, Republican Ascendancy, 1921-1933. (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960). 139 When it comes to conservation and resource policy, historians tend to focus on Teapot Dome and other resource scandals. For a sampling of the literature on Harding, see: Eugene P. Trani and David L. Wilson, The Presidency of Warren G. Harding. (Lawrence: The Regent Press of Kansas, 1977). Burl Noggle, Teapot Dome: Oil and Politics in the 1920s. (n.c.: Louisiana State university Press, 1962). John W. Dean, Warren G. Harding. (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2004). For the papers of Harding see, Andrea D. Lentz, ed. The Warren G. Harding Papers: An Inventory to the Microfilm Edition. (Columbus: Ohio Historical Society, 1970): in these, conservation policy is lumped in a catch-all category alongside Immigration Law and perennial Socialist candidate Eugene V. Debs. Even a published bibliography on Harding chose to focus on Teapot Dome and other Land Scandals as the focus of his conservation contributions; see Richard G. Frederick, ed. Warren G. Harding: A Bibliography. (Westport, CN: Greenwood Press, 1992). 140 New York Times, 1 September 1920, “Harding Promises State Recognition”. 141 A bastardization of Harding‟s actual middle name, Gamaliel. 142 Entry dated 2 April 1923, from H.L. Mencken, On Politics: A Carnival of Buncombe. Ed. by Malcolm Moos. (New York: Vintage Books, 1960, originally 1956): 56.

managed to live up to his name when it came to the environment. The first thing that can be said for his administration is that it was free of any major federal scandals concerning the land or resources (unlike his predecessor).143 One historian argues that at least the National Parks enjoyed a duel advantage in the Coolidge years. The aftermath of the Teapot Dome Scandal put the eyes of the nation upon land policy and a state of salutary neglect from the main office combined to allow the National Park Service (hereafter, NPS) to enhance its budget and bring in more efficient (and hopefully honest) people. This particular book is written from a radical right standpoint and denounces Wilson as a destroyer of an era of conservation and that it took the scandals of the Harding Era to bring the public consciousness back to the issue.144 Calvin Coolidge often spoke about Roosevelt, but seldom in the vein of conservation issues. Nevertheless, Coolidge‟s definition of conservation in 1924 was extremely reminiscent of the utilitarian ethos practiced by Pinchot and company: The viciousness of waste and the value of thrift must continue to be learned and understood. Civilization rests on conservation. To these there must be added religion, education, and obedience to law. These are the foundation of all character in the individual and all hope in the nation.145 These words certainly seem to give conservation a post of some distinction, alongside religion and education. But on the other hand, this definition of conservation would hardly be pleasing to the likes of Muir, or even Roosevelt. Fighting waste and promoting thrift were large parts of conservation, but hardly the whole story. In his inaugural address of 4 March 1925, Coolidge spelled out his conservation views. For starters, he defined it as “the economy in public expenditure with reduction and reform of taxation.” Waste neither resources nor money was the mantra. He went on to say: “The very stability of our society rests upon production and conservation. For individuals or for

143 This background on his Presidency is taken sporadically from: William Allen White, A Puritan in Babylon: The Story of Calvin Coolidge. (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1938). Donald R. McCoy, Calvin Coolidge: The Quiet President. (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1967). Robert Sobel, Coolidge, An American Enigma. (Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 1998). 144 John Earl Haynes, Calvin Coolidge and the Coolidge Era. (Washington D.C.: Library of Congress, 1998): especially pages 24, 30 and 31. 145 Quote from Calvin Coolidge, The Price of Freedom: Speeches and Addresses. (New York: Charles Scribner‟s Sons, 1924): 346-7. For an example of Coolidge discussing TR with reference to his relations with business, but not conservation, see his Address before the Women‟s Roosevelt Memorial Association, New York City, 23 January 1921, in Ibid.

governments to waste and squander their resources is to deny these rights and disregard these obligations. The result of economic dissipation to a nation is always moral decay.”146 Naturally, the course of action Coolidge felt was the best method to enact this policy was to enforce efficient use of tax revenue in the government; ergo, the thing being conserved is money. For those wondering where Roosevelt fit into this policy of conservation, Coolidge explained that Roosevelt‟s conservation was an inevitable process by which natural resources were brought under federal regulation and used not selfishly “but for the generous purpose of serving the public welfare.” This sounds closer to what TR wanted, but Coolidge added that TR carried his ideals too far, and others not far enough, and that it is still in an “experimental stage.” He went on to say: “But the principle that the resources both of men and materials of the country must be conducted for the public welfare, and that there is no power which is above the authority of law, is absolutely sound. The government of the people must always remain supreme.”147 Coolidge, like any good Republican of the era, had the utmost faith that business was falling into this system without the need of government interference. The US economy, Coolidge wrote, was becoming much more efficient and eliminating waste, building prosperity in its wake. This new conservation, dealing with industrial materials and conservation of energy in industry, promoted an ever more efficient and profitable economy. “All this,” Coolidge said, “represents a movement as important as that of twenty years ago for the regulation of corporations and conservation of natural resources.”148 TR had gotten the ball rolling, in other words, and Coolidge was just taking the next logical step as he saw it. So, it is clear what Coolidge meant when TR-style conservation was discussed: wise and utilitarian use of natural resources for economic benefit; and like most President‟s of the first half of the century, Coolidge was personally

146 Inaugural Address reprinted in Calvin Coolidge, Foundations of the Republic: Speeches and Addresses. (Freeport: Books for Libraries Press, 1926): quotes from 200-1. 147 Coolidge, The Price of Freedom, 343. 148 Coolidge, Foundations of the Republic, 324-5. Outside of these writings for public consumption, Coolidge did not often speak of TR, or conservation for that matter. This opinion of his biographers would seem to be reinforced by the published material available on his private correspondence, see Howard Quint and Robert H. Ferrell, eds. The Talkative President: The Off-The-Record Press Conferences of Calvin Coolidge. (Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press, 1964) and Edward Conney Lathem, ed. Your Son, Calvin Coolidge: A Selection of Letters From Calvin Coolidge To His Father. (Montpelier: Vermont Historical Society, 1968).

acquainted with Pinchot, who naturally approved of this approach.149 A hint of recreation did fit into the definition according to Coolidge. In 1924, Coolidge began a project which generated headlines such as: “Cooperation of Many Agencies Will Be Sought in Favor of Out-of-Door Life for All” and “President Holds Out Hope of Greater Opportunities to Enjoy American Forests and Waterways.” This plan, was originally the brainchild of Roosevelt, but no effort had ever been made to enact it until Coolidge took it upon himself to push it.150 It came to little, but is one of very few examples of Roosevelt‟s name being associated with recreation and conservation in an era mostly interested in Roosevelt‟s legacy vis-à-vis utilitarianism. As the 1920s roared on, the third Republican President in a row was elected. The people of the country were prosperous, except the farmers who were foreshadowing tragedy to come. With the voting majority doing so well, the electorate was reluctant to alter the status quo. Thus did Herbert Hoover, the renowned humanitarian, accede to the greatest office in the land. It would be easy to associate Herbert Hoover with the Hoover Dam when thinking about his environmental legacy. Unfortunately for him, his contemporaries would rather focus on HooverVilles when assessing his impact on the country. Naturally, there is some interest among scholars of Hoover for projects like the Hoover Dam, but his legacy is likely to be forever eclipsed by the collapsing economy.151 Despite this, Hoover actually was a great deal friendlier towards the National Parks then his last two predecessors, and a better friend to conservation initiatives in general. Hoover supported expansion of the Parks and called conferences to discuss both resource conservation and acquisition of new land for Parks; a total of three million acres

149 For instance, during an anthracite coal strike, Coolidge asked Pinchot to take charge of the situation. Pinchot was delighted to be given the chance and a little surprised. Thomas Stokes, a member of the press, was on hand, and mused that Pinchot must not have known Coolidge so well after all because Coolidge was a master of delegating responsibility. Thomas L. Stokes, Chip Off My Shoulder. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1940): 218-9. 150 New York Times, 14 April 1924, “Nation Will Adept Recreation Policy.” On the other hand, Coolidge also had to deal with accusations that good land was being “locked up” in forest reserves, a question about utilitarianism that TR also had to deal with. See New York Times, 12 April 1925, “Railway Claims Part of National Forests” by Nixon S. Plummer. 151 William Starr Myers, ed. The State Papers and Other Writings of Herbert Hoover. 2 vols. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Doran and Company, 1934). A sampling of the literature on Hoover includes: Eugene Lyons, Herbert Hoover, A Biography. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1948). Wilton Eckley, Herbert Hoover. (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1980). Martin L. Fausold, The Presidency of Herbert C. Hoover. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1985). For a book that does devote space to his resource conservation, see David Hinshaw, Herbert Hoover: American Quaker. (New York: Farrar, Straus and Company, 1950).

were added to the NPS during the Hoover administration. Hoover was also a frequent visitor of the National Parks and got the ball rolling on several projects that would be completed under the New Deal policies of FDR (including the major Civilian Conservation Corps project, the Skyline Drive between Virginia and Tennessee connecting Shenandoah and Great Smokey Mountains National Parks). Some of Hoover‟s initiatives had to wait, according to one biographer, because of opposition in Congress. Despite deficiencies in his state papers, Hoover‟s memoirs indicate that he was proud of his work with the Parks and of his efforts to preserve Niagara Falls from development and exploitation. In the end, for those that took the time to go beyond the politics of the Great Depression, “Hoover‟s views on conservation and environmental problems in general were advanced for the period.” 152 Hoover was in fact an outdoorsmen and was among the first (with Roosevelt) that made an effort to protect endangered species along with places of specific national beauty, he even went so far as to support a movement to stop the construction of a dam that would ruin the Cumberland Falls in Kentucky.153 Like most political figures of the early 20th Century, Hoover knew Roosevelt personally. Hoover had been a guest of Roosevelt at his home and was struck by the warm reception. Roosevelt had kept him long into the afternoon “making havoc of several appointments” and “continued as my warm supporter to his death.” They did not specifically discuss conservation, but TR did promise him protection from any troublesome Democrats.154 Hoover did display a good sense of Roosevelt‟s connection to the wilds. When former Secretary of the Interior James R. Garfield presented Hoover with Analostan Island as a memorial to Roosevelt on behalf of the Roosevelt Memorial

152 Ray Lyman Wilbur and Arthur Mastick Hyde. The Hoover Policies. (New York: Charles Scribner‟s Sons, 1937): 234. 153 Edgar Eugene Robinson and Vaughn Davis Bornet, Herbert Hoover: President of the United States. (Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 1975): 64-5. Hoover Herbert, The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover: The Cabinet and the Presidency, 1920-1933. (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1951): 235-42. Quote from Jean Hoff Wilson, Herbert Hoover: Forgotten Progressive. (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1975. Reissued 1992): 114. On Hoover‟s efforts to protect endangered species and the Cumberland Falls see David Burner, Herbert Hoover: A Public Life. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979): 228. Richard D. Burns, Herbert Hoover: A Bibliography of His Times and Presidency. (Wilmington: Scholarly Resources, 1991): 92-95. 154 Herbert Hoover, The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover: Years of Adventure, 1874-1920. (New York: Macmillan, 1951): 201-2.

Association, Hoover felt that a wooded island on the Potomac was a very apropos memorial. On the occasion, Hoover gave a speech in which he said Roosevelt ”lived much in the open; he loved the mountains, the woods, the streams and the sea. From them he gained a spaciousness of outlook which permanently endears him to his countrymen.”155 Evidently, Hoover knew the value that TR placed in the wild places of the land. Surprisingly, though, this speech included no mention of Roosevelt‟s accomplishments in the field of conservation; either aesthetic or utilitarian. While a fan of Roosevelt, it is worth mentioning that no love was lost between him and Pinchot. Pinchot was a nuisance to him on several occasions. In one instance, Pinchot (who became Governor of Pennsylvania in the 1920s) was the only Governor who refused to cooperate in a federal plan during Hoover‟s administration intended to ameliorate the effects of the Great Depression. The insurrection on Pinchot‟s part caused “pseudo liberals,” as Hoover called them, to rally around Pinchot‟s demands for more comprehensive action. Hoover took it in stride and wrote in his memoirs that it was not much of a bother, but it certainly was no great help either.156 For his own part, Hoover‟s policies specifically under the heading of conservation were matters such as grazing, water and mineral resources. Reclamation also was a matter of importance Hoover considered part of his conservation policies.157 Perhaps because he did not want more interference from Pinchot, but unlike Harding and Coolidge, Hoover did not bother to invoke the name Roosevelt in reference to his conservation programs. Nevertheless, his policies did fit into a very Rooseveltian paradigm in at least one case. Before being elected President, Hoover gave an address to the Izaak Walton League on 9 April 1927. The speech focused on the need to stock rivers with fish and support the efforts of sports clubs to make fishing more accessible to the modern American. The speech included such sound bites as “fishing is good for the soul of man” and “Fishermen are not liars.” He went even further by claiming that “There were lots of people who committed crimes during the year who would not have done so if

155 Myers, State Papers of Hoover, 545. 156 Herbert Hoover, The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover: The Great Depression, 1929-1941. (New York: Macmillan, 1952): 152. Hoover also mentions being bothered by Pinchot in Myers, State Papers of Hoover, 285. 157 This list is compiled from Hoover‟s First Annual Message to Congress, 3 December 1929 in Myers, State Papers of Hoover, 157. Also, this list is once again evident in a Press Conference Statement of 18 October 1929 also in Myers, State Papers of Hoover, 109-11.

they had been fishing.” He wanted a massive river stocking program and a call for financial support from private clubs; he also called for control of pollution on certain rivers that could be protected without undue interference on business. Why protect more fish and protect them from pollution, he asked rhetorically. Hoover answered his own question by saying “the reasons for all this are some of them economic in their nature, some moral, and some spiritual.” Ironically, in this speech, Hoover touched upon a side of conservation that had disappeared since the hey-day of TR. Conserving not just for the economic benefit of using a resource wisely, but for the deeper philosophic implications. The rejuvenating effect of nature; the morality associated with the sportsmen that inspired boys to become men, and good men at that. The irony enters in that even though this approach to conservation was far more Roosevelt than that of Hoover‟s two predecessors, and even though Hoover enjoyed a personal relationship with Roosevelt, he was the only one of the three presidents of the 1920s to not claim that his conservation programs were following the tradition set down by Roosevelt. Hoover even hit upon a note of big stickism in the speech when he exalted “I have no sympathy with attempts at disarmament of the gigantic army which every year marches against fish… I am for force, more force, and more fish.”158 To get a better look at the thoughts of Hoover it is necessary to analyze the writings of his Secretary of the Interior, Ray Lyman Wilbur. Wilbur was a great admirer of TR and was not shy in praising him for the great conservation programs he started; although, interestingly, for examples he referred only to programs dealing with the protection of children. Tellingly, he then favorably compared Hoover‟s efforts on behalf of children to that of TR.159 Wilbur wrote a book about the policies and activities of the Interior Department during his tenure in which he wrote “The watchword of the Roosevelt administration… was conservation.” Still, Wilbur pointed out that in this case, conservation dealt with matters of oil and coal lands, as well as forestry. On the chapter

158 Address reproduced in full in Herbert Hoover, Hoover After Dinner: Addresses Delivered by Herbert Hoover Before the Gridiron Club of Washington D.C. with Other Informal Speeches. (New York: Charles Scribner‟s Sons, 1933): quotes from pages 93, 96, 98, and 110. 159 Ray Lyman Wilbur, The Memoirs of Ray Lyman Wilbur, 1875-1949. Ed. by Edgar Eugene Robinson and Paul Carroll Edwards. (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1960): see 103, 152-3, and 241 for his meeting with TR and the abiding respect he had for him; see 522 and 533 on conservation of children.

dealing with wilderness and the National Parks, TR is absent.160 Most often, the comparison of the policies of Hoover and TR was more tacit and subtle than an explicit link. For instance, Wilbur made a great show about how on Hoover‟s insistence, the Republican Party Platform on June 1932 stated “The national welfare plainly can be served by the acquisition of submarginal lands for water shed protection, grazing, forestry, pubic parks, and game reserves… We favor such acquisitions.” Hoover, by presidential order, called for more protection of the National Forests and publicly declared “The most vital question [concerning public lands] is the preservation of their most important value- that is grazing.” To aid in these endeavors, James Garfield, Roosevelt‟s Secretary of the Interior, was made Chairman of a Committee concerning the public lands.161

Franklin Delano Roosevelt The story of the second Roosevelt presidency begins with the collapse of the American and global economy at the tail end of the Roaring Twenties. Desperate Americans turned their hopes to Franklin Delano Roosevelt who wasted no time in ushering in a battery of reforms and relief programs, some so revolutionary that he was suspected of everything from Fascism to Communism. One of the most ambitious programs called for employing millions of young men as day laborers in public works projects across the country. This was the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and one of the primary recipients of the largesse was the National Parks and myriad smaller parks around the nation. Likely, any hiking enthusiast has trod upon trails blazed and built by CCC labor. The significance of these improvements can hardly be stressed enough, but this alone is not enough to classify FDR as a conservation president. In the era before environmentalism, no one considered themselves an environmentalist, though some would assign the title retroactively to FDR; the majority of both contemporary figures and later scholars, however, were more comfortable viewing FDR‟s conservation initiatives in the context of economic exegesis than a proto-environmental impulse. This

160 Ray Lyman Wilbur and William Atherton DuPuy, Conservation in the Department of the Interior. (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1932): 31; see also Ch. 3 (p.31-48) for the context TR was placed in. 161 Wilbur, The Hoover Policies, for the Party Platform, see page 162; on National Forests and grazing quote, see 233-4 and 230; on Garfield, see 232.

proliferation of the idea of wise use, in its latest incarnation (i.e. nature parks as a source of employment) followed the tradition of utilitarian philosophy in vogue since the 1920s, and would be reflected in the image of Theodore Roosevelt that was cast in the age of Franklin Roosevelt.162 Roosevelt‟s Secretary of the Interior, Harold Ickes, was a champion of increasing the National Parks. He had a complicated relationship with the president and they did not always agree, but the secret diary the Secretary left behind did indicate that FDR was far more involved in Park decisions than most of those that had come before him. For good or ill, FDR was far from the detached president that Harding or Taft had been. The diary also made clear that FDR took an interest in the Everglades and in increasing the size of select National Forests. Ickes was not the only one to notice this. FDR‟s sympathy for preservationist initiatives was clear, for example, when he refused to appear at the dedication of the dam built at Hetch Hetchy. Of course, there were others that overlooked these aspects of his admittedly complex administration.163 Ultimately, though, his policies in their barest forms were a continuation of the conservation programs stemming from the start of the century. In a message to a Joint Session of Congress, FDR highlighted one of these issues in saying: “through carefully planned flood control, power development and land use policies, in the Tennessee Valley and in other great watersheds, we are seeking the elimination of waste, the removal of poor lands from

162 Almost any biography about FDR will include the fact that the CCC was employed by the NPS; the theme of conservation usually also revolves around the work of New Deal agencies. Some good samples include Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Age of Roosevelt: The Coming of the New Deal. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1958). Herbert D. Rosenbaum and Elizabeth Bartelme, eds. Franklin D. Roosevelt: The Man, the Myth, the Era, 1882-1945. (New York: Greenwood Press, 1987). Conrad Black, Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom. (New York: Public Affairs, 2003). Some scholars choose to differentiate New Deal work from conservation issues; see, Mario Einaudi, The Roosevelt Revolution. (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1959). See also George McJimsey, The Presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2000). For a specific environmental work see Neil M. Maher, Nature’s New Deal: The Civilian Conservation Corps and the Roots of the American Environmental Movement. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008). 163 Harold L. Ickes, The Secret Diary of Harold L. Ickes. Volume I: The First Thousand Days, 1933-1936. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1953). This and the other two volumes display a wide range of interaction by FDR when it came to the NPs; sometimes he strong handed opponents to Park expansion and other times Ickes bewailed FDR‟s total ambivalence to the NPS. FDR refused to attend the dam ceremony on the advice of Ickes, see Robert W. Righter, The Battle Over Hetch Hetchy: America’s Most Controversial Dam and the Birth of Modern Environmentalism. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005): 165. For more on FDR‟s involvement in NPS politics see William E. Leuchtenburg, The FDR Years: On Roosevelt and His Legacy. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995): 167-75. For a contemporary that failed to write about the CCC or the NPS see Basil Maine, Franklin Roosevelt: His Life and Achievement. (London: Butler and Tannor, 1938).

agriculture and the encouragement of small local industries, thus furthering this principle of a better balanced national life.”164 Obviously, FDR enjoyed a deeper connection to Roosevelt than most of the other Presidents. FDR had voted for his relation, compared him favorably with Jackson, Lincoln and Wilson, and even married another Roosevelt (Eleanor). In his public addresses, he was not reticent about praising the other Roosevelt. In one of his famed Fireside Chats, he said that “Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were attempting to correct abuses in our national life.”165 In writing, he claimed that along with Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, TR was one of the three great Americans looking out for the little guy. “All three,” said FDR, “knew at first hand every cross current of national and of international life. All three were possessed of a profound culture in the best sense of the word, and yet all three understood the yearnings and the lack of opportunity- the hopes and fears of millions of their fellow beings. All true culture finally comes down to an appreciation of just that.” The President went on to say that when “the cry was raised against the great corporations,” it was TR who responded with his trust-busting campaign and his public denouncing of the “malefactors of great wealth.”166 It is clear that FDR had respect for TR, it is also clear that he was inspired by him in terms of conservation; or to be more succinct, it would seem that he was inspired by Pinchot in terms of conservation. Pinchot‟s diaries indicate prolonged contact with FDR and that the President often took his advice on conservation matters. Ickes and Pinchot were often at each other‟s throats, on the other hand, and much animosity was bred every time FDR went with a suggestion of Pinchot‟s.167 Pinchot was not always in accord with FDR, however, and his natural abrasiveness was not lost on those around the President. Still, FDR was a great advocate of scientific forestry (which he practiced on his own

164 Message delivered 3 January 1934, reprinted in Franklin D. Roosevelt, On Our Way. (New York: The John Day Co, 1934): 205. 165 Fireside Chat of 30 September 1934, in Russell D. Buhite and David W. Levy. FDR’s Fireside Chats. (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1992): 62. On FDR‟s affinity for TR, see also B.D. Zevin, ed. Nothing to Fear: The Selected Addresses of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1932-1945. (Freeport: Books for Libraries, 1946): 126-9. 166 Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Looking Forward. (New York: The John Day Co, 1933): 11-2 and 26. Interesting note, this book has no mention of TR in the chapter entitled “State Planning for Land Utilization,” Ch. 3 (pages 55-68). 167 Harold K. Steen, ed. The Conservation Diaries of Gifford Pinchot. (Durham: Forest History Society, 2001): on advising FDR, see 179 and 203; on conflict with Ickes, see 189.

land) and one of his aides once commented “F.D.R. is the man who has created the CCC body and soul, and even Gifford Pinchot, who differs from the Boss in many things, must concede that F.D.R. is the No. 1 advocate and exemplar of conservation of his time.” 168 This same aide also compared FDR to TR in terms of their common loves of bird watching and the writings of John Burroughs. The root of his involvement with Pinchot-style conservation came in 1911, when he was a young Senator and made Chairman of the Forest, Fish and Game Committee. He organized a meeting of Congressmen to see Pinchot speak (on FDR‟s invitation). Pinchot used his famous before and after pictures of a Chinese town, ruined by over logging. As FDR recalls it: “Well, that picture in those days sold conservation and forestry to the Legislature and we were enabled to get through the first important legislation for conservation.” By 27 March 1928, FDR believed that “preservation of national resources” should be a federal priority, especially public ownership of water power sites.169 As President, FDR did not demure from using the name of Roosevelt in the fight for his conservation policies. In 1934, he said that a bill he supported to create new silver reserves is nothing new; similar reserves were created during both the McKinley and the TR administrations. In 1936, in a discussion with reporters over his definition of conservation, FDR cited TR and then described a process by which the land is used wisely and thus improved in such a way that the current generation should leave it better than they found it and allow the future generations to inherit “a country with better productive power and a greater permanency for land use.”170 In demeanor as well as words did FDR resemble TR. In the words of FDR‟s son, James, as a boy “[v]irtually an only child, Franklin found friendship in the creatures of the forest. He requested and received a rifle so he could kill one of each kind and he amassed the most complete collection of stuffed and mounted birds in the country.”171

168 William Hassett, Off the Record with F.D.R., 1942-1945. (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1958): quote from 114; see also, 45 and 172. 169 Franklin D. Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Own Story: Told in His Own Words From His Private and Public Papers. Ed. by Donald Day. (Boston: Little, Brown and Co, 1951): first quote from pages 14-5; second from page 100. 170 No Author, Press Conferences of FDR, on silver reserves, press conference of 9 May 1934, page 322; on conservation, press conference of 24 January 1936, page 93. 171 James Roosevelt, My Parents: A Differing View. (Chicago: Playboy Press, 1976): 7.

