You Did Not Build the Railroad
This summer, a prominent history museum in the city where I live is displaying several pages from the Pacific Railway Act of 1862. I confess to being a "history geek," the kind of person who drives friends and family crazy by lingering in history museums while trying to "feel" the meaning of the artifacts on display. People who do that tend to spend a lot longer in the museum than do others. In the case of the Pacific Railway Act, there are many cognitive and visceral reactions that one can experience. Of course, it is moving to scan to the end of this document, and see with your own eyes the signature of President Abraham Lincoln. I wonder if he used numerous "ceremonial quills" to sign this seminal act into law on July 1, 1862. My hunch is that Lincoln signed the act without the hype that modern presidents have come to employ, in spite of the overwhelming importance of this act.
More important than the signature of our sixteenth president is the content of the act itself. In fact, the Pacific Railway Act established the largest public-private partnership program in the history of the United States. More impressive is that Congress and the president had a clear enough vision of America to bring about this act in the midst of the most horrific experience in our national history--the American Civil War. Of course, it can be argued that the Transcontinental Railroad with its north-central route was, in fact, very much connected with the many disputes between North and South. The Civil War provided the opportunity for the Union to choose the route. The need for a coast-to-coast railway was not under much dispute. What had been debated was the route itself. By their secession, the Confederate States forfeited any discussion of a viable southern route to California.
I am reminded of the Pacfic Railway Act by President Obama's remarks in Virginia a few days ago in which he told people that if you own a successful business, "you did not build it." Of course, these remarks have been jumped on by his political opponents to demonstrate that the president is a thoroughgoing socialist who does not believe in individual innovation and initiative. His presidential opponent, Mitt Romney, came out and said that his own success in business was due, in fact, to his own initiative and drive, and not due to the fact that he came from politically-connected family.
Whether the president is wrong or right, there are problems with what he said. The problems are mostly stylistic. Though we are not often tempted to sympathize with presidents, it is simply a fact that each and every word that comes out of a president's mouth is scrutinized to the "n"th degree -- the word choice, the voice inflection, the body language, the verb tense, the words not used. President Obama's stylistic problem, which continues to dog him, is his tendency to approach his speeches as if he is still a college professor, lecturing young law students, asking them to challenge their own thinking, calling into question popular myths. That is just what professors do. On the other hand, President Bush's stylistic problem was that he eschewed any such scholar-speak. He chose to use plain-spoken pronouncements, which to his critics often came across as shallow and without substance. Whereas President Bush would tell us "mission accomplished," President Obama might respond with "perhaps, but let us first discuss the meaning of the mission." Each man's stylistic shortcomings provided, and continue to provide, plenty of fodder for critics.
So let's step back a second and forget about style. What was the professor president trying to say? In essence, it seems to me that he was trying to partially challenge a popular American myth, that of the self-made man. It seems he was trying to say that there simply are not that many of those kinds of people running around. Why? Because our economy simply does not work that way -- not entirely anyway. We have not had a pure market economy for a long time in this country, if in fact we ever had one. The history of our economy is one of the enabling of individual initiative through government action.
The Republican Party, of which Lincoln was a charter member, did not stand simply for halting the expansion of slavery beyond its current confines. It stood for an expansive American Empire featuring "free men, free soil, free labor." The short-lived Free Soil Party comprised many who later became Republicans. But Free Soiler slogans informed what Republicans believed in. And these slogans informed public policy once Republicans gained control of the presidency and Congress (enabled by the secession not just of the South, but of the most powerful members of the Democratic Party).
The aforementioned Pacific Railway Act founded a corporation that still exists in the United States, the Union Pacific Railroad. This railroad and the existing Central Pacific were given huge enticements to complete the Transcontinental Railroad, including the ability to sell government-secured bonds, massive grants of land, the ability to make a profit from the sale of land given to them, and protective cover from Native Americans courtesy of the U.S. Army. But the Pacific Railway Act was not a singular accomplishment. The Civil War years also saw the passage of the Homestead Act, which gave free land to homesteaders (all "free men" employing "free labor"). The Land Grant Act established the system of universities in the United States dedicated to the study of agricultural arts and sciences to enable homesteaders to succeed. My own family history is built on these acts. My ancestors were "sod busters" in the Nebraska prairie who emigrated from England following the Civil War to take advantage of free land. I grew up in the city (Omaha) which owes its very existence to the fact that it was the eastern terminus of the Transcontinental Railroad. My grandfather worked for the railroad. The university system in my home state was founded by the Land Grant Act, and I received my college education at one of this university's campuses.
The United States was settled by hard-working, self-starting, self-sacrificing achievers. But their achievement was enabled by public policy. The myth that anyone does it all on their own is simply that--a myth. But debunking that myth does not translate to the idea that individual initiative is without merit and is meaningless. I cannot conceive of the success of the Transcontinental Railroad without the guts of the entrepreneurs, civil engineers, and workers who made it happen. My ancestors and their neighbors turned the prairie into farmland by the sweat of their brows. It is hard for me to imagine Apple without the foresight, tenaciousness, and drive of a Steve Jobs. Further, it is really hard to envision the widespread economic sucess of a nation without the courage of capitalists willing to put their fortunes on the line to build a business.