Ignoring the implications of killing and stuffing one‟s only friends, this is a way of life that was old hat to the older Roosevelt. Both men had a deep connection to nature, and neither saw any kind of disconnect in expressing that love with hot lead. Both went on from this nature-filled boyhood to be Governor of New York where they first got to put into practice some of their ideas on nature‟s resources. In James‟ words again: “He [FDR] pushed for the building of powerhouses along the St Lawrence River to provide cheap electrical power for the farmers. He created conservation laws, and in fact was one of the early conservationists on the national battleground, though of course Teddy was there first.”172 Both loved nature, both shot at nature, both supported public power initiatives, both were in the forefront of the conservation movement; the only difference is that TR was always first. James Roosevelt does not directly say so, but the implication is here and elsewhere that FDR was following in his illustrious relative‟s footsteps; both in conservation philosophy and in career path. The image of conservation that FDR projected on his Cabinet and advisors also reflected these traditional notions of the Pinchot era. Eleanor Roosevelt, easily the most involved First Lady in history, had a very traditional understanding of conservation, dealing with reforestation in logging areas and protecting the “life-supporting resources.”173 Like so many others, Eleanor‟s ideas on conservation had been first fixed in her mind by Pinchot. She had seen him give a talk on trees and express his support for TR during the 1912 election, and the talk had apparently made some impression upon her.174 Of course, no member of the FDR team was more immersed in conservation issues that Secretary of the Interior Ickes, the consummate curmudgeon. When he first took the office, Ickes and Pinchot were on good terms and Ickes often asked him for advice on office policies and other goals. It was not until around 1937 when the two men had a

172 Ibid., 128. For more on the policies of FDR, which highlights (albeit not explicitly) their similarities to those of TR, see Harold L. Ickes, The New Democracy. (New York: W.W. Norton and Co, 1934), which is a propaganda piece painting FDR as a crusader fighting the clutching grasp of evil corporations that want to waste and exploit resources. 173 From a column dated 14 November 1949, in David Emblidge, ed. Eleanor Roosevelt’s My Day. Volume II: The Post-War Years. Her Acclaimed Columns, 1945-1952. (New York: Pharos Books, 1990): 186. ER did not often write of TR in terms of conservation. Though TR plays a major role in her autobiography, she never once mentions him in tandem with conservation issues; see, Eleanor Roosevelt, The Autobiography of Eleanor Roosevelt. (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1961). 174 On this talk, see the letter dated 7 March 1912 in Kristie Miller and Robert H. McGinnis, eds. A Volume of Friendship: The Letters of Eleanor Roosevelt and Isabella Greenway, 1904-1953. (Tucson: The Arizona Historical Society, 2009): 42.

falling out concerning a transfer of the National Forests from the Department of Agriculture to that of Interior. It shows the level of respect FDR had for Pinchot and his ways that ultimately Pinchot triumphed and the National Forests stayed put in Agriculture. Ickes had been a supporter and acquaintance of TR back in the day, and despite his rocky relation with Pinchot, he still associated the Forester heavily with the entire nature of conservation.175 Eventually, Pinchot and Ickes got back on good terms, so much so that Ickes asked Pinchot to sit on a committee to advise on conservation issues. FDR nixed the appointment however, since he knew the character of Pinchot well enough to suspect he may “take the bit into his teeth and raise hell as he has on other occasions.”176 Besides Eleanor, who was closest to FDR, and Ickes, who was closest to conservation, other advisors contributed to FDR‟s perception of TR and his policies. For the most part, though, they did not much concern themselves with the conservation politics surrounding TR, instead focusing on other aspects of the first Roosevelt‟s administration; such as his Big Stick policy in the Caribbean, or his view of monopolies.177 Two exceptions to that rule would be Henry L. Stimson, FDR‟s Secretary

175 Ickes, Diary: 1933-1936, on asking Pinchot‟s advice, see entry dated 6 April 1933, page 17. Harold L. Ickes, The Secret Diary of Harold L. Ickes. Volume II: The Inside Struggle, 1936-1939. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1954): on row with GP, see entries dated 2 May 1937 (p 131), 4 November 1937 (p 238), 18 January 1938 (p 293-4); on linking Pinchot and conservation, see entry dated 21 August 1938 (p 450); on Ickes support of TR, see entry dated 27 August 1938 (p 455). For more on Ickes‟ relation to TR and his meetings with him, see Harold L. Ickes, The Autobiography of a Curmudgeon. (New York: Reynal and Hitchcock, 1943): 169 and 176. 176 Ickes, Diary: 1936-39, on making up with Pinchot, see entry dated 29 January 1939 (p 565); on the committee, see entry dated 2 September 1939 (p 711). By 1940, Pinchot was on the outs with FDR and Ickes once again. The issue of transferring Forestry to another department had come back up and Pinchot said he would only support FDR in the upcoming election if promises were made to not move it. Despite these conflicts of personality, it is still obvious that Pinchot‟s ideas concerning conservation were dominant in the era; see, Harold L. Ickes, The Secret Diary of Harold L. Ickes. Volume III: The Lowering Clouds, 1939-1941. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1954): entry dated 22 September 1940 (p 328). 177 None of these sources include references to the conservation policy of TR, but can be said to represent an influence on FDR‟s perception of TR: Henry A. Wallace, Democracy Reborn: Selected from the Public Papers and Edited with an Introduction and Notes by Russell Lord. (New York: Reynal and Hitchcock, 1944): though on page 112, he talks about conservation in very Pinchot-style terminology. Cordell Hull, The Memoirs of Cordell Hull. Vol. I. (New York: Macmillan, 1948): Secretary of State who believed that TR was more talk than action. Grace Tully, F.D.R. My Boss. (New York: Charles Scribner‟s Sons, 1949): on page 109 the author, who was FDR‟s secretary for 17 years until the President‟s death, wrote that FDR had great respect for TR and gave special consideration towards Ickes and La Follette‟s son since they had known TR. Samuel I. Rosenman, Working with Roosevelt. 2 Vols. (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1952): this author was one of FDR‟s speech writers; on page 463, the author does mention meetings between FDR and Pinchot, but just in the context of party politics and coalition building. Frances Perkins, The Roosevelt I Knew. (New York: Viking, 1946): Perkins was a federal inspector and all around woman activist; on page

of War, 1940-1945, and Raymond Moley, who had been an original member of the Brain‟s Trust, chief advisors to FDR. Stimson, who had also been a Secretary of War for Taft and Secretary of State for Hoover, was a lifelong friend of Gifford Pinchot and sided with him in the Ballinger affair during the Taft administration. Like Pinchot, Stimson stayed interested in water power and public utilities issues for his entire life. Considering how many people did not like Pinchot, Stimson‟s must have been a lone voice in the wilderness speaking well of him to Franklin. Moley, despite his hand in the New Deal, went on to become a harsh critic of FDR and his policies. He did give out some credit, however, and praised Franklin Roosevelt‟s water power policy, but with the caveat that it was hardly original. In his precise words the policy was “the inalienable property right of all the people in the sources of water power (this, of course, was part of TR‟s conservation policy).”178 Even those outside of the FDR administration were an important part of the story. They also had opinions on TR and his conservation policies, they had the opportunity to impress upon the contemporary Presidents these opinions, and those Presidents in turn could impress upon them their thoughts on the matter. The last written words of Teddy Roosevelt were scrawled on a scrap of paper at his death bed, not discovered until after his passing. The paper was for William Hays and was instructions for the man who would become the Republican National Chairman for most of the era between the World Wars. Hays, therefore, was considered something of an expert on the will of TR. He described him as “author, historian, naturalist, hunter, sportsman, husband, father, citizen” and a President of great accomplishments; although among them were not conservation, an

104 she discusses the good relations between Pinchot and FDR when they were the Governors of Pennsylvania and New York respectively (they teamed up to fight unemployment in the early days of the Great Depression). One observer reported that FDR loved to do anything that TR had not; such as be the first President to fly in a plane while in office; see George McKee Elsey, An Unplanned Life: A Memoir. (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2005): 27. Also fitting into this category, with no mentions of TR‟s conservation policies or Pinchot, are most of the writings of Eleanor Roosevelt, including David Emblidge, ed. My Day: The Best of Eleanor Roosevelt’s Acclaimed Newspaper Columns, 1936-1962. (n.c.: Da Capo Press, 2001) and Eleanor Roosevelt, This I Remember. (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1949). 178 Henry L. Stimson, and McGeorge Bundy, On Active Service in Peace and War. (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1947): 19-21 and 43. Raymond Moley, After Seven Years. (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1939): quote from page 12.

issue that had mostly fallen out of vogue for Republicans after Franklin Delano Roosevelt grabbed the reigns of state.179 Of course, not everyone in the era from 1920 to 1945 remembered TR with any combination of admiration and respect. H.L. Mencken for one seemed to have nothing but disdain for the Rough Riding Colonel; of course, he seemed to hate everybody. In 1920, Mencken declared “Roosevelt, the bogus Progressive… Wilson, the bogus Liberal.” He summed up Theodore Roosevelt‟s programs as “the vast hodgepodge of innovations, some idiotic but some sound enough, that went by the name of Progressivism.” And these, Roosevelt did not take up until after he had begun “losing hold upon his cunning at last.”180 Outlying critiques such as these notwithstanding, those public figures of the era that knew Roosevelt, or even just knew of him, were full of praise; though not always totally aware of the side of TR embracing conservation.

Conclusions The question may fairly be asked, What happened to preservationism and John Muir? They certainly seemed to be an important, if far from dominant, theme in the previous era. A point evident in the writings of some of the contemporaries is the impact that Pinchot had on the collective memory of conservation. A Senator of the era, Paul Douglas, remembered how similar he had found Pinchot and Franklin Roosevelt especially in their willingness to “accept dubious allies to gain his ends.” Despite this, he befriended Pinchot and spent many hours with him. In his words: Pinchot, in his sixties, was still an outdoorsman and a forester. He loved to tell of his partnership with Teddy Roosevelt, how they had fought to conserve our natural resources and of their battles with Secretary of the Interior Richard A. Ballinger and President William Howard Taft. Teddy was his idol, and working with him had been the great

179 Will H. Hays, The Memoirs of Will H. Hays. (Garden City: Doubleday and Co, 1955): quote from page 240, see also pages 238 and 244-5. 180 Mencken, On Politics, first quote dated 18 October 1920, page 33; second quote dated 26 July 1920, page 19. Mencken may have leveled his greatest insult against Roosevelt on 1 November 1920 when he sarcastically referred to him as “the late Major-General;” TR went to his grave lamenting that Wilson denied him that rank and his chance to fight in The Great War.

experience in Pinchot‟s life. Mrs. Pinchot, a striking redhead and a giant hearted woman, became my fast friend and remained so until her death nearly thirty years later.181 This is quite a boon for Pinchot. He was alive to tell his tale of “battles” and adventures in the realm of conservation with the great Theodore Roosevelt. No wonder that Muir, his story telling days behind him, is utterly unknown by political figures of this era. In a broader sense, one could claim that the sea change in conservation was a matter of the times. America emerged onto the world scene after the Spanish-American War, but after The Great War, its position as a world power was far more certain. In the post-war era, America enjoyed unprecedented prosperity as speakeasies proliferated and millionaires were made over night. After the market crash, the people of the country had other, more pressing, things to consider than resource protection and the revitalizing effects of nature. Ultimately, when it came to seeking out wilderness and nature‟s bounties, the 1920s was an era of unwillingness, and the 1930s was an era of inability. Concomitant with these attitudes was the attitude toward Theodore Roosevelt. After the corruption and poor planning of Wall Street became evident on Black Tuesday, the people became more interested in his efforts to protect the people from the predatory interests of wealth; and politicians have a tendency to blow with the wind. Historian Donald Worster also offers an insight into the era relevant to the question as to why the image of TR would be so stiffly utilitarian. In bald terms, the era was a dark age for ecology (even in a proto-ecological context). Worster argues that in the 1920s and onwards, even the natural sciences took on the character of Progressive Conservation in its focus on efficiency and applicability. Buzz words of the era included productivity, efficiency, yield and crop.182 At the time, one professor defined conservation as “the division of economics that deals with production.”183 Programs that had begun under TR were carried on and gradually lost their revolutionary implications. Predator control, for instance, was a program of destroying predator species to let more “desirable” species thrive that became a major focus of federal policy under TR and

181 Paul H. Douglas, In the Fullness of Time: The Memoirs of Paul H. Douglas. (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971): block quote from page 72; other quote from 71; see also, page 155. 182 Donald Worster, Nature’s Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas. 2nd ed. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994, originally 1977 by Sierra Club Books): 312. 183 From Richard Ely, “Conservation and Economic Theory.” The Foundations of National Prosperity. (New York: n.p., 1917), quoted in Worster, Nature’s Economy, 312.

Pinchot. In federal institutions, the policy went almost unquestioned until the 1940s; even then, it remained policy until the early 1950s in certain bureaus.184 With the federal programs focused on “use” over protection, it is no wonder that political and popular understanding of TR would be biased by these visible aspects of his legacy. In spite of the lack of interest in society on the whole, due to an excess of wealth or a wealth of poverty, some scholars were taking a critical look at the state of resource management in the country. In 1925, one writer defined conservation while simultaneously casting a warning on his readers: If we become selfish and indifferent and neglect to care for the treasures which Nature has placed in our hands, very serious things will happen to us, as they have happened to other people. How to use the storehouse of Nature without wasting or destroying these treasures is what we mean by conservation.185 Another writer interested in the wise use of nature struck a more haunting, and sadly more prophetic, note, when he wrote in 1928: “As the resources disappear the struggle for markets and raw materials will become more intense. Wars of extermination and annihilation will supersede wars of conquest.”186 In the days when Hitler was still a relatively unknown politician, the specter of wars of extermination would have seemed like simple scare-mongering, but it would not be many decades before warfare would take on a whole new level of barbarity, as it was raised up by the wonders of modern civilization‟s invention and industry. Digressing, the aforementioned author also discussed Roosevelt‟s place in the venue. He wrote of conservation in terms of reducing waste, reforestation, efficient use of resources, and so on. He warned that ignoring them will doom the future of the economy. To him, conservation was wholly an economical matter. He concluded his chapter on “Conservation of Natural Resources, National and International Problems” by saying that when it came to the need to safeguard our economy through conservation, “Theodore Roosevelt was right.”187

184 Worster, Nature’s Economy, 270-80. 185 Harold W. Fairbanks, Conservation Reader. (Yonkers-On-Hudson: World Book Co, 1925): 8. 186 Scoville Hamlin, Waste Not- Want Not: Stabilize Production and Control Expansion. (Philadelphia: Dorrance and Co, 1928): 80. 187 Ibid., 76.

No important change in ethics was ever accomplished without an internal change in our intellectual emphasis, loyalties, affections, and convictions. The proof that conservation has not yet touched these foundations of conduct lies in the fact that philosophy and religion have not yet heard of it. In our attempt to make conservation easy, we have made it trivial.

-Aldo Leopold, “The Land Ethic”

CHAPTER IV

TOWARDS THE ENVIRONMENTAL PRESIDENCY, 1945-1963

We now know that our mineral resources once exhausted are gone forever. -Theodore Roosevelt188

The crisis may be quiet, but it is urgent. We must do in our own day what Theodore Roosevelt did sixty years ago and Franklin Roosevelt did thirty years ago: we must expand the concept of conservation to meet the imperious problems of the new age. We must develop new instruments of foresight and protection and nurture in order to recover the relationship between man and nature and to make sure that the national estate we pass on to our multiplying descendents is green and flourishing. -John F. Kennedy189

Introduction

The middle of the 20th century was an important crossroads for the environment in many significant ways. The New Deal programs under Franklin Delano Roosevelt improved and expanded the conservation programs with the Civilian Conservation Corps, which also introduced a generation of young men to the natural treasures awaiting future vacations. The post-War economic boom provided millions of Americans with a stable job and more disposable income than ever before. Eisenhower brought the Interstate System idea home with him from Europe and shortly the continent was being crisscrossed by concrete superhighways. For the first time in history, Americans had the

188 Theodore Roosevelt, Presidential Addresses and State Papers and European Addresses. Volume VIII. (New York: The Review of Reviews Co, 1910): 2093. 189 From the Introduction to Stewart L. Udall, The Quiet Crisis. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963): xiii.

money to travel, the infrastructure to go any where they wanted and knowledge of recently improved parklands. The stage was set. This chapter covers the era that led from the end of the Second World War to the beginning of the Environmental Era. All three of the Presidents in this time period (1945- 63) made significant strides towards the Environmental Era. Truman ushered in a new epoch by proclaiming Everglades National Park, the first Park that featured neither geological oddities nor the traditional view of the sublimity of nature. Eisenhower built the aforementioned Interstate System which connected Americans with each other and their natural environment like never before. Kennedy, arguably the first Environmental President, read Silent Spring and helped to catapult the book and its dire message to national prominence. Nevertheless, with the concept of Environmentalism still awaiting invention, the era of the 1940s and 50s can hardly be said to truly be environmental. JFK, despite the many programs that got their start under his aegis, was killed before they could be sufficiently developed. This era was the period during which progress was made in a new direction, but it was more a journey than a destination; that must await the next chapter. This transitional condition of being is reflected in the image of TR in this era. As a child, Truman saw TR come through his home town, but otherwise none of the post New Deal Presidents had any interaction with TR personally.190 A complete generation then separated the life of TR from his successors in the White House; this too affected the image of TR that pervaded the era. Of course, from out in the wilderness, the voice of Aldo Leopold was just beginning to have an effect, and it was being carried on a tidal wave called ecology.

Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower Roosevelt‟s administration ended prematurely and Harry S. Truman became Commander-in-Chief. When he got the job it came with a world at war, knowledge of a secret weapon guaranteed to destroy millions and the job of rebuilding a shattered world with his country the first true Super Power. That is a hefty responsibility and it is

190 Truman saw TR in 1904 when TR came though town to make a speech. Truman was disappointed that TR was so short. See Harry S. Truman, Memoirs, Volume II: Years of Trial and Hope. (Garden City: Doubleday and Co, 1956): 201. Later in life, Truman would boast that “I‟m taller… than Teddy Roosevelt.” See, Margaret Truman, ed. Where the Buck Stops: The Personal and Private Writings of Harry S. Truman. (New York: Warner Books, 1989): 78.

forgivable that conservation did not rank particularly high on his to-do list. With the Cold War replacing the World War, and the H-Bomb raising the ante from the A-Bomb, the country‟s natural bounties apparently never had the chance to move up the list and Truman‟s administration passed over them mostly unnoticed. Interestingly, one of the most significant moments in National Park history occurred during this time: the founding of Everglades National Park. The Everglades were neither mountain, nor canyon, nor glacier. Geologically, they were dull; from the standpoint of sublimity, they were barren; no sequoias, towering cathedral-like, were to be found here. By embracing this place as a National Park, the country was taking an important step forward in recognizing unique ecosystems as opposed to unique scenery. Judging from Truman‟s speech on the occasion, and his personal recollections of his times as president, this significance was lost on him. The speech goes so far as to say that many unique animals will be protected and that the Park is beautiful in spite of not having any mountains, but Truman tries to promote the Park as “sublime” in its own way and mostly focuses on the importance of resource conservation. In his memoirs, Truman felt that his conservation efforts were praiseworthy, but he had not a word to say about the Everglades.191 His contemporaries, both historians and those that worked closely with him, were similarly silent on the issue; no doubt not out of any kind of antipathy, but simply because none of them saw it as a significant matter. Some historians interpreted this disinterest as damning, and one recent study posits that the Truman legacy is “a visible heritage of concrete and steel throughout the nation” supplemented with laws that permit the destruction of environments. That author goes so far as to say that Truman‟s policies were so terrible that “[f]rustrated, even horrified by the scale and speed of nature‟s manipulation, citizens provoked political reform that triggered a revolution in legal thought” and therefore the Truman legacy is paradoxical: “permanent ecosystem

191 For the text of Truman‟s speech see Richard S. Kirkendall, ed. Harry’s Farewell: Interpreting and Teaching the Truman Presidency. (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2004): 320-3. For Truman‟s personal recollections see Harry S. Truman, The Autobiography of Harry S. Truman. Ed. by Robert H. Ferrell. (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1980). Truman, Memoirs. Vol. II, 262-3. Harry Truman, Off The Record: The Private Papers of Harry S. Truman. Ed. by Robert H. Ferrell. (New York: Harper and Row, 1980). The background information, including the impression that the Everglades was more of a duty as President than an accomplishment are taken from the biographic literature. See Barton J. Bernstein and Allen J. Matusow, eds. The Truman Administration: A Documentary History. (New York: Harper and Row, 1966). Roy Jenkins, Truman. (London: Collins, 1986). Steve Neal, ed. HST: Memories of the Truman Years. (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2003).

disruptions matched profound shifts in American thought caused by those very disruptions.”192 This may be overstating the matter a bit, although it does mesh well with the hypothesis concerning Harding‟s scandals stimulating renewed interest in the environment. More recent historians believe that Truman connected to TR more than he let on. In some cases, the connection is not particularly flattering. One historian believed that Truman pushed a legacy of dominion over nature, which he posited was in contradistinction to the conservation policy of TR. Another wrote that Truman endorsed the work of Pinchot.193 What is certain is that while there was a fairly substantial range of interpretations of FDR‟s conservation policies, Truman‟s are seen as only tangentially interesting. This will be borne out in the contemporary opinion of conservation which was the stage upon which a fringe interest in the environment entered in this era. In most situations, Truman tended to ignore TR: a famous Republican with the same last name as the great Democrat who cast a shadow over Truman even in death. In many of his private correspondences and his personal recollections of the major issues of his administration, TR is either mentioned only in the context of something utterly unrelated to conservation, or omitted altogether.194 In other cases, the only mention of TR was in a pejorative sense. Truman blamed both Roosevelt and Coolidge for not doing better jobs with their respective renovations of the White House, which forced Truman to receive Winston Churchill in nearby Blair-Lee House, the temporary residence of the President while the White House under went a thorough reconstruction. In his private papers, he wrote that TR‟s work fixing up the Executive Mansion was a “botch job” and hypothesized that “Teddy was evidently using his Big Stick somewhere else.”195 Truman also considered TR a good exemplar on occasion of what not to do. In a case of libel, where he considered suing someone, Truman recalled that in a similar situation when TR

192 Kirkendall, Harry’s Farewell, 300. 193 From “Los Alamos to the Everglades- Harry S Truman‟s Environmental Legacy” by Karl Boyd Brooks (p. xxiii and xxvi) and “Conservation After World War II: The Truman Administration, Foreign Aid, and The „Greatest Good‟,” by Thomas Robertson (p 35); both from Karl Boyd Brooks, ed. The Environmental Legacy of Harry S. Truman. (Kirksville: Truman State University Press, 2009). 194 For examples, see Ralph E. Weber, ed. Talking with Harry: Candid Conversations with President Harry S. Truman. (Wilmington: Scholarly Resources, 2001). Robert H. Ferrell, ed. Dear Bess: The Letters From Harry to Bess Truman, 1910-1959. (New York: W.W. Norton and Co, 1983). 195 Quote from Truman‟s diary, entry dated 2 March 1952, from Ferrell, Off the Record, 242. On Churchill, see also diary entry dated 24 March 1949 from Monte M. Poen, ed. Strictly Personal and Confidential: The Letters Harry Truman Never Mailed. (Boston: Little, Brown and Co, 1982): 61.

had sued for libel, he had received only one penny in damages and though he won the case “he made himself ridiculous.”196 In the secrecy of his diary, he attacked his opponent in the 1948 election, saying “[Thomas] Dewey synthetically milks cows and pitches hay for the cameras just as that other fakier, Teddy Roosevelt, did.”197 In discussing his own conservation policies, Truman used rhetoric and standards that smack of Pinchot and Roosevelt, but seldom is the connection made. In his State of the Union on 77 January 1948, Truman talked about developing resources, stock piles, mineral wealth, reclamation and combating soil erosion. Later, he spoke of forestry, public power, multiple purpose dams, and “wise use” of resources. All these old standards were launched onto the federal stage by TR, but by 1948, they were simply conservation, not the legacy of an individual; or even a small oligarchic collection of visionaries.198 This point is reinforced in a speech given 5 December 1947, on the occasion of the founding of Everglades National Park when Truman declared his conservation policies. A program of resource protection and a system of scientific forestry identical to that pioneered by Pinchot; nevertheless, no mention is made of Pinchot or TR.199 On 21 September 1948, Truman went one step further and claimed that programs of wildlife, grazing land and forest protection in the West were begun with FDR.200 Truman did not utterly ignore TR, however, when it came to conservation he just remembered him in very generic terms. In his memoirs, Truman wrote: “One outstanding Republican President, Theodore Roosevelt, contributed to the perpetuation of progressivism in American life… Under his administration the country made great strides, particularly in the conservation of natural resources.”201 Nevertheless, Truman recorded that TR “missed being a great president, though only by a narrow margin… though he was the president who finally awakened to the fact that the welfare of the country was wrapped up in its physical assets- that is, in the forests and the mines and the

196 From a letter dated 9 July 1947, in Ferrell, Off the Record, 113. 197 Entry dated 16 July 1948, from Ibid., 144. 198 Harry S. Truman, The Truman Administration: Its Principles and Practices. Ed. by Louis W. Koenig. (Washington Square: New York University Press, 1956): 133-4. 199 From M.B. Schnapper, ed. The Truman Program: Addresses and Messages by President Harry S. Truman. (Washington D.C.: Public Affairs Press, 1949): 219-20. 200 Ibid., 215. 201 Truman, Memoirs. Volume II, 173; on page 201, Truman repeats the sentiment when he writes that TR “put into effect a lot of liberal ideas such as the conservation of natural resources.”

other things the country owned- and he tried to conserve the situation as best he could, he had troubles… and he didn‟t get a heck of a lot done.202 “So Theodore Roosevelt doesn‟t get on my list of great presidents” Truman summarized. Of course, Truman brought many of his predecessors under fire, so TR did make it onto one auspicious list: the list of presidents Truman berated. He did grudgingly grant that TR occasionally did what he had to do, but was often far from praising. In Truman‟s final assessment, “Teddy Roosevelt was often more bull, without the moose, than substance.”203 Vowing to go to Korea, the popular Supreme Allied Commander Ike Eisenhower succeeded Harry Truman after the 1952 election. His Interstate System would become an important gateway for people visiting the wild places of the country in the latter half of the century, but his direct involvement in conservation was negligible. Since he fails to mention any interest in most of his personal writings, including not a single mention of Muir, Pinchot, or TR in his diary, he is generally a tertiary player in broad studies of the early environmental movement; a characterization that few scholars challenge.204 This could easily be interpreted as a denigration of the administration of Eisenhower, but it most be kept in mind that Ike was the last President to serve out his full term in office before the widespread popularization of ecology and, moreover, Eisenhower was a popular general and not a career politician. He was accustomed to dealing with problems through well-orchestrated campaigns; thus did the old-style Pinchot approach to nature resonate well with Eisenhower and left little need for any alteration to existing policies and procedures.

202 Truman, Where the Buck Stops: 14. 203 Ibid., first quote from page 15; second from page 348. On the other presidents, Truman commented that Taft also missed his list of greats despite being “a fat, jolly, likable, mediocre man” (p. 15). He also commented on the jowls of Richard Nixon and Harding being “our worst president” (p. 313 and 78, respectively). 204 For Ike‟s own none-recollections see Dwight D. Eisenhower, The Eisenhower Diaries. Ed. by Robert H. Ferrell. (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1981): these recollections contain no mention of either conservation or environmentalism. See also, Dwight D. Eisenhower, At Ease: Stories I Tell To Friends. (Garden City: Doubleday and Co, 1967): which also contains no mention of TR, Muir or Pinchot; it only mentions conservation in the context of “human resource” conservation. See also, Louis Galambos and Daun Van Ee, eds. The Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower. 17 Vols. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996). The background is derived from William Bragg Ewald, Jr., Eisenhower the President: Crucial Days, 1951-1960. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1981). Tom Wicker, Dwight D. Eisenhower. (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2002).

Like his predecessor, when Ike thought about conservation, he thought about programs such as subsidizing farmers to leave land for forage and trees and other ideas concerning “wise land use” and a program called “conservation-reserve.”205 In rare instances, he did call to mind TR and occasionally Pinchot; though never did he think of Muir.206 Mostly, he took TR as a source of guidance in other fields. The debacle that followed in the wake of Roosevelt‟s third party try at the Presidency in 1912 convinced Ike to forego a third party run of his own. The Eisenhower Administration did usurp both the image of Roosevelt and conservation as part of a program originally entitled “Adjustment to Work.” After one of Ike‟s advisers “discovered that TR was interested in the Conservation of Human and Natural Resources” the program was renamed the “Conservation of Human Resources.”207 This is a telling matter in the image of TR in the 1950s that a member of Ike‟s inner circle had to take it upon himself to “discover” something everyone had always known before; i.e. that TR was associated with conservation. There was a change of focus after Ike‟s first term. In the Republican Party Platform, it was stated: Policies of sound conservation and wise development- originally advanced half a century ago under that pre-eminent Republican conservation team of President Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot and amplified by succeeding Republican Administrations- have been pursued by the Eisenhower Administration. While meeting the essential development needs of the people, this Administration has conserved and safeguarded our natural resources for the greatest good of all, now and in the future. The greatest good to the greatest number is a Pinchot axiom as old as the laws that protect the hills. As the quality of life represented by the natural environment became more important, so too did the image of TR gain added significance for Republicans

205 Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, 1953-1956. (Garden City: Doubleday and Co, 1963): 558. TR is only mentioned in this book in the context of the White House renovation. 206 For example, in the course of his Presidency, Ike gave 12 speeches on TR, 10 on conservation, 1 on Pinchot and zero on Muir. See Ralph J. Shoemaker, ed. The President’s Words. 7 Vols. (n.c.: Elsie DeGraff Shoemaker, 1954). 207 Travis Beal Jacobs, Eisenhower at Columbia. (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2001): 141-2. The advisor who made the “discovery” was Eli Ginzberg, a Professor at Columbia. On not starting a third party, see Robert J. Donovan, Eisenhower: The Inside Story. (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1956): 152. For more on the third party issue, see Herbert Brownell, with John P. Burke. Advising Ike: The Memoirs of Attorney General Herbert Brownell. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1993).

looking for votes. The aspects of conservation that TR supposedly started, according to the Platform, included all the old standards of forest reserves, mineral protection, fisheries, and recreational parks and even wildlife management.208 This new concern may also have been a direct answer to the accusations of Ike‟s perennial opponent, Adlai Stevenson, who declared that Ike represented a threat to federal protection “of our great national assets- the forests, the grazing lands, the water, and the minerals.” Neither Stevenson nor Eisenhower saw the nation‟s wild places or the sublime beauty of nature itself as a factor in this debate. They did, however, become the first set of political rivals to both use the name of Theodore Roosevelt to justify their own divergent views on conservation (though they diverged little in word). Stevenson wrote: I hope we don‟t forget that the public domain belongs to Democrats and Republicans alike, and, as Theodore Roosevelt warned us long ago, the descendants of both will pay the price if we do not preserve their heritage. And I confidently expect that the Democrats in Congress will be the Public‟s guardians of our forests and our parks; our grazing lands and our minerals; guardians, too, of our great reclamation programs and our family-sized farms; and of low-cost power for all the people.209 We see here how both parties claimed to be the ones best able to preserve the legacy of Theodore Roosevelt, and thereby most fitted to determine what that legacy was. An interesting development in the political climate as America prepared to enter Camelot.

John F Kennedy All those who fish and hunt, who build industrial centers, who need electricity to light their homes and lighten their burdens, who require water for home, industrial, and recreational purposes- in short, every citizen in every State of the Union- all have a stake in a sound resources program under the Progressive principles of national leadership first forged by Pinchot and Theodore Roosevelt, and backed by the essential cooperation of State and local governments.210

208 “Text of the Republican Platform Adopted by the Party‟s National Convention,” New York Times, 22 August 1956. 209 Walter Johnson, ed. The Papers of Adlai E. Stevenson: Volume IV: “Let’s Talk Sense to the American People,” 1952-1955. (Boston: Little, Brown and Co, 1974): 256. 210 Reprinted in Frank E. Smith, General Editor. Conservation in the United States: A Documentary History, Vol. 3: Land and Water, 1900-1970. (New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1971): 691.

Thus did JFK speak in his First Message to Congress on 23 February 1961. When Kennedy entered the White House, resource protection was the focus of conservation and all that most Americans wanted in a federal conservation policy. That was all about to change. When Silent Spring hit the bookshelves it caused quite a stir. People were confronted with several chilling facts. 1) Corporations are poisoning the earth with deadly chemicals. 2) The wildlife of the planet is being killed off by those chemicals, which will soon result in a world without bird song (a Silent Spring, if you will). And 3) As the chemicals pass through the plants and animals, they ultimately reach us. This was the cutting edge of ecosystem theory, the concept that all life is bound together in complicated webs of connectivity and places Rachel Carson among the ranks of Harriet Beecher Stowe and Upton Sinclair. Of the many people Carson reached, none were more important than John F. Kennedy, President of the United States. Just as Teddy Roosevelt had ordered investigations into the meat industry after reading The Jungle, so did JFK set to work after his own literary revelation. Thus was the Ecological Era launched. Still, the era was young and JFK was no TR when it came to the great outdoors. He was a city boy, and it would take a Texan to make the environment a Texas-sized federal issue.211 The eco-conscious American was still nonexistent when Kennedy took office, and concern for the environment did not extend much beyond the possibility that people may be eating poison. The debate is open as to how far Kennedy may have taken environmentalism, but his time in the White House was brought to a tragic close. The entire concept of environmentalism and its inherent implications were very new and was not to become a major national issue until Johnson‟s administration. Moreover, Kennedy himself was not enthusiastic about it.212 JFK did help the inchoate environmental movement by setting it upon a sound path, however. Among other things, he helped a

211 The argument that ecology was not an important issue yet is a common one. For an example of a general presidential history of the era that demonstrates that ecology was still not an issue, see Theodore Otto Windt, Jr., Presidents and Protesters: Political Rhetoric in the 1960s. (Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama, 1990). 212 See Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1965). Ralph G. Martin, A Hero For Our Time: An Intimate Story of the Kennedy Years. (New York: Macmillan, 1983). James N. Giglio, The Presidency of John F. Kennedy. 2nd ed., revised. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2006).

water pollution bill make its way through Congress.213 Not all of his staff acknowledged his contributions to the environment, but at least his Secretary of the Interior appreciated them, claiming the administration “may mark a turning point in conservation.”214 Kennedy may have been moved by Carson‟s lyrical pleas to stop the chemical annihilation of life on earth, but ecosystem theory was still as mysterious as the moon when Kennedy took office. He found it difficult to enthrall audiences with talk of conservation and had little personal interest in the nation‟s wild places. While on a tour to promote conservation, “his rhetoric was smooth as usual, but his heart was not in it.” As an urbanite he had to admit to a confidant he had “never given these matters any real consideration” and conservation was simply not the “sexy” issue it would become for politicians in the 1970s. By the end of the tour, he was quite bored and often strayed to other topics, both to his and the crowds relief.215 Much like his predecessor, JFK did not take much interest in the conservation legacy of TR. When TR comes up in the writings of those around JFK, it is usually in the context of election reform or the bully pulpit. One popular event that became infamous with some staff members is when JFK discovered an old letter written by TR in which he challenged Marines to hike 50 miles in 20 hours. As part of Kennedy‟s health initiative, he decided to not only send the letter to a nearby Marine base, but also to try to force members of his staff to make the attempt. Pierre Salinger, JFK‟s rotund press secretary was quick to volunteer… someone else! As the fattest member of the team, Kennedy wanted him to do it, but he eventually got out of it.216 One member of the staff, however, thought of TR in terms more than the bully pulpit and the strenuous life. While he was not to be the eco-friendly president that some of his successors would become, Kennedy did leave a positive legacy in a few meaningful ways; doubly

213 Robert Dallek, An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963. (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 2003): 319-20 and 379. 214 For a staff member that did not see Kennedy in the context of the environment, see Pierre Salinger, With Kennedy. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1966). Quote is from Udall, The Quiet Crisis, 181. 215 Theodore C. Sorensen, ed. “Let The Word Go Forth”: The Speeches, Statements, and Writings of John F. Kennedy. (New York: Delacorte Press, 1988). Quotes from Lewis J. Paper, The Promise and the Performance: The Leadership of John F. Kennedy. (New York: Crown Publishers, 1975): 239-40. For more on the Conservation Tour and JFK‟s lack of interest in it, see Richard Reeves, President Kennedy: Profile in Power. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1993): 605-6. 216 Pierre Salinger, P.S. A Memoir. (New York: St. Martin‟s Press, 1995): 128. See also Harold W. Chase and Allen H. Herman, eds. Kennedy and the Press: The News Conferences. (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co, 1965).

impressive considering that ecology was still in its infancy. Among the greatest succor he offered the movement was done mostly to appease the rising tide of conservationists in the Democratic Party: he appointed Stewart Udall Secretary of the Interior. Udall would (under JFK and LBJ) do many things for the environment and federal conservation programs. Udall was very well aware of the legacy that had been handed down to him from the time of TR. The name of Gifford Pinchot had been absent in politics for a decade, but Udall brought it back with a vengeance in his epochal book The Quiet Crisis. He wrote that Pinchot “had the clear eye of a scientist, a naturalist‟s love of woods and open spaces, the moral fervor of an evangelist, and a politician‟s intuition.”217 Udall credited Pinchot with being a close accomplice in Roosevelt‟s conservation policies, even as the writer of the portions dealing with that topic in his speeches. Pinchot was described as a “fighter,” “a magnificent bureaucrat,” a man who used sustain-yield methods, brought law and order to the forests, the only bureau chief who was the first counselor to a President, and was “firm and fair and spoke for the future.” Pinchot coined the word conservation, and framed it in the mind of TR; that being, frugality, efficiency, and protection of public resources. Udall concluded: “He was the composer, and also played first violin while the redoubtable Roosevelt conducted.”218 This praise for Pinchot had been absent among politicians since TR was alive and writing. But the more significant thing about his book was the reemergence of John Muir after a hiatus of nearly five decades. Utterly absent from the records of JFK‟s past six predecessors, Secretary Udall brought him back to national prominence. He did believe that TR was primarily anti-waste and that Pinchot had no use for wilderness, bringing him to loggerheads with Muir. Just as he had praised Pinchot, Udall praises Muir. He writes that the 1903 trip to Yosemite of TR and Muir was a turning point in the life of Roosevelt in which he did the listening and Muir the talking. Udall writes that Pinchot and Muir were constantly divided between use and aesthetics (now defined as conservation and preservation), but that both played a role in influencing TR.219 The foreword for Udall‟s book was written by JFK. From the scant words, it is hard to completely grasp how he saw TR. He wrote that TR had expanded the concept of

217 Udall, The Quiet Crisis, 102. 218 Ibid., 103-6. 219 Ibid., 108-12, 118-23.

conservation “to meet the imperious problems of a new age” and said his generation must do the same. He also wanted to emulate TR in the goal of leaving for posterity a richer land than we had originally inherited from those before us.220 These sound a great deal like the traditional values, focused on conservation, that had permeated the image of Roosevelt for more than a quarter of a century. Kennedy‟s Interior Secretary, on the other hand, had a new (or rather, a very old) image of TR: a man who‟s accomplishments subsumed not only National Forests, but also National Parks, wildlife refuges and bird sanctuaries; a man who derived his opinions from the Boone and Crocket Club and the tradition of sportsmanship, to protect wildlife and prosecute poachers.221 Udall summed up his image of TR thusly, Wildlife and big game were his first love, and in his early years he had published three books on his experiences as a hunter, naturalist, and rancher. His conservation interests did not range as far as Pinchot‟s, and the subtleties that fascinated Muir eluded him, but he was acquainted with the grass and water and soil of the Great Plains, and had sharpened his larger insights by writing a frontier history, The Winning of the West.222

Contemporary Scholars In the time period under consideration, Stewart Udall was not the only one with John Muir on his mind, but he was one of the few. He was also one of the few to combine the ideas of conservation and preservation in the persona of TR.223 At the time, TR was only being seen as a conservation President. Udall‟s work helped to usher in a change in that perception, but there was still a long way to go. More common was the traditional view of TR and conservation that the concern was solely issues of grazing land and forestry. Even those with a passion for protecting the earth struck a highly utilitarian chord; Gifford Pinchot may have been pushed into the background after his death, but he was still a poignant image to certain politicians. Adlai E. Stevenson, for instance, credited Pinchot, along with TR, for pioneering conservation in the United States and warned:

220 Ibid., xiii. 221 Ibid., 130-3, and 149. 222 ibid., 128. 223 Rachel Carson references Muir in some of her private letters. See Martha Freeman, ed. Always, Rachel: The Letters of Rachel Carson and Dorothy Freeman, 1952-1964. (Boston: Beacon Press, 1995). For an example of a contemporary who was familiar with Muir Woods NM, but did not take any interest in Muir himself, see Sol Bloom, The Autobiography of Sol Bloom. (New York: G.P. Putnam‟s Sons, 1948): 48.