The problem is that in our political discourse, we seem to collectively choose to rely on our own favored myths. We ought to start with fact, and a good place to start that quest is with historical fact. Let's learn to explore and understand our own nation's history. Let's question what we have been told. Most of all, let's discuss ideas and not automatically dismiss ideas because they were uttered by someone we might not like. Perhaps by doing so we can begin to once again find the kind of national vision that Lincoln cherished.
More important than the signature of our sixteenth president is the content of the act itself. In fact, the Pacific Railway Act established the largest public-private partnership program in the history of the United States. More impressive is that Congress and the president had a clear enough vision of America to bring about this act in the midst of the most horrific experience in our national history--the American Civil War. Of course, it can be argued that the Transcontinental Railroad with its north-central route was, in fact, very much connected with the many disputes between North and South. The Civil War provided the opportunity for the Union to choose the route. The need for a coast-to-coast railway was not under much dispute. What had been debated was the route itself. By their secession, the Confederate States forfeited any discussion of a viable southern route to California.
I am reminded of the Pacfic Railway Act by President Obama's remarks in Virginia a few days ago in which he told people that if you own a successful business, "you did not build it." Of course, these remarks have been jumped on by his political opponents to demonstrate that the president is a thoroughgoing socialist who does not believe in individual innovation and initiative. His presidential opponent, Mitt Romney, came out and said that his own success in business was due, in fact, to his own initiative and drive, and not due to the fact that he came from politically-connected family.
Whether the president is wrong or right, there are problems with what he said. The problems are mostly stylistic. Though we are not often tempted to sympathize with presidents, it is simply a fact that each and every word that comes out of a president's mouth is scrutinized to the "n"th degree -- the word choice, the voice inflection, the body language, the verb tense, the words not used. President Obama's stylistic problem, which continues to dog him, is his tendency to approach his speeches as if he is still a college professor, lecturing young law students, asking them to challenge their own thinking, calling into question popular myths. That is just what professors do. On the other hand, President Bush's stylistic problem was that he eschewed any such scholar-speak. He chose to use plain-spoken pronouncements, which to his critics often came across as shallow and without substance. Whereas President Bush would tell us "mission accomplished," President Obama might respond with "perhaps, but let us first discuss the meaning of the mission." Each man's stylistic shortcomings provided, and continue to provide, plenty of fodder for critics.
So let's step back a second and forget about style. What was the professor president trying to say? In essence, it seems to me that he was trying to partially challenge a popular American myth, that of the self-made man. It seems he was trying to say that there simply are not that many of those kinds of people running around. Why? Because our economy simply does not work that way -- not entirely anyway. We have not had a pure market economy for a long time in this country, if in fact we ever had one. The history of our economy is one of the enabling of individual initiative through government action.
The Republican Party, of which Lincoln was a charter member, did not stand simply for halting the expansion of slavery beyond its current confines. It stood for an expansive American Empire featuring "free men, free soil, free labor." The short-lived Free Soil Party comprised many who later became Republicans. But Free Soiler slogans informed what Republicans believed in. And these slogans informed public policy once Republicans gained control of the presidency and Congress (enabled by the secession not just of the South, but of the most powerful members of the Democratic Party).
The aforementioned Pacific Railway Act founded a corporation that still exists in the United States, the Union Pacific Railroad. This railroad and the existing Central Pacific were given huge enticements to complete the Transcontinental Railroad, including the ability to sell government-secured bonds, massive grants of land, the ability to make a profit from the sale of land given to them, and protective cover from Native Americans courtesy of the U.S. Army. But the Pacific Railway Act was not a singular accomplishment. The Civil War years also saw the passage of the Homestead Act, which gave free land to homesteaders (all "free men" employing "free labor"). The Land Grant Act established the system of universities in the United States dedicated to the study of agricultural arts and sciences to enable homesteaders to succeed. My own family history is built on these acts. My ancestors were "sod busters" in the Nebraska prairie who emigrated from England following the Civil War to take advantage of free land. I grew up in the city (Omaha) which owes its very existence to the fact that it was the eastern terminus of the Transcontinental Railroad. My grandfather worked for the railroad. The university system in my home state was founded by the Land Grant Act, and I received my college education at one of this university's campuses.
The United States was settled by hard-working, self-starting, self-sacrificing achievers. But their achievement was enabled by public policy. The myth that anyone does it all on their own is simply that--a myth. But debunking that myth does not translate to the idea that individual initiative is without merit and is meaningless. I cannot conceive of the success of the Transcontinental Railroad without the guts of the entrepreneurs, civil engineers, and workers who made it happen. My ancestors and their neighbors turned the prairie into farmland by the sweat of their brows. It is hard for me to imagine Apple without the foresight, tenaciousness, and drive of a Steve Jobs. Further, it is really hard to envision the widespread economic sucess of a nation without the courage of capitalists willing to put their fortunes on the line to build a business.
The problem is that in our political discourse, we seem to collectively choose to rely on our own favored myths. We ought to start with fact, and a good place to start that quest is with historical fact. Let's learn to explore and understand our own nation's history. Let's question what we have been told. Most of all, let's discuss ideas and not automatically dismiss ideas because they were uttered by someone we might not like. Perhaps by doing so we can begin to once again find the kind of national vision that Lincoln cherished.
Comments
Post a Comment