“This land, these rivers, these forests and mountains- they were not put there for us to despoil… They were put here for us to use wisely, and to leave in better estate for our children and our children‟s children.”224 Theologians and metaphysicists may argue with why exactly the mountains were put here, and later environmentalists would vehemently argue that they certainly were not put here just to be used, with any intentions. But at the time, this was a progressive and flattering sentiment ascribed by Stevenson onto TR and Pinchot. In the era after World War II, interest in the natural environment intensified. This interest would eventually coalesce into environmentalism, but in the immediate post-War era, the focus of concern was a refamiliarization of resource protection that had gone by the wayside during the needful period of global war, following on the heels of a global depression. One book, called Conservation in the United States, went through three editions and eight printings in the years between 1949 and 1963. In the 1963 edition, it defined conservation as “efficient and continuing use of existing supplies for the benefit of both present and future generation, the avoidance of destruction and waste.”225 This book, written by professors in the sciences, does address protection of National Parks and other wild areas, but does not discuss any impact by John Muir. It does highlight the many contributions of TR and that Pinchot‟s “influence on the conservation movement in general was probably greater than that of any other man.”226 Similar books begun slightly later in this period have an increased interest in the preservation work of TR, such as his work with bird refuges, but no interest in John Muir.227 One area where the legacy of preservation entered into the image of TR sooner than other fields was in popular literature. The story of Roosevelt refusing to shoot a

224 From a speech of 9 October 1956 on “conservation and full development of our natural resources.” From Walter Johnson, ed. The Papers of Adlai E. Stevenson. Volume VI: Toward a New America, 1955- 1957. (Boston: Little, Brown and Co, 1976): quote from page 270; see also pages 265. Other examples of traditional perceptions of TR can be found in Edwin O. Guthman and C. Richard Allen, eds. RFK: Collected Speeches. (New York: Viking, 1993): 40. 225 A.F. Gustafson, C.H. Guise, W.J. Hamilton, Jr., H. Ries. Conservation in the United States. 3rd ed. (Ithaca: Comstock Publishing, 1949, eighth printing 1963): 1. 226 Ibid., 17. Authors were Professors of Soil Technology, Forestry, Zoology and Geology. Another, very similar book, contains almost identical arguments, including praise for Pinchot and omission of Muir, and a focuses on forests and mineral wealth; see, Mary I. Curtis, Conservation in America. (Chicago: Lyons and Carnahan, 1947): esp. p 1 and 110-6. 227 See Charles H. Callison, ed. America’s Natural Resources: Edited for the Natural Resources Council of America. (New York: The Ronald Press, 1967, originally 1957): see especially page 120.

small bear (resulting in the birth of the Teddy Bear after a cartoon depicted the event) came up. In this literature, the wanderings with Burroughs in Yellowstone and Muir in Yosemite were also seen to have had a great significance. In one article, non-preservation conservation is not mentioned at all (neither is Pinchot) and conservation is clearly used synonymously with what was previously always segregated into the category of preservation.228 When His Royal Highness, The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, announced the forming of the World Wildlife Fund to protect critically endangered animals in 1962, he invoked the memory and words of TR about treating natural resources as assets to be protected and improved for future generations.229

Conclusions In this era, a President recognized the importance of a swamp, two political bigwigs both used the name of Roosevelt to highlight their commitment to the environment, and scholars began to rediscover John Muir. Still, for the most part, focus stayed on the old-fashioned conservation practices of TR and Pinchot, but change was in the air. Even the predator control programs that had been the standard operating procedure of the federal government for forty years were fading into memory.230 Hays was the first ripple of what would become a tsunami of environmental literature, and the name of TR, as far as an environmental policy goes, was about to explode in importance. The question is, why? The reasons are two-fold. First, there was a societal movement towards a cleaner natural habitat. Utilizing the prosperity of the post-war era, and the highways built by Ike, the people were beginning to discover the America outside the concrete jungles some call

228 Bart McDowell, “Theodore Roosevelt” National Geographic Vol. 114 No. 4 (Oct. 1958): 572-90, see especially 580. 229 HRH The Prince Philip,. “Man‟s Wildlife Heritage Faces Extinction” National Geographic Vol. 122, No. 5 (Nov. 1962): 700-3. 230 To cite an example of popular literature on this point, an article about the dying off of grizzles includes many different sources of their demise in the recent decades, but no mention was made of predator control even though they were often victims of it. See “Knocking Out Grizzly Bears For Their Own Good,” by Frank and John Craighead. National Geographic Vol. 118 No. 2 (Aug. 1960): p 276-291. This article also raises the provocative and cutting edge question (p 279), “Do we possess the right to annihilate a fellow creature?” Only as far back as 1957, did the policy of predator destruction figure into articles in this magazine. It took only three years to become a memory, in other words. See, Mason Sutherland, “Californians Escape to the Desert” National Geographic Vol. 112 No. 5 (Nov. 1957): 675-724.

cities.231 The argument that a renewed interest in the environment is a matter of prosperous voters seeking out a habitat more conducive to their happiness has been expounded by historian Samuel Hays in Beauty, Health, and Permanence.232 Secondly was the other side of the issue, which lay just beneath the surface. A movement was building up in the fringes of society, starting in the 1940s but building to a powder-keg by 1963. This side of the issue was new scientific understanding of the environment, and the deeper connections that exist between humanity and its natural home. One obvious facet of this was the abandonment of the predator control programs that had been carried on for decades without question. Aldo Leopold‟s description of when he realized the significance of the predator- prey relationship in nature reads like a poem by one of the classic masters. The revelation went that he gave up a young-man‟s dream of a “hunter‟s paradise” in a wolf-free world when he realized in the 1920s that it would cost that “fierce green fire” burning in the eyes of the predator, a part of the mountain and the environment in a way not before dreamed.233 Leopold was a man ahead of his time, and science would be playing catch-up for years to come. It was not until 1935 when a scientist, Alfred George Tansley, introduced the word “ecosystem.” He had been building up to the event, and had attended a Phytogeographic Excursion in Yosemite National Park in 1913; already in the new century the Parks were playing a new scientific role.234 At this point it was just a word, however, and it would take several decades to begin truly constructing a unified conception of what it meant. A significant moment in this era was the founding of Everglades National Park. It broke the cycle of mountains and canyons and so in many ways marks the end of the early Parks. The Everglades attracted biologists since the 1890s and since 1909 it had been hailed in print as a “biological treasure trove.” People in the biological sciences had

231 Ample evidence of this can be read in articles such as the following, written by the Director of the NPS, which indicates the broad-based societal interest in these areas: Conrad L. Wirth, “Heritage of Beauty and History” National Geographic Vol. CXIII No. 5 (May 1958): see especially 593, 617 and 635 on the lingering interest of hunters in predator destruction. 232 Samuel P. Hays, Beauty, Health, and Permanence: Environmental Politics in the United States, 1955- 1985. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987). 233 Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac: With Essays on Conservation from Round River. (New York: Ballantine Books, 1966, originally 1953): 138. 234 Frank Benjamin Golley, A History of the Ecosystem Concept in Ecology: More Than The Sum of the Parts. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993): 8 and 14-15.

been calling for a National Park since the 1920s.235 In the late 1940s they got their wish, but the true significance of the gesture was lost on Washington. The “broad agenda we now call environmentalism” was still foreign to the federal government.236 In his dedication speech, Truman admitted that this was not like any Park before it, “Here are no lofty peaks seeking the sky, no mighty glaciers or rushing streams wearing away the uplifted land. Here is land, tranquil in its quiet beauty.” He also spoke of animals being protected, but it is clear that the land itself was still the key thing being put aside for protection. Truman brought in a classic sublimity justification by claiming that the Everglades were a place “where we can be more keenly aware of our Creator‟s infinitely varied, infinitely beautiful, and infinitely bountiful handiwork”.237 It would be remiss of a scholar to explain changing societal interpretations of nature without further mention of Aldo Leopold in at least a modicum of detail; and it may make a better segue into the next chapter dealing with the Environmental Era. Writing before the Second World War and for a short period after it, until his early death, Leopold‟s ideas were wafting past the desks of a few interested souls, priming the pump. Leopold‟s writings are laced with poetic purple prose and chilling warnings. For example: For the first time in the history of the human species two changes are now impending. One is the exhaustion of wilderness in the more habitable portions of the globe. The other is the world-wide hybridization of cultures through modern transport and industrialization. Neither can be prevented, and perhaps should not be, but the question arises whether, by some slight amelioration of the impending changes, certain values can be preserved that would otherwise be lost.238 What makes Leopold‟s words transcend his time are their universality. He could have written those words yesterday and they would be just as applicable, just as incisive. Besides a warning to mind the future, Leopold also helped to spell out a new Land Ethic, a way of interacting with the natural world. An ethic perhaps crucial to our very survival in the light of the fact that, “Wilderness is the raw material out of which man has

235 Charlton W. Tebeau, Man In The Everglades: 2000 Years of Human History in the Everglades National Park. (Coral Gables: University of Miami Press, 1968): 167-75. 236 On environmentalism being ignored in the 1930-50s, see Philip Shabecoff, A Fierce Green Fire: The American Environmental Movement. (New York: Hill and Wang, 1993): 91. 237 For the text of Truman‟s speech, see Kirkendall, Harry’s Farewell, 320-2. 238 Leopold, “The Land Ethic,” page 264.

hammered the artifact called civilization.”239 Leopold‟s words fell mostly on deaf ears in the 1940s and 50s. But as the 1960s wore on, more people were willing to listen; and as blows the winds of the times, so blows the opinions of the politicians. Ergo, the image of Theodore Roosevelt got carried along into realms new and beautiful. This was an era of changing ideas; a transitional time between conservation and environmentalism. Visionaries like Aldo Leopold and certain scientists were beginning to understand the interconnectedness of the earth. Writers like Rachel Carson were doing their best to popularize these ideas in society and by 1961 these impulses had found expression in the early efforts of JFK. This era saw a dearth of use of the name of Theodore Roosevelt, but also the first time that two political parties both utilized his name to promote their programs. This was the beginning of a confusing time for the meaning of Roosevelt. With the changing times, came a changing perception of TR, and when the Eco-Age dawned, a new Theodore Roosevelt was born.

239 Ibid.

Our age is retrospective. It builds the sepulchers of the fathers. It writes biographies, histories, and criticism. The foregoing generations beheld God and nature face to face; we, through their eyes. Why should not we also enjoy an original relation to the universe? Why should not we have a poetry and philosophy of insight and not of tradition, and a religion by revelation to us, and not the history of theirs? Emblosomed for a season in nature, whose floods of life stream around and through us, and invite us, by the powers they supply, to action proportioned to nature, why should we grope among the dry bones of the past, or put the living generation into masquerade out of its faded wardrobe? The sun shines to-day also. There is more wool and flax in the fields. There are new lands, new men, new thoughts. Let us demand our own works and laws and worship. Undoubtedly we have no questions to ask which are unanswerable. We must trust the perfection of the creation so far as to believe that whatever curiosity the order of things has awakened in our minds, the order of things can satisfy.

-Ralph Waldo Emerson, “Nature”

CHAPTER V

THE ENVIRONMENTAL ERA, 1964-1980

I want to-day here in California to make a special appeal to all of you and to California as a whole, for work along a certain line- the line of preserving your great natural advantages alike from the standpoint of use and from the standpoint of beauty. If the students of this institution have not by the mere fact of their surroundings learned to appreciate beauty, then the fault is in you and not in the surroundings. Here in California you have some of the great wonders of the world. You have a singularly beautiful and singularly majestic scenery, and it should certainly be your aim to try to preserve for those who are to come after you that beauty, to try to keep unmarred that majesty. Closely entwined with keeping unmarred the beauty of your scenery, of your great natural attractions, is the question of making use of, not for the moment merely, but for future time, your great natural products. Yesterday I saw for the first time a grove of your tress, a grove which it has taken the ages several thousands of years to build up; and I feel most emphatically that we should not turn into shingles a tree which was old when the first Egyptian conqueror penetrated to the valley of the Euphrates, which it has taken so many thousands of years to build up, and which can be put to better use. That you may say is not looking at the matter from the practical standpoint. There is nothing more practical in the end than the preservation of beauty, than the preservation of anything that appeals to the higher emotions in mankind. But furthermore I appeal to you from the standpoint of use. A few big trees, of unusual size and beauty, should be preserved for their own sake; but the forests as a whole should be used for business purposes, only they should be used in a way that will preserve them as permanent sources of national wealth. -Theodore Roosevelt240

I wanted to continue the good work begun by Theodore Roosevelt, who broke through the barrier characterized by Speaker Joe Cannon‟s immortal words: „Not one cent for scenery.‟ -Lyndon Baines Johnson241

240 Excerpt from an Address to Leland Stanford, Jr, University, in Theodore Roosevelt, Addresses and Presidential Messages of Theodore Roosevelt, 1902-1904. (New York: G.P. Putnams‟s Sons, 1904): 193. 241 Lyndon Baines Johnson, The Vantage Point: Perspectives of the Presidency, 1963-1969. (New York: Holt, Rinenart and Winston, 1971): 336.

Introduction As the lengthy quotation by TR above indicates, Roosevelt was a man who believed in both preservation of certain wild things “for their own sake,” and the wise use of most other objects. Even those special items to be protected he described as “natural attractions.” What this speech makes clear, however, is that there was far more to TR than just wise-use/Pinchot-style conservation. There was a deeper side to the conservation policies of Roosevelt. That side was all but forgotten in the 1920s through the mid 1940s. A small minority of scholars and fringe public figures rediscovered this side in the era discussed in the previous chapter. In the era discussed in this chapter, however, that side exploded back onto the national stage. TR the preservationist was born again; and to some extent, born for the first time. The new versatility in the image of TR was instantly exploited. In 1964 conservation was a hot button issue in a political campaign for the first time and the stakes, as in all campaigns, were high. “Teddy‟s ghost itself was conjured up by both sides of several questions in 1964.”242 It was not the first time it happened, not even by both sides concurrently, but what was once an exception was about to become a rule. The 1960s and 70s were a turbulent era, remembered for their radical ideologies and a world beset with great changes (at least, remembered by those that were not having too much fun at the time). It was a time of controversial events and equally controversial figures. Historians and the public would tend to agree that overall Lincoln, Washington and Kennedy were among our good Presidents and Buchanan, Fillmore, and Harding were among our bad ones. Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Jimmy Carter have been called great and terrible; they have been reviled and vilified, and portrayed as great heroes and master statesmen. Gerald Ford, less controversial as a man, was even more controversial than the others as President; considering that he became both Vice- President and President without ever receiving a single vote, and then pardoned Richard Nixon.

242 George F. Gilder and Bruce K. Chapman, The Party That Lost Its Head. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966): 41. This particular book was referring more to TR‟s significance in terms of winning intellectuals over; the several questions referred to, however, included conservation.

Perhaps the Vietnam War, escalating concerns of thermonuclear war, the Civil Rights Movement or Watergate would be thought of as the seminal event in this period, but forgetting vanity, let it be said that a different upheaval was occurring at this time that in many ways encompassed thoughts and actions that would transcend the era and impact the earth itself more than any previous revolution: the Environmental Revolution. The science of ecology had been born some years earlier, and Rachel Carson had already begun to popularize it with her impassioned writings. Kennedy had begun a few of the programs that would evolve into a federal environmental policy. But it was for Kennedy‟s successors to truly bring ecology and environmentalism to the White House. In 1944, Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace wrote that “No one worries about conserving the air. Why should anyone give a thought to saving the land when there is plenty of if?”243 He was not being anti-conservationist; in fact, he advocated many important conservation reforms. At the time, predating environmentalism, air literally seemed infinite and inviolate by the hand of man. This era saw a revolution in thinking as to what was a resource and how conservation was bound up in the quality of life for the average American. With these green sciences came a fresh new image of Theodore Roosevelt. The emergent popularity of Carson and the late-Leopold had spurred a renewed interest in the almost forgotten works of John Muir, and this in turn led to a reawakening of the friendship between Muir and Roosevelt. As Presidents faced new challenges in their administrations in the realm of environmental protection, they turned once again to Roosevelt. Now that the word environmentalist had been invented, it seemed, there was finally a word worthy of describing Theodore Roosevelt.

Lyndon Baines Johnson What Kennedy started in his administration came to full flower under Johnson. Ecological concern was rising and for the first time the historiography includes numerous mentions of the word “environmentalism.” The movement was still young, however, and the concern for the esoteric aspects of nature remain superfluous to Johnson‟s other

243 Henry A. Wallace, Democracy Reborn: Selected from the Public Papers and Edited with an Introduction and Notes by Russell Lord. (New York: Reynal and Hitchcock, 1944): 112.

accomplishments.244 One historian‟s only mention of Johnson‟s interaction with the NPS, for example, is a cynical crack that LBJ donated his home to the Parks; not for the benefit of the people, but as a tax write off.245 Johnson himself may not have fully realized the importance of the rise of ecology, but by the end of his administration he understood that the National Parks represented an opportunity for immortalizing his contributions to the country and the Great Society he wanted to build. 246 In his recollections of his days as president, he is his own greatest admirer for his work with the environment in general and the Parks in particular. History has been slightly more critical and some question whether or not he can truly be considered an environmental president. In fairness, however, the ecological movement was the beneficiary of several environmental bills signed by Johnson and he did create a significant amount of new National Park land in general; in addition, he made an honest fight for Redwoods National Park specifically.247 The significant thing here is that LBJ represents a paradigm shift in conservation history. Johnson was very proud of his Parks, celebrated creating new park land during his last days in office and (for the first time with the only exception of Teddy Roosevelt) the historiography acknowledges these efforts. For the first time, having established National Parks was important to a president‟s legacy, and also for the first time was a president‟s environmental record becoming a measuring stick for assessing the

244 The background information on LBJ is taken from Alfred Steinberg, Sam Johnson’s Boy: A Close-Up of the President From Texas. (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1968). Ronnie Dugger, The Politician: The Life and Times of Lyndon Johnson. (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1982). Mitchell Lerner, ed. Looking Back at LBJ: White House Politics in a New Light. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2005). Philip Reed Rulon, The Compassionate Samaritan: The Life of Lyndon Baines Johnson. (Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1981). 245 Robert Dallek, Lyndon B. Johnson: Portrait of a President. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004): 366. 246 For his initial lack of interest see Lyndon B. Johnson, A Time for Action. (New York: Atheneum, 1964). Sam Houston Johnson, My Brother Lyndon. Ed. by Enrique Hank Lopez. (New York: Cowles Book Company, 1969). For his own recollection of his work with the NPs, see Johnson, The Vantage Point, 325- 339, 551 and 562. 247 For balanced histories of LBJ that place his conservation accomplishments within the context of his political strategy, see, Paul K. Conkin, Big Daddy From the Pedernales: Lyndon Baines Johnson. (Boston: Twayne, 1986): 209, 213, 234-5. Joseph A. Califano, Jr., The Triumph and Tragedy of Lyndon Johnson: The White House Years. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991): 330 and 338. At the invitation of Nixon, LBJ later visited Redwoods NP and then went to hear Nixon and family sing him Happy Birthday accompanied with a mariachi band. This must have been a confusing trip for the former president, but the author does indicate that both Johnson and Nixon appreciated what the Park meant to Johnson‟s legacy. Irwin Unger and Debi Unger, LBJ: A Life. (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1999): 510-1.

administration as a whole.248 Even more than this, it was at this point that monographs became available specifically linking the president to the environment (once again, TR is an exception to this rule, but it was only after Johnson that the practice remained common).249 Johnson‟s efforts on behalf of the environment were part of the larger whole of his Great Society reforms. This was a series of ambitious government programs that Johnson would devote a substantial amount of energy endorsing. Like so many before him, LBJ did not shirk away from using TR to bolster the credentials of his plan. In a press conference on 27 August 1966, LBJ said many of his programs had their origins under one of the two Roosevelts. As far as TR went, he said “I am a great admirer of the contributions he made to the Nation as you can see reflected in our conservation program.”250 Here, LBJ claimed that his work was both a continuation of, and homage to, the work of Theodore Roosevelt. Those that knew LBJ knew that he considered TR a personal hero (both for being a conservationist and a cowboy). Sometimes, those around LBJ wondered if he was getting as much respect for nature as he claimed and not more of the militarism of TR. One of LBJ‟s contemporaries claimed that he was trying to Rough Ride over Vietnam more than he was trying to be like Roosevelt the conservationist.251 In his memoirs, LBJ wrote that he was confident he would be remembered as a conservation President. He lamented not being able to do more, and recorded that “if none of the problems had existed that absorbed so much of the time and attention of my administration” then I would have been content to be simply a conservation President. My deepest attitudes and beliefs were shaped by a closeness to the land, and it was only natural for me to think of preserving it. I wanted to continue the good work begun by Theodore Roosevelt, who broke through the barrier characterized by Speaker Joe Cannon‟s immortal words: „Not one cent for scenery.‟ I wanted, as I once expressed it, to leave to future generations “a

248 The University Press of Kansas has a series of books profiling every president; in LBJ‟s edition are the first mentions of National Parks or environmentalism. Vaughn Davis Bornet, The Presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1983): 137 and 323. 249 This holds true also for those around the President, for an example, see Lewis L. Gould, Lady Bird Johnson: Our Environmental First Lady. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1988). 250 From George W. Johnson, ed. The Johnson Presidential Press Conferences Volume I. (New York: Earl M. Coleman Enterprises, 1978): 538. 251 Ronnie Dugger, The Politician: The Life and Times of Lyndon Johnson, The Drive for Power, from the Frontier to Master of the Senate. (New York: W.W. Norton and Co, 1982): 133-5.

glimpse of the world as God really made it, not as it looked when we got through with it.”252 But, LBJ noted, the world of conservation is different than in Roosevelt‟s day. It “could no longer be approached in the manner it had been in the time of Teddy Roosevelt.”253 To Johnson‟s way of thinking, “By the 1960s conservation embraced more than the preservation of land and the beautification of the countryside.”254 This is extremely interesting, since it implies that in the era of TR, conservation was a matter concerned with beautification efforts and land preservation. In a message to Congress, LBJ declared “A clear stream, a long horizon, a forest wilderness and open sky- these are man‟s most ancient possessions… In a modern society, they are his most priceless.”255 These possessions were the legacy of all Americans, and Johnson applauded “men of vision” like TR and Pinchot for having the foresight to protect them for future generations.256 Aesthetics and land protection were indeed part of conservation, but it was hardly the only part; and until Johnson, a marginal aspect of TR-style conservation in the minds of other Presidents. This is not to say that Johnson‟s definition of Roosevelt was wrong, but it certainly was different. This difference is accounted for in the changing times in society that was making a holistic approach to nature paramount, and downplaying the significance of efficiency for its sterile and dominating implications. This was the beginning of the Environmental Era, and LBJ was making an effort to be remembered as an Environmental President, but there were limits. Whatever Johnson felt about Theodore Roosevelt, it was not impressed upon many around him. Lady Bird Johnson, herself well remembered for her work in beautifying the nation, made no mention of TR‟s conservation work in her memoirs. Neither did Johnson‟s major advisors feel that TR was an important part of his mindset.257

252 Johnson, Vantage Point, 336. 253 Ibid., 336-7 254 Ibid. 255 Presidential Message to Congress, 8 March 1968, reprinted in Frank, E. Smith, General Editor. Conservation in the United States: A Documentary History. Vol. III: Land and Water, 1900-1970. (New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1971): 758. Interestingly, on page 746, the editor notes that this speech marked a “shift in emphasis” in conservation thinking in the 20th century. 256 Ibid. 257 Lady Bird. Johnson, A White House Diary. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970). Goldman, Tragedy of LBJ: lots of references to TR, but none relevant to conservation; author is the special consultant

Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford In the Nixon administration so began the era in which environmental policy was ubiquitous in politics. Presidents were judged by how well they treated the environment and passions ran high on every side of the issue. This is all not to say that Nixon was fully convinced of the importance to his legacy of conservation matters.258 Vietnam and Watergate hung heavily like the Sword of Damocles over Nixon and his legacy. Nixon did in fact seem to sense this and made speeches about the environment a recurring theme, if not the motif, of his pubic addresses, hoping that a positive environmental record may leave a more favorable impression of his administration in the history books. For instance, he gave a speech about the value of the National Parks to society during the 1968 campaign season. In the final assessment, Nixon was a friend of the environment, though perhaps not environmentalists.259 Nixon is also the focus of environmental history and even his major critics are forced to include the many accomplishments including fighting to protect Everglades National Park, enlarging the nation‟s wilderness lands and signing a great deal of environmental protection legislation.260 The historiography takes on a few interesting twists in the Nixon era. These matters came up in earlier biographies, but it was after JFK that they became the rule as

to LBJ. George Christian, The President Steps Down: A Personal Memoir of the Transfer of Power. (New York: Macmillan, 1970): among others, this author questioned how genuine he was in these efforts. George Christian, an advisor to LBJ, suggested that Johnson set aside very few acres compared to the millions suggested as a result of friction between him and Secretary Udall, which in turn was a result of Udall releasing press information on new parklands before Johnson had made an official decision, see pages 241- 2. In his memoirs, Johnson boasted of the land he set aside for permanent protection. He said he could have set aside 7 million acres, but that he thought it would be too much without the consent of Congress so he set aside 300,000 acres instead; see, Johnson, Vantage Point, 562. This does not detract from the good deed that Johnson did in setting aside the 300,000 acres, but does rather fly in the face of his declaration that he was taking after TR, since the Rough Rider President often flew in the face of Congress to put aside land, and never considered anything too much. 258 For some of Nixon‟s writings with nothing on the environment, see Richard Nixon, Leaders. (New York: Warner Books, 1982). For a sign of his uncertainty on the matter, see also Richard Nixon, RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon. (New York: Grosset and Dunlap, 1978): 533. 259 For Nixon‟s speech, see Richard Nixon, Nixon Speaks Out: Major Speeches and Statements by Richard M. Nixon in the Presidential Campaign of 1968. (New York: Nixon-Agnew Campaign Committee, 1968): 210-16. On his environmental policy, see Michael A. Genovese, The Nixon Presidency: Power and Politics in Turbulent Times. (New York: Greenwood Press, 1990). The background of his environmental accomplishments is derived from Jonathan Aiken, Nixon: A Life. (Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 1993): 395 and 398. 260 James Rathlesberger, ed. Nixon and the Environment: The Politics of Devastation. (New York: A Village Voice Book, 1972): 118-21.

opposed to the exception; naturally, these deal with environmental policies. For one, a fascinating little trick crops up in the literature about Richard Nixon. The strategy was omitting any discussion of the environmental legacy of the man to build a straw man opponent to attack at every level. Unbalanced histories are common, but this habit of completely ignoring the environmental politics of a president simply to further an attack became standard operating procedure in the Nixon era when passions were especially high. In truth, it did happen at least once to Johnson, but examples pile up for Nixon. The Watergate President also suffered the indignity of having his motives questioned at every turn.261 One historian suggests that although Nixon did not fight for environmental laws, he did at least understand their importance and the popularity it would gain him if he took credit for it. Another author postulates that Nixon‟s “motives were far from pure” but allows that he “was arguably the greenest president ever to occupy the White House.”262 It seems that the right thing done for the wrong reason is still the right thing. Richard Nixon happened to be a huge fan of Theodore Roosevelt. He enjoyed drawing parallels between himself and TR and loved quoting him. In a speech of 8 August 1968, he told a crowd that the majority of Americans “Like Theodore Roosevelt, they know that this country will not be a good place for any of us to live in unless it is a good place for all of us to live in.”263 Thus, he committed himself to pursuing Roosevelt‟s goal to make this a good country for everyone to live in. This is not to say that he always admired everything Roosevelt. Certainly, Nixon was not one who would be comfortable tramping through the woods with the hearty likes of a John Muir, but he still admired the first Roosevelt and emulated him in his style as Commander- in-Chief. Most commonly, Nixon expressed his feelings in his liberal use of Roosevelt as a source of quotations. “In the Arena” were perhaps Nixon‟s favorite three words in the English language when in that order. The quotation about the man in the arena, taking his licks while others look on and criticize, occurred twice in his memoirs and in several of Nixon‟s other published

261 Marvin E. Gettleman and David Mermelstein, eds. The Great Society Reader: The Failure of American Liberalism. (New York: Random House, 1967). 262 Frederick Rowe Davis, The Man Who Saved Sea Turtles: Archie Carr and the Origins of Conservation Biology. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007): 295. Quote from Ted Steinberg, Down To Earth: Nature’s Role in American History. 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009): 251. 263 Rick Perlstein, ed. Richard Nixon: Speeches, Writings, Documents. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008): 146-7.

books.264 Nixon was among our most prolific ex-Presidents and left behind him a wealth of increasingly rambling works of literature; each a blend of autobiography and political philosophy. He often expressed a kinship with TR on many issues, although seldom on conservation. Similarly, he frequently held TR up as a paragon of one virtue or another, but usually not on conservation.265 He did not always think of him in terms of conservation, but when he did, it reflected both the times and the man. Nixon was originally concerned that environmental activism may have been a passing fad, but he ultimately decided to pursue it with “the strenuous slogans of Theodore Roosevelt.”266 In a campaign speech in 1968, Nixon commented that Today, more than ever, the words “natural resources” have a double meaning. They refer not only to the riches with which we have been so abundantly blessed for our economic and technologic advantage, but to these resources as they exist for our psychological and spiritual advantage…. At the turn of the century, President Theodore Roosevelt inspired the American people to support public programs to protect and wisely use the resources of this country. These programs directed the nation to plan and look forward to future needs and future generations…. This is the time for a new commitment.267 A new commitment, Nixon said, to the principles of wise use and spiritual advantage, laid out by Theodore Roosevelt six decades earlier. This speech reflected a new, hybridized, image of Roosevelt that would persist to the present day; a mix of Pinchot-

264 For example, the last section of his collection of campaign speeches was titled “In the Arena,” see Nixon, Nixon Speaks Out. Other obvious examples abound in Richard Nixon, In the Arena: A Memoir of Victory, Defeat, and Renewal. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990). 265 Nixon, Memoirs, 109, 806, 1086 are all good examples of Nixon expressing a connection to TR. TR is held as a paragon of leadership and widely quoted in Nixon, Leaders, 345. Roosevelt figures prominently also in Nixon, In The Arena. Roosevelt is also quoted, again, not on conservation, in Richard Nixon, Seize the Moment: America’s Challenge in a One-Superpower World. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992): 288. Almost in all of Nixon‟s works is TR figured, or at least quoted. Two exceptions to this would be Richard Nixon, 1999: Victory Without War. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1988). And Richard Nixon, Beyond Peace. (New York: Random House, 1994). Surprisingly, the only mention of TR in the published Nixon press conferences is as a VP that became a great president; like Nixon himself, he would seem to suggest. See, George W. Johnson, ed. The Nixon Presidential Press Conferences. (New York: Earl M. Coleman Enterprises, 1978): 279. 266 William Safire, Before the Fall: An Inside View of the Pre-Watergate White House. (Garden City: Doubleday and Co, 1975): 553. 267 Originally published in Conservation News, 15 October 1968, reprinted in Richard Nixon, Nixon on the Issues. (New York: Nixon-Agnew Campaign Committee, 1968): 164-5. Interestingly, this book has an entire chapter devoted to Conservation issues. Again, Nixon was not the first in this respect to make conservation a key campaign issue, but he set a standard that became customary even after he was cast aside in disgrace.

style resource utilization and Muir-style reverence for nature. Johnson had come close, but Nixon was the first President to paint TR in this way in his public rhetoric. Strange, perhaps, that a man thought of so poorly by history would be the first to restore a historical balance to the conservation legacy of Roosevelt.268 In an address on CBS Radio on 18 October 1968, Nixon in many ways ushered in the height of the environmental era and the modern image of Theodore Roosevelt the Conservationist. Nixon said to his listeners that “We need lumber to build up our homes; but we also need untouched forest to refresh our spirit…. We need rivers for commerce and trade; but we also need clean rivers to fish in and sit by.” This combination of conservation and preservation was, by Nixon‟s word, going to become federal policy. And from where did the impetus for this start? With none other than Theodore Roosevelt, who “called upon the American people to preserve the natural heritage.” In the address, Nixon declared that he was the man to continue the great works of TR and “renew that call to bring to programs of conservation the techniques of the seventies.” Like so many before him, Nixon claimed that his policies would be in line with the desires of Roosevelt; but unlike his forbears, he was combining utilitarianism and aesthetics from the beginning of the argument, as though they were one and the same. The policies he was advocating (that derived he said, from TR) were a blend of traditional resource protection with new National Parks and enhanced funding for the creation and upkeep of urban green spaces.269 Nixon also impressed upon those around him how he felt about TR and the image he believed TR had, and which he wanted to emulate. One of Nixon‟s speech writers recalled that Nixon had great admiration for TR, which ultimately helped him decide to add conservation issues to his campaign.270

268 For a monograph which focuses on a similar theme, see Rathlesberger, Nixon and the Environment. 269 Reprinted in Nixon, Nixon Speaks Out, 210-2; Nixon‟s environmental policies are laid out on 212-6. 270 Safire, Before the Fall, 104. On page 688, the author writes that once Nixon was wondering which Presidents would be remembered. Nixon guessed it would be the ones who did something. Nixon had said, “Jackson fought the banks. Lincoln fought the war. Cleveland fought the Congress, and Teddy Roosevelt fought everything… What they all did mattered to history.” As an historian, its nice to know that the Great Men of which we write take the time to think about us. It was not universal that those around Nixon sensed any kind of connection between Nixon, TR and conservation however. Nixon‟s Chief of Staff, H.R. Haldeman recorded in his diary several conversations with Nixon where TR is mentioned in relation to topics such as public relations or the Nobel Peace Prize, but never conservation. See, H.R. Haldeman, The Haldeman Diaries: Inside the Nixon White House. (New York: G.P. Putnam‟s Sons, 1994): 125, 151, 168, 576. There is no mention of TR whatsoever in Kissinger‟s memoirs, not surprising considering that Kissinger‟s focus was foreign policy, but worth noting since he was such a close associate of the President.

More significantly than just painting a picture of TR to help to sell his policies, Nixon painted a picture of TR that had something past Presidents lacked: a touch of reality. To say that any President‟s image of TR was a lie, would itself be a lie; but Nixon gave a more rounded and nuanced account of the goals of Roosevelt. On 29 May 1969, Nixon announced the creation of the Environmental Quality Council and Citizens‟ Advisory Committee on Environmental Quality. The cumbersome names lacked creativity, but the thought was there. In the statement, Nixon quoted TR when he wrote: “The conservation of our natural resources and their proper use constitute the fundamental problem which underlies almost every other problem of our national life,” Theodore Roosevelt said in 1907. When men talked about conservation in his time, they usually singled out the wildlands, plant and animal life, and valuable minerals, for in these areas they saw the threat of scarcity. Resources such as the air or the water or the countryside itself were of less concern, for the supply and the quality of such things seemed invulnerable.271 Nixon believed that TR started important work, but that it was horse and buggy thinking by then. Surprisingly, the inclusion of concern for wildlands, first on Nixon‟s list of TR- style conservation, was omitted from the legacy of TR by Presidents from Taft to Eisenhower. Nixon, then, in essence was trying to place himself as the TR of the 1970s. He claimed that TR and associates “would be most surprised” by the modern threats to the environment. Nixon concluded the speech with a very Progressive Era endorsement of the soothing, paradoxical balm of technology that could have come straight from the mouth of TR: The deterioration of the environment is in large measure the result of our inability to keep pace with progress. We have become victims of our own technological genius. But I am confident that the same energy and skill which gave rise to these problems can also be marshaled for the purpose of conquering them. Together we have damaged the environment and together we can improve it.272

See, Henry Kissinger, White House Years. (Boston: Little, Brown and Co, 1979). Fun note, in his resignation speech, Nixon quoted TR which historian Edmund Morris wrote was “Apropos of absolutely nothing” but it did inspire the historian to pursue writing a teleplay of TR. See, Edmund Morris, Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan. (New York: Random House, 1999): 388-9. 271 Nelson Poynter, ed. Nixon: The First Year of His Presidency. (Washington D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1970): 106-A. The EQC was to be a Cabinet level body; the CZCEQ would be chaired by Laurance S. Rockefeller, famed philanthropist and conservationist. 272 Ibid., 107-A.

Richard Nixon‟s successor was Gerald Ford, the lovable Speaker of the House- cum-Vice President-cum-President. Ford is a short and rather bland caveat in between Nixon and Carter in terms of environmental history. In many ways, his policies and practices are more reminiscent of those in the Eisenhower era than in the Post-Nixon era.273 Ford, having a better sense of humor than most in his office, did comment about 1976 that if TR would be remembered for carrying a big stick then Carter would be for carrying a flyswatter; otherwise, he seldom invoked the name of Roosevelt.274 In one biography, the only mention of nature is the comment that during the Ford years “Environmental policy received short shrift.”275 It would seem that this could also be said of the practice of using Roosevelt‟s name to further an environmental policy.

James “Jimmy” Carter As the Environmental Movement reached full speed, the issue of the environment became a central theme for national politics and Carter was among the great champions. More land was put aside for National Parks during Jimmy Carter‟s administration than during every other administration combined; legislative efforts reached new heights from the White House to enact far-reaching environmental legislation. 276 In his own written accounts, he knew that what he had done for preserving the nation‟s remaining wild places in particular would be looked upon favorably by future generations and he was deservedly proud of what he had accomplished. Carter was liberal with the praise and had kind things to say for Grant, TR and Nixon for what they had done for the Parks and the environment, although he has nothing but contempt for George W. Bush‟s attitude towards nature. When all was said and done, Carter believed that his efforts in Alaska (where the majority of his park land was created) would go down as “one of the great

273 The background on Ford, as well as the impression that Ford was not overly concerning himself with conservationist matters comes from John Robert Greene, Gerald R. Ford: A Bibliography. (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1994): 78. See also, Yanek Mieczkowski, Gerald Ford and the Challenges of the 1970s. (Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 2005). For Ford‟s assessment, which follows this line as well, see Gerald R. Ford, A Time to Heal: The Autobiography of Gerald R. Ford. (New York: Harper and Row, 1979). 274 Ford, A Time To Heal, 428. 275 John Robert Greene, The Presidency of Gerald R. Ford. (Lawrence, University Press of Kansas, 1995): 85. 276 On these issues, see Peter G. Bourne, Jimmy Carter: A Comprehensive Biography from Plains to Postpresidency. (New York: Scribner, 1997). Burton I. Kaufman and Scott Kaufman, The Presidency of James Earl Carter. 2nd revised ed. (Lawrence: University of Kansas, 2006).

conservation laws of all time,” and he was glad to have gotten it through before the advent of anti-environmental administrations like Reagan and Bush II.277 Carter, along with Johnson and Nixon are identified as environmental presidents. This was a considerable rarity in the White House and was a godsend considering that the wild places of the country were about to enter quite a dry spell when Carter left office.278 Unlike Nixon, who did it often, Carter did not compare himself to TR very frequently. He believed that TR was a good example to follow as President: what one should do with the Bully Pulpit, and what one should not do in Panama.279 One important aspect of the written works of Carter is that he is the first President to ever write about John Muir outside of the context of TR. Muir was all but forgotten by Presidents for most of the 20th Century, but Carter noted that he enjoyed reading the writings of Muir (and Thoreau) as a young boy.280 There is at least one instance, however, in which Carter places his work squarely in line with the work Roosevelt would have wanted him to do. In a book, Endangered Values, Carter wrote about his great contribution to conservation in America by setting aside millions of acres for National Parks in Alaska (creating the first NPs there since what is now Denali was created under Woodrow Wilson). The struggle entailed and the values intertwined in that fight had a venerable pedigree. “The first national park, Yellowstone, was established during the administration of Ulysses S. Grant. Theodore Roosevelt and his successors expanded the system, and Richard Nixon signed legislation setting high purity standards for air and water.”281 This was the progression Carter followed right up to his own contribution.

277 Jimmy Carter, Our Endangered Values: America’s Moral Crisis. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2005): 164 and 168-9. Jimmy Carter, An Outdoor Journal: Adventures and Reflection. New Ed. (Fayetteville: The University of Arkansas Press, 1994). Quote from Douglas Brinkley, The Unfinished Presidency: Jimmy Carter’s Journey Beyond The White House. (New York: Viking, 1998: 26). 278 Samuel P. Hays, Explorations in Environmental History. (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1998): 383. 279 On Panama, see Jimmy Carter, Keeping Faith: Memoirs of a President. (Toronto: Bantam Books, 1982). On the Bully Pulpit, see Wesley G. Pippert, ed. The Spiritual Journey of Jimmy Carter: In His Own Words. (New York: Macmillan, 1978): 102. For a case of Carter not mentioning TR in any capacity, a rarity in this era, see Jimmy Carter, Turning Point: A Candidate, a State, and a Nation Come of Age. (New York: Times Books, 1992). 280 Carter, Outdoor Journal, 8. 281 Carter, Our Endangered Values, 164.

Contemporaries The era under consideration here was, like the previous one, a time of great transition. The Environmental Era may have been in full swing, but not every one was hopping on the band wagon. Many still held to traditional definitions of conservation and concomitant views of Theodore Roosevelt. One US Senator described conservation as the program undertaken by Roosevelt and Pinchot to protect forest resources against the exploiting grasp of the timber barons.282 This definition, accurate albeit wrought with omissions, would be expected to be found in any era. No discussions of spiritual rejuvenation or ecologic responsibility hint that it was muttered after the beginning of the Ecological Era. There were still many who preferred to see the past as utterly distinct from the present. This is, of course, not to say that these people were necessarily wrong, it is simply that they preferred to take a traditional view of the legacy of Theodore Roosevelt and continued to view him as a Pinchot-style conservationist, omitting the Muir-esque side of his history. Senator Albert Gore, father of the later Vice-President, wrote that, “We have come a long way in our thinking about national natural resources since the days of Theodore Roosevelt.”283 And indeed we had. These traditionalists carried on the vision of a President concerned with resource conservation and forestry that had persisted for decades, while others slowly began to change that image. For one thing, not everyone‟s ideas of conservation in the Environmental Era included TR at all. In Barry Goldwater‟s highly partisan account of “Saving the Earth” in a chapter of a book on the environment, he heaps praise upon Nixon and other contemporary Republicans for their legislative efforts. At the same time, he derides Democrats for being all rhetoric and no action. The twist is, even though TR was a Republican, he goes entirely unmentioned in these pages.284 This would seem to be more the exception as opposed to the rule, however. Robert Kennedy, the other Kennedy

282 Mark O. Hatfield, Not Quite So Simple. (New York: Harper and Row, 1968): 128. 283 Albert Gore, The Eye of the Storm: A People’s Politics for the Seventies. (New York: Herder and Herder, 1970): 105; though it should be noted that on page 90 he uses the terms conservation and preservation interchangeably, so even this may be a sign of changing perceptions of TR. Other traditional interpretations of TR include Smith, Conservation in the US, Vol 3: a collection of documents that includes notes on the relationship of TR and Pinchot, but no mention of Muir whatsoever. An image of TR as reclamationist, rather than anything more, can also be seen in the recollections of another US Senator, see Clinton P. Anderson, Outsider in the Senate: Senator Clinton Anderson’s Memoirs. (New York: World Publishing, 1970): 238. 284 Barry Goldwater, The Conscience of a Majority. (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1970): 216-22.

100

dynamo cut down before his time, associated TR with Thoreau: hardly a stretch today, but quite a surprise after so many decades of Thoreau being a nonentity outside of certain literary circles.285 A future Senator, who was a delegate at the 1964 Republican National Convention, displayed a shifting ethic when he declared that the ideology of certain right- wing extremists in the party included a “contempt for our environment [that] would have disgusted Theodore Roosevelt.”286 As in the previous era, scholars produced works on the natural resources of the country. Unlike in the previous era, John Muir became an important part of the story. One documentary history of conservation included three entries by Muir while only one each from Roosevelt and Pinchot.287 Other scholars were rediscovering Muir but keeping his work and legacy separate from that of TR. In most ways, Pinchot and TR were still a team and Muir was emerging as a separate entity to the story. Still, the influence was unmistakable. TR was being seen as a preservationist driven to stop degradation, who would be saddened by the destruction of nature going on in the modern era.288

285 Jack Newfield, Robert Kennedy: A Memoir. (New York: E.P. Dutton and Co, 1969): 48. The author was a journalist and friend of RFK. 286 Edward W. Brooke, Bridging the Divide: My Life. (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2007): 107-8. This blend of old and new perceptions of Roosevelt extended into the popular realm in this era as well. In three different articles in National Geographic, Pinchot was described as TR‟s partner in conservation, Muir was marked as the inspiration for Roosevelt‟s conservation work and Muir and Pinchot were placed at opposite ends of the debate. All three articles, though seemingly a paradox, are all quite correct, but each reflected a markedly different view of the conservationist ideas of TR. See, Peter White, T. “This Land of Ours- How Are We Using It?” Vol. 150, no. 1 (July 1976): 20-67. John J. Putnam, “Timber: How Much is Enough” Vol. 145, no. 4 (April 1974): 485-511. Harvey Arden, “John Muir‟s Wild America” Vol. 143, no. 4 (April 1973): 457. 287 Robert McHenry, with Charles van Duren, eds. A Documentary History of Conservation in America. (New York: Praeger, 1972). 288 This argument is made explicitly in Ann Sutton and Myron Sutton, The Wilderness World of the Grand Canyon: “Leave it as it is.” (Philadelphia, J.B. Lippincott, 1971): 51, 173 and 200. On Pinchot and TR still being seen as a natural team and Muir being a distinct entity, see Henry Clepper, ed. Origins of American Conservation: Edited for the Natural Resources Council of America. (New York: Ronald Press, 1966): 26, 39, 146-63 and 172. See also, Henry Clepper, ed. Leaders of American Conservation. (New York: The Ronald Press, 1971): 230-1 and 259. And Philip O. Foss, Conservation in the United States: A Documentary History: Recreation. (New York: Chelsea House, 1976): 159 and 255. For a book that integrates Muir into TR‟s conservation policies in a marginal way, see Peter Wild, Pioneer Conservationists of Western America. (Missoula: Mountain Press, 1979): 37 and 42. TR also saw his fame rise in the context of the National Parks, as he was often the only political figure mentioned in books about them. For an example, see William Matthews III, A Guide to the National Parks: Their Landscape and Geology. (Garden City: Doubleday, 1973): 332. In broader histories, Muir was still a non-entity, and Pinchot was being pushed into the background as his era receded into the past. For an example of a book with no mention of Muir and passing mention of Pinchot (despite significant focus on TR), see Forrest McDonald, The United States in the Twentieth Century: Volume I: 1900-1920. (Reading: Addison-Wesley,

101

What Was Happening At This Time? The 1960s were a revolutionary time. Perhaps the most significant transformation of the way society looked at the world was ecosystem theory coming to the masses. For the interested few, texts were available with complicated scientific explanations of ecosystem theory with a focus on its impact on biological management and conservation.289 If the formulas did not stump them, the totally unhelpful graphs usually would. Someone had to get the idea to the masses, even if in a watered down form. Over the course of the 1960s and 70s the experiments went from mostly practical to ever more theoretical and by the 1980s a grand ecosystem theory had emerged.290 All the while, with each little step forward, the implications of the ecosystem were filtering out to society. Environmentalists were becoming more powerful as the 1960s started. John F. Kennedy appointed Stewart Udall Secretary of the Interior mostly to appease the vocal minority of conservationists in the Democratic Party. Nevertheless, the movement was still very young. As discussed in the previous chapter, in 1963, President Kennedy went on a tour “to stress the value of the conservation ethic… often invoking the spirit of Theodore Roosevelt…” but it did not draw the crowds or cheers JFK was accustomed to. JFK got sick of that and began adding other issues into his speeches on the tour.291 Within a few years, though, the relatively unknown field of ecology would become one of the provocative issues that Presidents would flock to. The change had started under Kennedy, but the full shift in the societal position would not occur until Lyndon Baines Johnson was in the Oval Office. The change was a chilling, yet beautifully lyrical, glimpse at a dystopian future in which the Earth has been transmogrified into a nightmarish hell-scape, devoid of life and

1968). Also, see Oscar Theodore Barck, Jr. and Nelson Manfred Blake. Since 1900: A History of the United States in Our Times. 4th ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1965, originally, 1947). 289 For example, see M.B. Usher, Biological Management and Conservation Ecology: Ecological Theory, Application and Planning. (London: Chapman and Hall, 1973). 290 Stephen Bocking, Ecologists and Environmental Politics: A History of Contemporary Ecology. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997): 200-05. 291 Lewis J. Paper, The Promise and the Performance: The Leadership of John F. Kennedy. (New York: Crown Publishers, 1975): 239-40. On Udall‟s appointment, see Robert Dallek, An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963. (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 2003): 319-20.

102

populated by the damned, condemned to loneliness and inevitable extinction. Rachel Carson‟s Silent Spring was the Uncle Tom’s Cabin of ecology, and it opened the eyes of the nation. In combination with scientific specialists, Rachel Carson contributed to what Stewart Udall would call the “Era of Ecology.” A similar book actually came out several months ahead of Carson‟s, but it was full of cutting edge scientific information and inaccessible aspects of the as-yet-not-fully-formulated ecosystem theory. The book was too complicated and it flopped.292 It was the majesty of Carson‟s words in conjunction with the validity of her argument that won over the masses. Though Kennedy was, perhaps, the most famous man to read Carson‟s magnum opus, it was Lyndon Baines Johnson that first made a major step forward in acting upon it.293 Johnson may not have been the ally that the environmentalists wanted, but he did sign a fair amount of legislation in support of the cause and one historian claimed that besides the space program, the main legacy of the LBJ years was “the first critical turnaround in attitudes toward the environment.”294 LBJ went further and made adding to the National Parks one of the focuses of his last days in office and took an extreme amount of pride in what he had done for the environment by the end of his administration, even going so far as to call the Redwoods National Park legislation “the capstone bill of the 1960s.”295 Richard Nixon was the President at the height of the Environmental Movement and in many ways he embodied the best aspects of it. His efforts came on the heels of the ecological revolution, which was the social outcry to act on what scientists had discovered about the interconnectivity and interdependency of life on Earth. Historians, at least those without a vendetta, record Nixon as a great friend to the environment who

292 For a discussion of this theme, see G. Calvin Mackenzie and Robert Weisbrot, The Liberal Hour: Washington and the Politics of Change in the 1960s. (New York: The Penguin Press, 2008): 198-203. 293 Some historians tend to critically under evaluate the political aspects of this movement. For an example of an otherwise excellent account of the environmental movement that gives too little of the political dimension, see Roderick Frazier Nash, The Rights of Nature: A History of Environmental Ethics. (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1989). Others place the origins of the movement too early, see for example Neil M. Maher, Nature’s New Deal: The Civilian Conservation Corps and the Roots of the American Environmental Movement. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008). For an insider perspective on the impact of Silent Spring on the era and JFK especially, see Stewart C. Udall, The Quit Crisis and the Next Generation. (Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith Books, 1985): 200-11. 294 Conkin, Big Daddy From the Pedernales, 234-5. 295 Joseph A. Califano, Jr., The Triumph and Tragedy of Lyndon Johnson: The White House Years. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991): 338. For Johnson‟s self-assessment, see Johnson, The Vantage Point, 551 (for quote), 325, 336-9 and 562-3.

103

was ahead of his time in his sincere desire to protect the health of America‟s citizens and the natural world on which they relied.296 Nixon was a master at seeing the environment in terms of cost-benefit analysis and the rise of ecological science was “evolving toward an economic outlook” where scientific theory concerning the environment would recapitulate “the old agronomic conservation.”297 Ecosystem theory taught us that we simply could not afford not to spend money on the environment. It was this awakening that made the first Earth Day such a rousing success on 22 April 1970. Twenty million Americans took part and gave voice to a movement that had finally coagulated into a visible force. Thanks to Carson, the people were beginning to demand more of their leaders than simply resource conservation. The Environmental Movement has many founders, and different historians rank Johnson and Nixon differently when assessing them from an environmental standpoint; but it cannot be denied that Silent Spring opened Pandora‟s Box and that the people would never be able to live in total ignorance of their environment again. The consequence was wildlife protection programs built upon the foundation of ecosystem theory rather than on disjointed efforts to save individual species, and this had far ranging implications on the National Parks. As the idea of the wider environment began to take hold, concern cropped up for matters like insulation in the Parks, undreamt of mere years earlier.298 Slowly but surely, biology and ecology, like an invasive species, was starting to establish itself in the National Park concept. Guides that once would have had nothing more than geology under the title Science suddenly had a few paragraphs on life sciences, and not just a list of threatened or unique individual species, and this was just for the already established Parks. Future Parks would have a whole new theoretical conception behind their justification.299

296 Jonathan Aikens, Nixon: A Life. (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 1993): 398. For a critical appraisal of Nixon and the environment, see Rathlesberger, Nixon and the Environment. 297 Donald Worster, Nature’s Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas. 2nd ed. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994, originally 1977 by Sierra Club Books): 290. 298 For a general history of the changes in environmental laws in this time period, see Samuel P. Hays, Beauty, Health, and Permanence: Environmental Politics in the United States, 1955-1985. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987). 299 For an example, see Matthews III, A Guide To The National Parks, 39-45.

104

Conclusions So what? That is the question in the forefront of the issue. Ecosystem theory had come to the masses. Presidents were acting upon it for their political lives. Historians were bringing the environment into their methodology. Muir was back. What it all means is that society had undergone a rapid and profound change (what Kuhn would undoubtedly call a paradigm shift) and the image of Roosevelt was taken along for the ride. Whole new fields of science were created in this era and new opinions were formed about how society should interact with the environment.300 As the great conservationist, TR was a natural choice for poster boy for this movement. The image of TR that had been for decades focused on wise-use methods of conservation was now returning to the hybridization of utilitarianism and aestheticism that TR had tried to maintain in his lifetime. Perhaps some were playing fast and loose with the whole truth of the matter, but it would seem that a more complete picture of TR had come to light in this more than in any previous era. Now, a reader may want to accuse this scholar of writing a progressivist history in which incremental changes in an image lead irrevocably up to a modern idea. If this paper ended in 1980, then little defense could be offered to this accusation, but fortunately, time marches on. In the next era, ideas that had emerged (or reemerged) in this era, were taken to new levels and Roosevelt‟s image underwent yet another period of flux in which, more than ever before, he would be a validation for environmental polices used by politicians; this image also falling within the parameters proscribed by the scholars of the day.

300 Environmental Geology, for example, did not even exist before the 1970s, but in three years from invention was a full-fledged field with textbooks and journals. See the preface in Ronald W. Tank, Focus on Environmental Geology: A Collection of Case Histories and Readings from Original Sources. 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976).

105

The great challenge of the twenty-first century is to raise people everywhere to a decent standard of living while preserving as much of the rest of life as possible. Science has provided this part of the argument for the ethic: the more we learn about the biosphere, the more complex and beautiful it turns out to be. Knowledge of it is a magic well; the more you draw from it, the more there is to draw. Earth, and especially the razor-thin film of life enveloping it, is our home, our wellspring, our physical and much of our spiritual sustenance. -E.O. Wilson, The Creation

A thing of beauty is a joy forever: Its loveliness increases; it will never Pass into nothingness; but still will keep A bower quiet for us, and a sleep Full of sweet dreams, and health, and quiet breathing.

-John Keats, Opening Lines From Book 1 of Endymion

106

CONCLUSION

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE MODERN ERA

I need hardly say how heartily I sympathize with the purposes of the Audubon Society. I would like to see all the harmless wild things, but especially all birds protected in every way… Spring would not be spring without bird song, any more than it would be spring without buds and flowers, and I only wish that besides protecting the songsters, the birds of the grove, the orchard, the garden and the meadow, we could also protect the birds of the seashore and the wilderness… The destruction of the wild pigeon and the Carolina paraquet [sic] has meant a loss as severe as if the Catskills or the Palisades were taken away. When I hear of the destruction of a species I feel just as if all the works of some great writer had perished; as if we had lost all instead of only part of Polybius or Livy. -Theodore Roosevelt301

So history is basically kind to American Presidents. A model, I think… would be Teddy Roosevelt. He comes out of the same elitist background that I do. And he had the same commitment to the environment that I did, although the rules on hunting have changed dramatically since he used to shoot with no limits out there in South Dakota, or North Dakota. -George H.W. Bush302

Introduction In 1980, Theodore Roosevelt had been dead for over sixty years, and yet his fame was hardly diminished. Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and two George Bush‟s have passed through the halls of the Executive Mansion and now a fifth modern president, Barack Obama, has had his own inauguration parade. These have been the leaders entrusted with

301 Theodore Roosevelt, Letters and Speeches. Ed. by Louis Auchincloss. (New York: New York: Library of America, 2004): 167. 302 From an interview during a White House Luncheon for Journalists, 31 March 1989 in Jim McGrath, ed. Heartbeat: George Bush In His Own Words. (New York: Scribner, 2001): 57.

107

making the decisions that guide our society; they have been tasked with managing the environment in an era where ecology has gone from revolution to science, and they are the heirs to the name of Theodore Roosevelt in Presidential rhetoric. These five Presidents, are the next chapter in the history of the image of Theodore Roosevelt, and they paint a most fascinating picture. This chapter will analyze how Roosevelt is seen in the context of the modern environmental concern of the country and the exigencies of the modern Presidents. Fellow politicians and contemporary scholars play an important part in this story and form an integral part of the larger whole in understanding the differences between the image of Roosevelt in the 70s and that which came to predominance in the 1980s and 90s. This epilogue will also provide the opportunity to demonstrate that this thesis is not a progressivist flow through history arriving at a single unchallenged image that can be retrospectively applied backwards through time. Measuring past images against today reveals the differing levels of importance associated with a given issue in conservation history, but only as far as it can be acknowledged that the modern image itself is forever in flux.

The Modern Presidents Ronald Reagan is usually flatly dismissed as “staunchly anti-environmental” and that is the end of that.303 Reagan, for his part considered himself an environmentalist, but the evidence is starkly lacking, even in his own memoirs.304 What more can you expect of a man quoted as saying “trees cause pollution”?305 One thing, however, is certain when it

303 Hal K. Rothman, Blazing Heritage: A History of Wildland Fire in the National Parks. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007): 146. Some other works that criticize his environmental policies include Robin W. Winks, Laurence S. Rockefeller: Catalyst for Conservation. (Washington D.C.: Island Press, 1997): 94. W. Elliot Brownlee and Hugh Davis Graham, eds. The Reagan Presidency: Pragmatic Conservatism and Its Legacies. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2003): 236-46. It should be pointed out, however, that the purpose of this thesis is not to criticize the policy choices of Reagan pursuant to conservation. Indeed, the point is not to assign any value judgment as to whether Reagan was right or wrong in what he did; or if he perhaps did the wrong thing for the right reason. Rather, the point is to discuss the manner in which the image of Theodore Roosevelt was utilized by Reagan, and those around them, and how they defined the cowboy President. 304 On being an environmentalist see Kiron K. Skinner, Annelise Anderson and Martin Anderson., eds. Reagan: A Life in Letters. (New York: The Free Press, 2003): 350-5. To see the lack of evidence see Ronald Reagan, The Reagan Diaries. Ed. by Douglas Brinkley. (New York: Harpers Collins, 2007). 305 Quote from Dinesh D‟Souza, Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader. (New York: The Free Press, 1997): 14. For a book that conveniently ignores his environmental record see

108

comes to Ronald Reagan: he looked to TR as a figure to emulate. TR, the tough-guy cowboy who thumbed his nose at elites, was exactly the image Reagan went for in his political life. He often quoted TR and was quick to point out that he held a deep admiration for him as well.306 Reagan also had something in common with TR that no other President can boast: they both had the eminent Edmund Morris as a biographer. In his diary, Reagan noted that he was very pleased to have Morris as his official biographer, since he loved his book on TR; he only lamented that “I can‟t charge up San Juan Hill.”307 He wanted to take after TR, and in many ways he did (few brandished a big stick in foreign policy like Reagan could). Supporters made every effort to legitimize the link between TR and Reagan, most logical but some far-fetched; one went so far as to make the ludicrous claim that not only did TR want Hetch Hetchy to be a reservoir, but that he was a life long enemy of John Muir and his Sierra Club.308 This was a thinly veiled attempt to justify Reagan‟s incessant problems with the Sierra Club as excused by presidential precedent. Reagan did take pains to divorce the image of TR the Cowboy from TR the Conservationist. Whenever Reagan was called upon to give a speech concerning environmentalism, of which some were quite admirable, Roosevelt‟s name is completely absent. In an earlier era, Reagan may have been more free to use the name of TR, since his policies revolved far more around use than protection, but as was made clear in the previous chapter, there was now a substantial groundswell of support for the image of TR the Consummate Preservationist; a policy antithetical to Reagan doctrine.309 Despite official silence on the topic, those around Reagan were quick to favorably compare the current President with TR in terms of conservation. James Watt, the

Peter J. Wallison, Ronald Reagan: The Power of Conviction and the Success of his Presidency. (Cambridge: Westview Press, 2003). 306 For example, see a letter dated 1972 in Skinner, Reagan: A Life in Letters, 266-7. One historian suggested that Reagan admired TR since he was the other cowboy President (besides himself). See, Anne Edwards, The Reagans: Portrait of A Marriage. (New York: St. Martins‟ Press, 2003): 276. 307 Entry dated 5 Nov 1985 in Reagan, The Reagan Diaries, 366. For the finished product, see Edmund Morris, Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan. (New York: Random House, 1999). 308 Garry Wills, Reagan’s America: Innocents at Home. (Garden City: Doubleday and Co, 1987): 317. Other historians took a similar, but less idiotic, approach to modifying history. For example, one historian praised TR for inventing the modern photo-op on his trip to Yosemite NP in 1903 to “dramatize” his commitment to conservation. See, Jane Mayer and Doyle McManus, Landslide: The Unmaking of the President, 1984-1988. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1988): 34. 309 For a speech about environmentalism that stresses the importance of use and the dangers of “locking up” resources, and includes no mention of TR, see Ronald Reagan, Ronald Reagan Talks to America. (Old Greenwich: The Devin Adair Co, 1983): 142-51.

109

controversial Secretary of the Interior, contended that the Reagan administration followed the conservation traditions of Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot. That tradition, he said was using natural resources wisely for the betterment of the people.310 Watts was not alone in trying to trace modern Republican conservation to TR; some compared TR and Reagan as “kindred spirits” who shared a love of the outdoors and rugged individualism.311 At least one author took it a step further to claim that Reagan admired the “pro-environment policies” of Theodore Roosevelt and was inspired while Governor of California to follow in this tradition and pass anti-smog and pollution laws. The author noted, however, that Reagan opposed any move that would have protected wilderness at the expense of economic development.312 When Reagan passed the mantle of leadership, it meant succeeding to both his office and his legacy of new Republican conservatism. This mantle was taken up by a surprisingly able individual. For George H. W. Bush‟s part, when he was asked about his role model as President, he responded: “So history is basically kind to American Presidents.” A model, I think… would be Teddy Roosevelt. He comes out of the same elitist background that I do. [Laughter] And he had the same commitment to the environment that I did, although the rules on hunting have changed dramatically since he used to shoot with no limits out there in South Dakota, or North Dakota.313 This quote emphasizes a multifaceted view of TR‟s presidency. It is apparent that TR has lost none of his glamour when it comes to bringing prestige to a President; but, more than the bully pulpit or the big stick,314 what George Bush associates first and foremost with TR is the environment. The quip about hunting indicates that Bush understands that there

310 Despite trying to make this connection, Watt‟s policies quickly earned him the ire of environmentalists and caused a great many problems for Reagan. See, William E. Pemberton, Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan. (Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, 1997): 120-1. 311 It was a friend and high ranking member of Reagan‟s administration that compared him and TR. He also noted that Reagan enjoyed reading about TR more than any other President. See, Michael K. Deaver, Behind the Scenes: In Which the Author Talks About Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan… and Himself. (New York: William Morrow, 1987): 46. For an attempt to claim Pinchot as the origin of modern Republican conservation, see Lou Cannon, Reagan. (New York: G.P. Putnam‟s Sons, 1982): 369. 312 Part of the argument from Lee Edwards, The Essential Ronald Reagan: A Profile in Courage, Justice, and Wisdom. (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005). 313 From an interview during a White House Luncheon for Journalists, 31 March 1989 in McGrath, Heartbeat, 57. 314 These clichés are the focus of Bush‟s Vice-President‟s image of TR. See, Dan Quayle, Standing Firm: A Vice-Presidential Memoir. (Zondervan: Harper Collins, 1994): 94 and 165.

110

is a difference between the commitments both men felt for nature, but those can be dismissed as trifling details. Of course, it‟s important to not overstate the matter. TR meant many things to many people and Bush did not pigeon hole him into a singular role as conservationist. Also, unlike Richard Nixon, Bush did not feel compelled to mention TR in every thing he ever wrote. In Nixon‟s day, TR was the most famous/recent Republican President (second only to Lincoln) so it was to be expected that he would bring up his illustrious predecessor often. Bush had Ronald Reagan to bring up (a man whose fame and popularity among the masses arguably matched Lincoln‟s and easily surpassed Roosevelt‟s). This, in some ways, adds significance to Bush‟s reference to TR, but it also explains the occasional dearth.315 This detracts not at all from the dual facts that Bush hoped to turn out like TR in terms of presidential legacy and that he saw both himself and TR as environmental and activist Presidents.316 Not many Presidents in the 20th Century failed to be reelected for a second term, but George Bush was one of the inauspicious few. He was succeeded by William “Bill” Clinton, the saxophone-playing come back kid from Arkansas. His Vice-President was Al Gore, a man whose name has become synonymous with the Global Warming debate. It would seem that, since George Bush had taken such a hold on TR, that Clinton and Gore kept a respectful distance during the campaign. Even on the topic of the environment, in which Bush had gotten so much mileage, Clinton refrained from using the name of TR to promote his policies.317 After reelection, Clinton repurposed the image of TR and began

315 For examples, TR is not a significant entity in George Bush and Brent Scowcroft. A World Transformed. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998). Or, Jeffrey A. Engel, ed. The China Diary of George H. W. Bush: The Making of a Global President. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008). In another collection, the only mention of TR is that Bush is reading and enjoying the memoirs of TR. See, George Bush, All the Best, Gg Bush: My Life in Letters and Other Writings. (New York: Scribner, 1999): 423. Despite her husband‟s interest in TR, Barbara Bush displayed no particular feelings on TR in any context. See, Barbara Bush, Barbara Bush: A Memoir. (New York: Lisa Drew Book, 1994). And Barbara Bush, Reflections: Life After the White House. (New York: Lisa Drew Book, 2003). 316 On turning out like TR, see Michael Duffy and Dan Goodgame, Marching in Place: The Status Quo Presidency of George Bush. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992): 136. On Bush seeing TR as an environmental President, see Charles Kolb, White House Daze: The Unmaking of Domestic Policy in the Bush Years. (New York: The Free Press, 1994): 338. 317 For example, see the section on the environment in Bill Clinton and Al Gore, Putting People First: How We Can All Change America. (New York: Times Books, 1992): 93-9. For a parallel image of Clinton and TR outside the context of conservation, see James MacGregor Burns and Georgia J. Sorenson, Dead Center: Clinton-Gore Leadership and the Perils of Moderation. (New York: Lisa Drew Book, 1999). See

111

actively comparing himself to Roosevelt. He hoped others would follow suit as he sought a promising place in the annals of history.318 To an extent, it worked. One of the White House correspondents wrote that among Clinton‟s most important accomplishments was “the greatest conservation of natural resources and public lands since Theodore Roosevelt.”319 After his term was over, Clinton liked to compare his work to Roosevelt‟s, but he did not extend his definition of Roosevelt-style conservation much beyond the creation of National Monuments and protected land. He was proud that he had created three new National Monuments and placed so much land under federal protection, and in so doing did his best “to be faithful to Roosevelt‟s conservation ethic and to his admonition that we should always be taking what he called „the long look ahead‟.”320 This indicates some small confusion on Clinton‟s part concerning the difference between conservation and preservation, and is a surprising reversion of Roosevelt‟s image. This sort of confusion would become common practice throughout this era. It should be stressed that Clinton‟s image of TR was not wrong. The significant point is that it is starkly different from the image of TR created by George Bush (which itself was not necessarily wrong). These two men chose to focus on different aspects of Roosevelt‟s personality and in so doing created two divergent images of the same man. Al Gore‟s estimation of Roosevelt was similar to Clinton‟s. Gore once opined that Roosevelt‟s conservation ethic was “combining the use of needed resources in the short term with conservation for future generations.”321 Gore claimed that the Clinton administration followed this ethic and boasted that they had protected as much land as TR

also, John D. Gartner, In Search of Bill Clinton: A Psychological Biography. (New York: St. Martin‟s, 2008). 318 John F. Harris, The Survivor: Bill Clinton in the White House. (New York: Random House, 2005): 242- 3; although this author is not convinced of the parallels. Clinton was not alone in this drive. Newt Gingrich, particularly in the early years of his career, called himself a “Teddy Roosevelt Republican” and he pursued several conservation initiatives including joining with environmental groups calling for the resignation of James Watt and supporting legislation to ban oil prospecting on protecting lands in Alaska. See, Steven M. Gillon, The Pact: Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and the Rivalry That Defined a Generation. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008): 56. 319 Sidney Blumenthal, The Clinton Wars. (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2003): 789. 320 Bill Clinton, My Life. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004): 888 and 948; conservation and preservation are also confused on page 728. 321 Al Gore, The Assault on Reason. (New York: The Penguin Press, 2007): 198. Hillary Clinton, closer to politics than most First Ladies, did not share the enthusiasm for TR, at least concerning conservation, as no mention is made of it in Hillary Rodham Clinton, Living History. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2003).

112

had. This creates another interesting difference between Bush and Clinton. Whereas Bush had wanted to be like TR, emulating his conservation work, Clinton and Gore seemed to be in competition with TR; they were interested in surpassing him, not idolizing him. The grand confusion outlined above illustrates a sudden uncertainty as to what precisely Roosevelt‟s legacy was. As has been made apparent in the last several chapters, the important aspect of TR-style conservation has been perceived to be a commitment to wise-use of resources and, after 1960, a concern for the protection of certain aesthetically pleasing scenery. But after the 1980s, the utilitarian aspect of TR was beginning to be forgotten altogether and what had heretofore been a footnote or, at best, portion, of TR- style conservation suddenly became the entirety. US Senator Paul Simon wrote a letter, ostensibly to Clinton, in which he mentioned that TR had led the charge to create the National Park System.322 Another author of the 1990s defined conservation as the effort which “pits any human activity, however benign in its ecological effect, against the natural, non-human world.” Moreover, he claimed that TR and Pinchot championed this program of defending all public lands from any sort of use or incursion by “private, human incursion.”323 Even scholars of the time occasionally gaffed. One writer mentioned the “Grand Canyon and other national parks” that TR created, where in truth TR made the Grand Canyon a National Monument, which later became a National Park.324 Like several Presidents before them, both George W. Bush and Barack Obama described TR as one of their heroes and among their favorite Presidents. Also, like many

322 Paul Simon, We Can Do Better: How to Save America’s Future- An Open Letter to President Clinton. (Bethesda: National Press, 1994): 235. The idea that TR was the main impetus behind the NPS (actually created in 1916 under Woodrow Wilson) was a new idea in this era and relatively widespread; it also became dominant in the image of TR in works not focusing on conservation. For example, see Clyde Prestowitz, Rogue Nation: American Unilateralism and the Failure of Good Intentions. (New York: Basic Books, 2003): 114. One author describes TR‟s most enduring accomplishments as the Panama Canal and the National Park System in Bob Zelnick, Gore: A Political Life. (Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 1999): 342. 323 Richard Caplan and John Feffer, ed. State of the Union 1994: The Clinton Administration and the Nation in Profile. (Boulder: Westview, 1994): “Achieving Sustainability” by Barry Commoner, 139. Commoner also “explains” that environmentalism keeps in mind the good that human activity can do for the land. In essence, his definitions are the exact opposite of everyone else‟s. To back up his claims about TR and Pinchot, he cites a book he wrote himself. 324 Gail Sheehy, Hillary’s Choice. (New York: Random House, 1999): 273.

113

before him, Bush utilized Roosevelt‟s name in support of his environmental policies.325 Bush, in the days before his inauguration, read a book of quotes by TR and told those around him that he looked to TR and Reagan as the two role models he would emulate in the White House.326 Some social commentators were convinced that Bush was inspired by the Big Stick policy of TR, especially in terms of diplomacy, after reading Edmund Morris‟ biography of the Cowboy President.327 Following Bush into the White House, Barack Obama, in his book, referenced TR quite often dealing with issues such as trust- busting and enforcement of the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. He does not make any mention of conservation relevant to TR, however.328 TR was a role model for others in this era, such as Senator Al D‟Amato, who respected TR for being weak in childhood and overcoming that adversity to grow up “to become a big-game hunter and one of our most outstanding presidents.”329 Joseph Lieberman also described TR as a hero for his Bull-Moose approach to politics and for his honesty and integrity.330 On the other hand, other politicians were taking full advantage of the prestige TR could lend to a candidate‟s environmental credentials. Mitt Romney once said that one of the greatest Presidents was TR because of “his love for the land, his conservation.”331 Senator Bill Bradley praised Roosevelt‟s tireless efforts to protect forests from miners, cattlemen, and timber cutters, and vowed to follow in those

325 Eric Alterman and Mark Green. The Book on Bush: How George W (Mis)leads America. (New York: Viking, 2004): 5 and 24. These authors feel that Bush‟s actions do not match his deeds when it comes to a TR-like environmental policy. Other authors, on their own, decided that Bush and those in his Cabinet, were betraying the legacy of TR and Nixon in terms of Republican environmentalism. See, Laura Flanders, Bushwomen: Tales of a Cynical Species. (London: Verso, 2004): 243. 326 Jacob Weisburg, The Bush Tragedy. (New York: Random House, 2008): 228-9. Karl Rove, an important figure in the Bush administration, was also said to have considered TR his “patron saint.” See, James Moore and Wayne Slater, The Architect: Karl Rove and The Master Plan For Absolute Power. (New York: Crown, 2006): 96. 327 Or at least skimming it, added the author. See, Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2004): 52. 328 Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream. (New York: Crown, 2006): 153, 282 and 293. 329 Al D‟Amato, Power, Pasta & Politics: The World According to Senator Al D’Amato. (New York: Hyperion, 1995): 37. In the Foreword (p.xii) Bob Dole says D‟Amato emulates TR‟s quest for what is right. 330 Joseph I. Lieberman, with Michael D‟Orso. In Praise of Public Life. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000): 40 and 52. 331 Quoted in Hugh Hewitt, A Mormon in the White House? (Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2007): 37-8.

114

fearless footsteps that had created new National Forests in the face of Congressional opposition.332 In 2000 John McCain was asked why a conservative might act like a liberal. He responded that it was necessary when it was the right thing to do. He was quoted as saying “Theodore Roosevelt thought there was a need for national parks; I believe there‟s a need for campaign finance reform.”333 It should be noted that McCain did not claim that he believed in national parks, just that TR did (it could also be noted that TR was more a champion of National Forests than of National Parks); but McCain was using the image of TR the conservationist to promote his image as a politician concerned with doing what was right. McCain did often work in favor of the environment, however, and loved to identify himself with TR. He often called TR his hero and was quoted as saying “Roosevelt was the Great Reformer, the Great Environmentalist. I think that I adhere closer to these principles than some of my colleagues.”334 Like the first George Bush, McCain stuck to an image of TR as preservationist and wanted to emulate that image in his own political career.

Epilogue The image of TR used in presidential rhetoric, has undergone many dramatic changes. It should not require argument to say that TR was a great conservationist; he was also a great preservationist. His contributions to resource protection, the extension of the National Forests, Parks, and Monuments, creation of federal animal refuges and reserves, new laws for protecting resources, and not least his successful efforts (some without even trying) to popularize the great outdoors; this was what he left to posterity.

332 Bill Bradley, Time Present, Time Past: A Memoir. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1996): 220-1. It should be noted that Bradley conflates TR, Muir, Pinchot and Leopold as all simply conservationists; another sign of the times and the widespread confusion concerning nuances in conservation philosophy. One shocking exception to modern politicians using TR to further their environmental credentials is a biography of Russell E. Train which references TR but not in conservation terms. See, J. Brooks Flippen, Conservative Conservationist: Russell E. Train and the Emergence of American Environmentalism. (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2006). 333 Quoted in Roger Simon, Divided We Stand: How Al Gore Beat George Bush and Lost the Presidency. (New York: Crown Publishers, 2001): 88. 334 Quotation from Paul Alexander, Man of the People: The Life of John McCain. (Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons, 2003): 347, see also 305. See also, Elizabeth Drew, Citizen McCain. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2002): 71. A slightly different interpretation of McCain‟s feelings about TR can be found in Matt Welch, McCain: The Myth of a Maverick. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007): xvi. xix, and 135-52.

115

Those that worked alongside him acknowledged these accomplishments; indeed, they too had fought hard for these initiatives. The millions of acres put aside from sale and placed under permanent protection of the federal government was obviously going to become a significant part of his legacy. His legendary personality, reveling in the wild places of the continent, was certain to inspire future Americans. It is evident that TR was a catalyst. Pinchot may have been the master of wise-use planning, and Muir was many times the spiritualist TR was, but Roosevelt was the idol of the American people; he inspired generations in a way matched only by the likes of JFK. TR occupied the highest office in the land and, perched upon his “bully pulpit,” expounded his philosophies to the public. Additionally, TR was instrumental in safeguarding the progress of conservation. The federal programs and institutions created in his tenure insured the future efforts of the government in perpetuating these hard won reforms. These facts are not in dispute. The question that has been addressed here has been: What has the image of TR meant to conservation for the last century? What role, in other words, has TR played in conservation from beyond the grave? How has his name carried on the fight for the natural resources of our country even now that his tongue has been silenced? The image was an indefatigable warrior, ready for mobilization to any cause, under any commander, heedless of partisanship. It has been demonstrated how that image has been used in different eras by different figures for different reasons. In the 1920s and 1930s, the excesses of the first decade and exegeses of the second, turned the populace away from the esoteric attractions of the wilds and highlighted the importance of resources (both for economic expansion and economic salvation). In this era, TR the Resource Conservationist shone through: a man devoted to better stocked fisheries, more protected coal lands, and even predator control to ensure plenty of delicious deer. At the same time, TR the Preservationist, the man who passed time with John Muir and filled the wilds with exclamations of “Bully” in a lusty baritone, that image passed through a nadir, forgotten by all but a precious few. In the post-World War II years, the prosperous and victorious Americans were looking for a new life, replete with new, higher standards of living; this meant an interest in the land around them. In that time before ecology, it meant that the focus of society was still on the protection of resources, but now scenery

116

was seen as a resource unto itself (known, in fact, by TR). Thus rose TR the Defender of Scenery. After the advent of environmentalism, TR the Environmentalist was born; the inchoate image of past decades completed by the science of ecology. As Americans found new things to concern themselves with in relation to their environment, so did Roosevelt‟s image find new applications. This led to confusion as to whether TR was a conservationist or a preservationist, and moreover, what the difference was between the two. As recently as the 1990s, a scholar commented that “Historically the word „conservation‟ had meant the preservation of America‟s natural treasures in national parks, national forests, and wilderness. Its heroes were John Muir, Theodore Roosevelt, Gifford Pinchot...”335 This author subsumes Muir and Pinchot both into the category of conservationist. Indeed, wilderness and National Parks were an aspect of Roosevelt‟s policies in the White House, but his efforts on their behalf certainly paled in comparison compared to those for the National Forests. This notwithstanding, we have seen that “historically” the concept of conservation was focused not on wilderness or even parklands, but resource protection, the wise use of land, and a thrifty utilitarianism. Aesthetics has been an important side issue and fringe to the central theme of conservation for decades. This idea, though, has in turn been relegated to the dust-bin of history. The above quoted scholar is quite correct in his definition; what has been made clear in the preceding chapters is that it took society a century to arrive at this conclusion, and this conclusion is no more likely to stay stable than those of previous eras. Over eighty years ago, a contemporary of TR, Senator Chauncey Depew, observed that it would be difficult to determine how history would record the personality of Roosevelt on account of “the idealization which sometimes though rarely occurs in regard to public men.”336 Has this idealization occurred with Theodore Roosevelt in political discursive methods? Perhaps it has, but the point should not be so much overstated as to obscure an important truth. The image of Roosevelt that exists today did not spontaneously appear from a historical void; it is an image created with the serious

335 Irving Bernstein, Guns or Butter: The Presidency of Lyndon Johnson. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996): 265. 336 Chauncey M. Depew, My Memories of Eighty Years. (New York: Charles Scribner‟s Sons, 1924, originally 1921): 158.

117

efforts of scholars and laced by the expectations and necessities of the people and the leaders they elect. The image of TR that exists today is a hybrid of the image of the wise- use conservationist that existed throughout the century, and the image of TR as an environmentalist before environmentalism that has been constructed over the past couple decades by public and scholarly figures retrospectively assigning to TR ecological motives for his actions. Finding a hero figure in TR, the image of him has shed certain unpleasant aspects, such as predator control, in favor of a more earth friendly ideal. 337 It should be stressed again that it is in no way being suggested that the image we have of TR is just a myth, or wrong, or ahistorical. This thesis suggests only that the image of TR in various eras, including the present, is a socially constructed idea derived from focusing on the aspects of Roosevelt‟s life that best resonate with concerns relevant to contemporary society. The Modern Roosevelt, as it were, is the Roosevelt that exemplifies our beliefs in how the earth should be treated. Roosevelt stood for predator control in the 1930s just as he now does for protection of our Redwood forests in California. TR was not asked how he felt about these issues in these times, since he was dead, but those that use his image have believed that TR would be the first to grasp onto a philosophy at the cutting-edge of conservation. Gifford Pinchot is often quoted as saying “Conservation means the greatest good to the greatest number for the longest time.” This philosophy TR ascribed to and tried to apply it to the nation‟s resources to the best of his ability. Over the past century there have been many questions: What is the greatest good land can be put to: oil production or parkland? Who is the greatest good: the millions of impoverished of today or the millions yet unborn that could be impoverished by careless use of resources? When is the longest time we should plan for: a program to see returns this decade or this century or even longer? Herbert Hoover had his answers; so did Richard Nixon; and right now Barack Obama does as well. Which are right and which are wrong is difficult to say. What can be said with confidence, however, is that the very embodiment of these questions is

337 For a look at this image of TR in the popular literature of this era that discusses TR as a game preservationist but divorces him from matters of predator control, see Robert M. Poole, “Hunters: For Love of the Land,” National Geographic Vol. 212, No. 5 (Nov. 2007): 112-39; especially 130. An even more blatant presentation of TR as a preservationist, can be found in an essay by conservationist Michael Fay: J. Michael Fay, “The Redwoods Point the Way,” National Geographic Vol. 216, No. 4 (Oct. 2009): 60-3; especially 63.

118

Theodore Roosevelt. And so long as there are citizens who remember his name, and so long as there is an environment to protect, his name will continue to play a role in the rhetorical strategies of the conservation policy-makers of our nation and our world.

119

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary

Anderson, Clinton P. Outsider in the Senate: Senator Clinton Anderson’s Memoirs. New York: World Publishing, 1970.

Andrews, Wayne, The Autobiography of Theodore Roosevelt: Condensed from the Original Edition, Supplemented by Letters, Speeches, and Other Writings. New York: Charles Scribner‟s Sons, 1958.

Bacon, Robert and James Brown Scott, eds. Men and Policies: Addresses by Elihu Root. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1925.

Bishop, Joseph Bucklin, ed. Theodore Roosevelt’s Letters to His Children. New York: Charles Scribner‟s Sons, 1923.

Bradley, Bill. Time Present, Time Past: A Memoir. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1996.

Brands, H.W., ed. The Selected Letters of Theodore Roosevelt. New York: Cooper Square, 2001.

Brooke, Edward W. Bridging the Divide: My Life. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2007.

Buhite, Russell D. and David W. Levy. FDR’s Fireside Chats. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1992.

Burton, David H, General Editor. The Collected Works of William Howard Taft. Athens: Ohio University Press, 2002.

Bush, George. All the Best, Gg Bush: My Life in Letters and Other Writings. New York: Scribner, 1999.

Butt, Archibald Willingham, ed. Taft and Roosevelt: The Intimate Letters of Archie Butt, Military Aide. Vol. I. Garden City: Doubleday, Doran and Co, 1930.

Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962.

Carter, Jimmy. Our Endangered Values: America’s Moral Crisis. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2005.

Chase, Harold W. and Allen H. Herman, eds. Kennedy and the Press: The News Conferences. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co, 1965.

120

Christian, George. The President Steps Down: A Personal Memoir of the Transfer of Power. New York: Macmillan, 1970.

Clinton, Bill and Al Gore. Putting People First: How We Can All Change America. New York: Times Books, 1992.

Clinton, Bill. My Life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004.

Coolidge, Calvin. The Price of Freedom: Speeches and Addresses. New York: Charles Scribner‟s Sons, 1924.

------. Foundations of the Republic: Speeches and Addresses. Freeport: Books for Libraries Press, 1926.

Cronon, E. David, ed. The Cabinet Diaries of Josephus Daniels, 1913-1921. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1963.

------, ed. The Political Thought of Woodrow Wilson. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Co, 1965.

Cullom, Shelby M. Fifty Years of Public Service: Personal Recollections of Shelby M. Cullom, Senior United States Senator From Illinois. Chicago: A.C. McChery and Co, 1911.

D‟Amato, Al. Power, Pasta & Politics: The World According to Senator Al D’Amato. New York: Hyperion, 1995.

Daniels, Josephus. The Wilson Era: Years of Peace – 1910-1917. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1944.

Davidson, John Wills, ed. A Crossroads of Freedom: The 1912 Campaign Speeches of Woodrow Wilson. New haven: Yale University Press, 1956.

Day, Donald, ed. Woodrow Wilson’s Own Story. Boston: Little, Brown and Co, 1952.

Deaver, Michael K. Behind the Scenes: In Which the Author Talks About Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan… and Himself. New York: William Morrow, 1987.

Depew, Chauncey M. My Memories of Eighty Years. New York: Charles Scribner‟s Sons, 1924, originally 1921.

Douglas, Paul H. In the Fullness of Time: The Memoirs of Paul H. Douglas. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971.

Eisenhower, Dwight D. Mandate For Change, 1953-1956. Garden City: Doubleday and Co, 1963.

121

------. The Eisenhower Diaries. Ed. by Robert H. Ferrell. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1981.

Emblidge, David, ed. Eleanor Roosevelt’s My Day. Volume II: The Post-War Years. Her Acclaimed Columns, 1945-1952. New York: Pharos Books, 1990.

Ford, Gerald R. A Time to Heal: The Autobiography of Gerald R. Ford. New York: Harper and Row, 1979.

Foss, Philip O. Conservation in the United States: A Documentary History: Recreation. New York: Chelsea House, 1976.

Freeman, Martha, ed. Always, Rachel: The Letters of Rachel Carson and Dorothy Freeman, 1952-1964. Boston: Beacon Press, 1995.

Galambos, Louis and Daun Van Ee. The Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower. 17 Vols. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996.

Gifford, Terry, ed. John Muir: His Life and Letters and Other Writings. London: Baton Wicks, 1996.

Gilder, George F. and Bruce K. Chapman. The Party That Lost Its Head. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966.

Goldwater, Barry. The Conscience of a Majority. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1970.

Gore, Albert. The Eye of the Storm: A People’s Politics for the Seventies. New York: Herder and Herder, 1970.

Gore, Al. The Assault on Reason. New York: The Penguin Press, 2007.

Guthman, Edwin O. and C. Richard Allen, eds. RFK: Collected Speeches. New York: Viking, 1993.

Haldeman, H.R. The Haldeman Diaries: Inside the Nixon White House. New York: G.P. Putnam‟s Sons, 1994.

Hassett, William. Off the Record with F.D.R., 1942-1945. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1958.

Hatfield, Mark O. Not Quite So Simple. New York: Harper and Row, 1968.

Hays, Will H. The Memoirs of Will H. Hays. Garden City: Doubleday and Co, 1955.

122

Hoover, Herbert. Hoover After Dinner: Addresses Delivered by Herbert Hoover Before the Gridiron Club of Washington D.C. with Other Informal Speeches. New York: Charles Scribner‟s Sons, 1933.

------. The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover: Years of Adventure, 1874-1920. New York: Macmillan, 1951.

------. The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover: The Cabinet and the Presidency, 1920- 1933. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1951.

------. The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover: The Great Depression, 1929-1941. New York: Macmillan, 1952.

Ickes, Harold L. The New Democracy. New York: W.W. Norton and Co, 1934.

------. The Autobiography of a Curmudgeon. New York: Reynal and Hitchcock, 1943.

------. The Secret Diary of Harold L. Ickes. Volume II: The First Thousand Days, 1933-1936. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1953.

------. The Secret Diary of Harold L. Ickes. Volume II: The Inside Struggle, 1936- 1939. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1954.

------. The Secret Diary of Harold L. Ickes. Volume III: The Lowering Clouds, 1939-1941. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1954.

Iglehart, Ferdinand Cowle. Theodore Roosevelt: The Man as I Knew Him. New York: The Christian Herald, 1919.

Irwin, Will, ed. Letters to Kermit from Theodore Roosevelt, 1902-1908. New York: Charles Scribner‟s Sons, 1946.

Johnson, George W., ed. The Johnson Presidential Press Conferences Volume I. New York: Earl M. Coleman Enterprises, 1978.

------, ed. The Nixon Presidential Press Conferences. New York: Earl M. Coleman Enterprises, 1978.

Johnson, Hiram. The Diary of Hiram Johnson. 7 Vols. New York: Garland Publishing, 1983.

Johnson, Lyndon B. A Time for Action. New York: Atheneum, 1964.

------. The Vantage Point: Perspectives of the Presidency, 1963-1969. New York: Holt, Rinenart and Winston, 1971.

123

Johnson, Walter, ed. The Papers of Adlai E. Stevenson: Volume IV: “Let’s Talk Sense to the American People,” 1952-1955. Boston: Little, Brown and Co, 1974.

------, ed. The Papers of Adlai E. Stevenson. Volume VI: Toward a New America, 1955-1957. Boston: Little, Brown and Co, 1976.

La Follette, Robert M. La Follette’s Autobiography: A Personal Narrative of Political Experiences. Madison: The Robert M. La Follette Co, 1913.

Laas, Virginia Jeans, ed. Bridging Two Eras: The Autobiography of Emily Newell Blair, 1877-1951. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1999.

Lane, Anne Wintermute and Louise Herrick Well, eds. The Letters of Franklin K. Lane: Personal and Political. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co, 1922.

Leopold, Aldo. A Sand County Almanac: With Essays on Conservation from Round River. New York: Ballantine Books, 1966, originally 1953.

Lieberman, Joseph I. with Michael D‟Orso. In Praise of Public Life. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000.

Link, Arthur S. The Papers of Woodrow Wilson. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981.

McGrath, Jim, ed. Heartbeat: George Bush In His Own Words. New York: Scribner, 2001.

McHenry, Robert with Charles van Duren, eds. A Documentary History of Conservation in America. New York: Praeger, 1972.

Mencken, H.L. On Politics: A Carnival of Buncombe. Ed. by Malcolm Moos. New York: Vintage Books, 1960, originally 1956.

Miller, Kristie and Robert H. McGinnis, eds. A Volume of Friendship: The Letters of Eleanor Roosevelt and Isabella Greenway, 1904-1953. Tucson: The Arizona Historical Society, 2009.

Morison, Elting E., ed. The Letters of Theodore Roosevelt. 8 Vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1954.

Muir, John. Our National Parks. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1901.

------. The Yosemite. New York: The Century, 1912.

124

Myers, William Starr, ed. The State Papers and Other Writings of Herbert Hoover. 2 vols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Doran and Company, 1934.

New York Times

Newfield, Jack. Robert Kennedy: A Memoir. New York: E.P. Dutton and Co, 1969.

Nixon, Richard. Nixon on the Issues. New York: Nixon-Agnew Campaign Committee, 1968.

------. Nixon Speaks Out: Major Speeches and Statements by Richard M. Nixon in the Presidential Campaign of 1968. New York: Nixon-Agnew Campaign Committee, 1968.

------. RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon. New York: Grosset and Dunlap, 1978.

------. In the Arena: A Memoir of Victory, Defeat, and Renewal. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990.

------. Seize the Moment: America’s Challenge in a One-Superpower World. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992.

No Author, ed. Selections From the Correspondence of Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge, 1884-1918. New York: Charles Scribner‟s Sons, 1925.

No Author, Complete Presidential Press Conferences of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Vol. VII: 1936. New York: Da Capo Press, 1972.

O‟Brien, Francis William, ed. The Hoover-Wilson Wartime Correspondence: September 24, 1914, to November 11, 1918. Ames: The Iowa State University Press, 1974.

Obama, Barack. The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream. New York: Crown, 2006.

Perlstein, Rick, ed. Richard Nixon: Speeches, Writings, Documents. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.

Pippert, Wesley G., ed. The Spiritual Journey of Jimmy Carter: In His Own Words. New York: Macmillan, 1978.

Poen, Monte M., ed. Strictly Personal and Confidential: The Letters Harry Truman Never Mailed. Boston: Little, Brown and Co, 1982.

Poynter, Nelson, ed. Nixon: The First Year of His Presidency. Washington D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1970.

125

Quayle, Dan. Standing Firm: A Vice-Presidential Memoir. Zondervan: Harper Collins, 1994.

Reagan, Ronald. Ronald Reagan Talks to America. Old Greenwich: The Devin Adair Co, 1983.

------. The Reagan Diaries. Ed. by Douglas Brinkley. New York: Harpers Collins, 2007.

Roosevelt, Franklin Delano. Looking Forward. New York: The John Day Co, 1933.

------. On Our Way. New York: The John Day Co, 1934.

------. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Own Story: Told in His Own Words From His Private and Public Papers. Ed. by Donald Day. Boston: Little, Brown and Co, 1951.

Roosevelt, James. My Parents: A Differing View. Chicago: Playboy Press, 1976.

Roosevelt, Nicholas. Theodore Roosevelt: The Man As I Knew Him. New York: Dodd, Mead and Co, 1967.

Roosevelt, Theodore. Addresses and Presidential Messages of Theodore Roosevelt, 1902- 1904. New York: G.P. Putnams‟s Sons, 1904.

------. Presidential Addresses and State Papers and European Addresses Volume II: December 3, 1901, to January 4, 1904. New York: The Review of Reviews Co, 1910.

------. Presidential Addresses and State Papers and European Addresses Volume VI: January 16, 1907, to October 25, 1907. New York: The Review of Reviews Co, 1910.

------. Presidential Addresses and State Papers and European Addresses: Volume VIII: December 8, 1908, to June 7, 1910. New York: The Review of Reviews Co, 1910.

------. Theodore Roosevelt: An Autobiography. New York: Charles Scribner‟s Sons, 1929, originally 1913.

------. Cowboys and Kings: Three Great Letters by Theodore Roosevelt. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1954.

------. Letters and Speeches. Ed. by Louis Auchincloss. New York: Library of America, 2004.

126

Safire, William. Before the Fall: An Inside View of the Pre-Watergate White House. Garden City: Doubleday and Co, 1975.

Salinger, Pierre. P.S. A Memoir. New York: St. Martin‟s Press, 1995.

Schnapper, M.B., ed. The Truman Program: Addresses and Messages by President Harry S. Truman. Washington D.C.: Public Affairs Press, 1949.

Shoemaker, Ralph J., ed. The President’s Words. 7 Vols. n.c.: Elsie DeGraff Shoemaker, 1954.

Simon, Paul. We Can Do Better: How to Save America’s Future- An Open Letter to President Clinton. Bethesda: National Press, 1994.

Skinner, Kiron K., Annelise Anderson and Martin Anderson., eds. Reagan: A Life in Letters. New York: The Free Press, 2003.

Smith, Frank, E., General Editor. Conservation in the United States: A Documentary History. Vol. III: Land and Water, 1900-1970. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1971.

Sorensen, Theodore C., ed. “Let The Word Go Forth”: The Speeches, Statements, and Writings of John F. Kennedy. New York: Delacorte Press, 1988.

Steen, Harold K., ed. The Conservation Diaries of Gifford Pinchot. Durham: Forest History Society, 2001.

Stimson, Henry L. and McGeorge Bundy. On Active Service in Peace and War. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1947.

Stokes, Thomas L. Chip Off My Shoulder. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1940.

Taft, William H. Present Day Problems: A Collection of Addresses Delivered on Various Occasions. Freeport: Books for Libraries, 1908, reprinted 1967.

Thoreau, Henry David. Walden. New York: Barnes and Noble Classics, 2003.

Torelle, Ellen, ed. The Political Philosophy of Robert M. La Follette: As Revealed In His Speeches and Writings. Madison: The Robert M. La Follette Co, 1920, reprinted in 1975.

Tribble, Edwin, ed. A President in Love: The Courtship Letters of Woodrow Wilson and Edith Bolling Galt. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co, 1981.

Truman, Harry S. The Truman Administration: Its Principles and Practices. Ed. by Louis W. Koenig. Washington Square: New York University Press, 1956.

127

------. Memoirs, Volume II: Years of Trial and Hope. Garden City: Doubleday and Co, 1956.

------. The Autobiography of Harry S. Truman. Ed. by Robert H. Ferrell. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1980.

Truman, Margaret, ed. Where the Buck Stops: The Personal and Private Writings of Harry S. Truman. New York: Warner Books, 1989.

Udall, Stewart L. The Quiet Crisis. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963.

------. The Quiet Crisis and the Next Generation. Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith Books, 1988.

Urofsky, Melvin I. and David W. Levy, eds. Letters of Louis D. Brandeis: Volume II (1907-1912): People’s Attorney. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1972.

Wallace, Henry A. Democracy Reborn: Selected from the Public Papers and Edited with an Introduction and Notes by Russell Lord. New York: Reynal and Hitchcock, 1944.

Wilbur, Ray Lyman. The Memoirs of Ray Lyman Wilbur, 1875-1949. Ed. by Edgar Eugene Robinson and Paul Carroll Edwards. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1960.

------and William Atherton DuPuy. Conservation in the Department of the Interior. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1932.

------and Arthur Mastick Hyde. The Hoover Policies. New York: Charles Scribner‟s Sons, 1937.

Wilson, Edith Bolling. My Memoir. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Co, 1938.

Wister, Owen. Roosevelt: The Story of a Friendship, 1880-1919. New York: Macmillan, 1930.

Wolfe, Linnie Marsh, ed. John of the Mountains: The Unpublished Journals of John Muir. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1979, originally 1938.

Wood, Frederick S., ed. Roosevelt As We Knew Him. Philadelphia: The John C. Winston Co, 1927.

Woodward, Bob. Plan of Attack. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2004.

128

Zevin, B.D., ed. Nothing to Fear: The Selected Addresses of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1932-1945. Freeport: Books for Libraries, 1946.

Secondary

Aiken, Jonathan. Nixon: A Life. Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 1993.

Alexander, Paul. Man of the People: The Life of John McCain. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons, 2003.

Alterman, Eric and Mark Green. The Book on Bush: How George W (Mis)leads America. New York: Viking, 2004.

Ambrose, Stephen E. Nixon: Volume Three: Ruin and Recovery, 1973-1990: 591.

Barck, Jr., Oscar Theodore and Nelson Manfred Blake. Since 1900: A History of the United States in Our Times. New York: Macmillan, 1947.

Bernstein, Irving. Guns or Butter: The Presidency of Lyndon Johnson. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Blumenthal, Sidney. The Clinton Wars. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2003.

Bocking, Stephen. Ecologists and Environmental Politics: A History of Contemporary Ecology. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997.

Bornet, Vaughn Davis. The Presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1983.

Brinkley, Douglas. The Unfinished Presidency: Jimmy Carter’s Journey Beyond The White House. New York: Viking, 1998.

Brooks, Karl Boyd, ed. The Environmental Legacy of Harry S. Truman. Kirksville: Truman State University Press, 2009.

Brownlee, W. Elliot and Hugh Davis Graham, eds. The Reagan Presidency: Pragmatic Conservatism and Its Legacies. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2003.

Buenker, John D. and Edward R. Kantowicz, eds. Historical Dictionary of the Progressive Era, 1890-1920. New York: Greenwood Press, 1988.

Burner, David. Herbert Hoover: A Public Life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979.

Burns, Richard D. Herbert Hoover: A Bibliography of His Times and Presidency. Wilmington: Scholarly Resources, 1991.

129

Califano, Jr., Joseph A. The Triumph and Tragedy of Lyndon Johnson: The White House Years. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991.

Callison, Charles H., ed. America’s Natural Resources: Edited for the Natural Resources Council of America. New York: The Ronald Press, 1967, originally 1957.

Cannon, Lou. Reagan. New York: G.P. Putnam‟s Sons, 1982.

Caplan, Richard and John Feffer, ed. State of the Union 1994: The Clinton Administration and the Nation in Profile. Boulder: Westview, 1994.

Cioc, Mark. The Game of Conservation: International Treaties to Protect the World’s Migratory Animals. Athens: Ohio University Press, 2009.

Clepper, Henry, ed. Origins of American Conservation: Edited for the Natural Resources Council of America. New York: Ronald Press, 1966.

------, ed. Leaders of American Conservation. New York: The Ronald Press, 1971.

Cohen, Michael P. The Pathless Way: John Muir and American Wilderness. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1984.

Conkin, Paul K. Big Daddy From the Pedernales: Lyndon Baines Johnson. Boston: Twayne, 1986.

Cronon, William. Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England. New York: Hill and Wang, 1983.

------, ed. Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. New York: W.W. Norton and Co, 1996.

Curtis, Mary I. Conservation in America. Chicago: Lyons and Carnahan, 1947.

Cutright, Paul Russell. Theodore Roosevelt: The Making of a Conservationist. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985.

D‟Souza, Dinesh. Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader. New York: The Free Press, 1997.

Dallek, Robert. An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 2003.

------. Lyndon B. Johnson: Portrait of a President. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

130

Dalton, Kathleen. Theodore Roosevelt, A Strenuous Life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2002.

Davis, Frederick Rowe. The Man Who Saved Sea Turtles: Archie Carr and the Origins of Conservation Biology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Donovan, Robert J. Eisenhower: The Inside Story. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1956.

Drew, Elizabeth. Citizen McCain. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2002.

Duffy, Michael and Dan Goodgame. Marching in Place: The Status Quo Presidency of George Bush. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992.

Dugger, Ronnie. The Politician: The Life and Times of Lyndon Johnson, The Drive for Power, from the Frontier to Master of the Senate. New York: W.W. Norton and Co, 1982.

Edwards, Anne. The Reagans: Portrait of A Marriage. New York: St. Martins‟ Press, 2003.

Edwards, Lee. The Essential Ronald Reagan: A Profile in Courage, Justice, and Wisdom. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005.

Fairbanks, Harold W. Conservation Reader. Yonkers-On-Hudson: World Book Co, 1925.

Flanders, Laura. Bushwomen: Tales of a Cynical Species. London: Verso, 2004.

Flippen, J. Brooks. Conservative Conservationist: Russell E. Train and the Emergence of American Environmentalism. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2006.

Freud, Sigmund and William C. Bullitt. Thomas Woodrow Wilson: Twenty-eighth President of the United States. A Psychological Study. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1967.

Genovese, Michael A. The Nixon Presidency: Power and Politics in Turbulent Times. New York: Greenwood Press, 1990.

Gettleman, Marvin E. and David Mermelstein, eds. The Great Society Reader: The Failure of American Liberalism. New York: Random House, 1967.

Gillon, Steven M. The Pact: Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and the Rivalry That Defined a Generation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

131

Golley, Frank Benjamin. A History of the Ecosystem Concept in Ecology: More Than The Sum of the Parts. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993.

Greene, John Robert. The Presidency of Gerald R. Ford. Lawrence, University Press of Kansas, 1995.

Gustafson, A.F., C.H. Guise, W.J. Hamilton, Jr., H. Ries. Conservation in the United States. 3rd ed. Ithaca: Comstock Publishing, 1949, eighth printing 1963.

Hamlin, Scoville. Waste Not- Want Not: Stabilize Production and Control Expansion. Philadelphia: Dorrance and Co, 1928.

Harris, John F. The Survivor: Bill Clinton in the White House. New York: Random House, 2005.

Haynes, John Earl. Calvin Coolidge and the Coolidge Era. Washington D.C.: Library of Congress, 1998.

Hays, Samuel P. Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency: The Progressive Movement, 1890-1920. New York: Atheneum, 1975, originally, Harvard University Press, 1959.

------. American Political History as Social Analysis: Essays by Samuel P. Hays. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1980.

------. Beauty, Health, and Permanence: Environmental Politics in the United States, 1955-1985. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

------. Explorations in Environmental History: Essays by Samuel P. Hays. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1998.

Hewitt, Hugh. A Mormon in the White House? Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2007.

Hicks, John D. The American Nation: A History of the United States From 1865 to the Present. Boston: Houston Mifflin, 1945, originally 1941.

Hoff, Joan. Nixon Reconsidered. New York: Basic Books, 1994.

Hopkins, Albert A. Our Country and Its Resources. New York: Munn and Co, 1917.

Jacobs, Travis Beal. Eisenhower at Columbia. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2001.

Kaufman, Burton I. and Scott Kaufman. The Presidency of James Earl Carter Jr. 2nd ed. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2006.

132

Kelly, Tara Kathleen. The Hunter Elite: Americans, Wilderness, and the Rise of the Big- Game Hunt. PhD Diss. The Johns Hopkins University, 2007.

Kirkendall, Richard S., ed. Harry’s Farewell: Interpreting and Teaching the Truman Presidency. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2004.

Kolb, Charles. White House Daze: The Unmaking of Domestic Policy in the Bush Years. New York: The Free Press, 1994.

Krech III, Shepard. The Ecological Indian: Myth and History. New York: W.W. Norton and Co, 1990.

Leuchtenburg, William E. The FDR Years: On Roosevelt and His Legacy. New York: Columbia University Press, 1995.

Lewis, Wm. Draper. The Life of Theodore Roosevelt. n.c.: The United Publishers, 1919.

Lowenthal, David. George Perkins Marsh: Prophet of Conservation. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2003, originally, 2000.

Mackenzie, G. Calvin and Robert Weisbrot. The Liberal Hour: Washington and the Politics of Change in the 1960s. New York: The Penguin Press, 2008.

Maher, Neil M. Nature’s New Deal: The Civilian Conservation Corps and the Roots of the American Environmental Movement. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Matthews III, William. A Guide to the National Parks: Their Landscape and Geology. Garden City: Doubleday, 1973.

Mayer, Jane and Doyle McManus. Landslide: The Unmaking of the President, 1984- 1988. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1988.

Miller, Char. Gifford Pinchot and the Making of Modern Environmentalism. Washington: Island Press, 2001.

Miller, Sally M., ed. John Muir: Life and Work. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1993.

Moore, James and Wayne Slater. The Architect: Karl Rove and The Master Plan For Absolute Power. New York: Crown, 2006.

Morris, Edmund. The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt. New York: The Modern Library, 2001, originally 1979.

133

------. Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan. New York: Random House, 1999.

------. Theodore Rex. New York: The Modern Library, 2002, originally 2001.

Nash, Roderick. Wilderness and the American Mind. 3rd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982, originally, 1967.

------. American Environmentalism: Readings in Conservation History. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Co, 1968.

------. The Rights of Nature: A History of Environmental Ethics. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1989.

------. American Environmentalism: Readings in Conservation History. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Co, 1990.

National Geographic

Paper, Lewis J. The Promise and the Performance: The Leadership of John F. Kennedy. New York: Crown Publishers, 1975.

Parry-Giles, Shawn J and Trevor Parry-Giles. Constructing Clinton: Hyperreality & Presidential Image-Making in Postmodern Politics. New York: Peter Lang, 2002.

Pemberton, William E. Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, 1997.

Prestowitz, Clyde. Rogue Nation: American Unilateralism and the Failure of Good Intentions. New York: Basic Books, 2003.

Rainger, Ronald. An Agenda for Antiquity: Henry Fairfield Osborn and Vertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History, 1890-1935. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 1991.

Rathlesberger, James, ed. Nixon and the Environment: The Politics of Devastation. New York: A Village Voice Book, 1972.

Reeves, Richard. President Kennedy: Profile in Power. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1993.

Reiger, John F. American Sportsmen and the Origins of Conservation. 3rd ed. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press, 2001, originally 1975.

Righter, Robert W. The Battle Over Hetch Hetchy: America’s Most Controversial Dam and the Birth of Modern Environmentalism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

134

Robinson, Edgar Eugene and Vaughn Davis Bornet. Herbert Hoover: President of the United States. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 1975.

Rothman, Hal K. Blazing Heritage: A History of Wildland Fire in the National Parks. Oxford: University Press, 2007.

Rowley, William D. Reclaiming the Arid West: The Career of Francis G. Newlands. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996.

Shabecoff, Philip. A Fierce Green Fire: The American Environmental Movement. New York: Hill and Wang, 1993.

Sheehy, Gail. Hillary’s Choice. New York: Random House, 1999.

Simon, Roger. Divided We Stand: How Al Gore Beat George Bush and Lost the Presidency. New York: Crown Publishers, 2001.

Smith, Frank E., General Editor. Conservation in the United States: A Documentary History, Vol. 3: Land and Water, 1900-1970. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1971.

Steinberg, Ted. Down To Earth: Nature’s Role in American History. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Stroud, Richard H., ed. National Leaders of American Conservation. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1985.

Sutton, Ann and Myron Sutton. The Wilderness World of the Grand Canyon: “Leave it as it is.” Philadelphia, J.B. Lippincott, 1971.

Tebeau, Charlton W. Man In The Everglades: 2000 Years of Human History in the Everglades National Park. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press, 1968.

Thayer, William Roscoe. Theodore Roosevelt: An Intimate Biography. New York: Grosset and Dunlap, 1919.

Turner, Frederick. Rediscovering America: John Muir in His Time and Ours. New York: Viking, 1985.

Unger, Irwin and Debi Unger. LBJ: A Life. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1999.

Wagenknecht, Edward. The Seven Worlds of Theodore Roosevelt. New York: Longmans, Green and Co, 1958.

135

Watts, Sarah. Rough Rider in the White House: Theodore Roosevelt and the Politics of Desire. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2003.

Weisburg, Jacob. The Bush Tragedy. New York: Random House, 2008.

Welch, Matt. McCain: The Myth of a Maverick. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.

White, Theodore H. The Making of the President, 1968. New York: Atheneum, 1969.

Wicker, Tom. JFK and LBJ: The Influence of Personality Upon Politics. New York: William Morrow and Co, 1968.

Wild, Peter. Pioneer Conservationists of Western America. Missoula: Mountain Press, 1979.

Wilkins, Thurman. John Muir: Apostle of Nature. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1995.

Wills, Garry. Reagan’s America: Innocents at Home. Garden City: Doubleday and Co, 1987.

Wilson, Jean Hoff. Herbert Hoover: Forgotten Progressive. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1975. Reissued 1992.

Wilson, R. L. Theodore Roosevelt: Outdoorsmen. New York: Winchester Press, 1971.

Winks, Robin W. Laurence S. Rockefeller: Catalyst for Conservation. Washington D.C.: Island Press, 1997.

Wolfe, Linnie Marsh, ed. John of the Mountains: The Unpublished Journals of John Muir. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1979.

Worster, Donald. Nature’s Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994 originally 1977 by Sierra Club Books.

Zelnick, Bob. Gore: A Political Life. Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 1999.

136

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Frank W Solak

FrankwSolak was born in Fort Myers, Florida, in 1985. As an undergraduate at Florida State University, he double majored in Political Science and History, graduating with Honors and completing an Undergraduate Thesis under the direction of Dr. Edward Wynot, Jr. in 2008. He remained at FSU to complete his Master of Arts degree under the direction of Dr. Frederick Davis in 2010. FrankwSolak prefers to focus his research on the connection between humanity and its environment, with a particular focus on the way in which politics and environmentalism interact. FrankwSolak is an avid traveler and hiking enthusiast, especially in America‟s National Parks.

137