Why "the South" did not get a railroad to the Pacific

That's one way to look at it. Another is to find credible sources who don't have an agenda and use those to complete the 'picture'. Then one can digest the total and decide for himself/herself. It's a little harder than simply accepting the voices in the echo chamber but far more rewarding.

Do you have any recommendations?
 
The whole project had a pie in the sky quality while the war continued. Even in 1866 it seemed quixotic. But on the California end they eventually concocted nitro glycerin on site and invented snow sheds. Those made the mountain stretches possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WJC
The OP claims that after 1855 Southern interest in the southern footprint of the TRR began to diminish. I invite anyone to harmonize that claim with the enormous celebration in Memphis on March 1-2, 1857, over the completion of the Memphis and Charleston Railroad and the looming prospect of connecting Memphis with El Paso and then on to San Diego.

I don't think it can be done, but I am all ears, if it can.

James

I would say you are trying too hard to draw a conclusion from events without any evidence they are connected in the way you say.

The Memphis & Charleston never built a mile of track west of Memphis, never was chartered to build any track to Texas or San Diego. There may well have been a very large crowd, a lot of cheering at the celebration and they may have mentioned some marvelous future in the speeches to generate those cheers from the locals. But you will not find any serious effort to get such a project done in the late 1850s by "the South". You will not find a realistic, united political effort by southerners to get a transcontinental RR for "the South" after they traded their support away to Douglas in 1854 because there was none.
 
I would say you are trying too hard to draw a conclusion from events without any evidence they are connected in the way you say.

The Memphis & Charleston never built a mile of track west of Memphis, never was chartered to build any track to Texas or San Diego. There may well have been a very large crowd, a lot of cheering at the celebration and they may have mentioned some marvelous future in the speeches to generate those cheers from the locals. But you will not find any serious effort to get such a project done in the late 1850s by "the South". You will not find a realistic, united political effort by southerners to get a transcontinental RR for "the South" after they traded their support away to Douglas in 1854 because there was none.

I guess like you say, all that celebration in Memphis --as well as in Charleston-- simply reflected their disinterest in a southern footprint.

I have no need to convert you. I write to serve. If you wish to maintain your OP comment, you and anyone else are welcome to it. But I will repeat for your benefit and strictly as a service, from 1855-1861, Southern fever for a southern footprint did nothing but become warmer. The evidence is overwhelming and readily available. By attempting to prove a negative you have set for yourself a monumental task. Good luck.

James
 
By attempting to prove a negative you have set for yourself a monumental task. Good luck.
‘you can’t prove a negative’ is a negative  so if you could prove it true, it wouldn’t be true!
So why is it that people insist that you can’t prove a negative? It is the result of two things. (1) an acknowledgement that induction is not bulletproof, airtight, and infallible, and (2) a desperate desire to keep believing whatever one believes, even if all the evidence is against it.
https://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf
 
‘you can’t prove a negative’ is a negative  so if you could prove it true, it wouldn’t be true!
So why is it that people insist that you can’t prove a negative? It is the result of two things. (1) an acknowledgement that induction is not bulletproof, airtight, and infallible, and (2) a desperate desire to keep believing whatever one believes, even if all the evidence is against it.
https://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

Don't be so negative. I did NOT say you cannot prove a negative. I said it is hard to prove a negative. Of course one can prove negatives. Happens all the time.

One very simple negative that is easy to prove is that slavery did NOT cause the War for Southern Independence or whatever we agree to call it. No TRR to exploit what was once viewed as "The Great American Desert" and to reach California with its Pacific ports for trade with Peking, then no Secession, no war, no Civilwartalk.com site, etc. Let us agree to agree.

Positively,

James
 
I guess like you say, all that celebration in Memphis --as well as in Charleston-- simply reflected their disinterest in a southern footprint.

I have no need to convert you. I write to serve. If you wish to maintain your OP comment, you and anyone else are welcome to it. But I will repeat for your benefit and strictly as a service, from 1855-1861, Southern fever for a southern footprint did nothing but become warmer. The evidence is overwhelming and readily available. By attempting to prove a negative you have set for yourself a monumental task. Good luck.

James

You speak in terms of religious fervor about a matter that was simply normal activity. If you are writing "to serve", you seem to think of whatever it is you are serving with the zeal of a fanatic -- and it appears you think of all those who merely think differently than you as false prophets, benighted heathen, and idolaters.

Historical truth does exist. It is clear that Southern leaders put less and less effort into support for a "southern route" as the 1850s wore on. While it is certain that around 1853 there was strong support for some type of "southern route", the southerners themselves could not unite around one plan; their own division was their biggest problem. After 1854, Southern political support for that effort dwindled as "the South" concentrated on the slavery issue, on the Nebraska Act changes, "Popular Sovereignity" and pushing the expansion of slavery in "Bleeding Kansas".

From the article in the OP, the one you declared your familiarity with:
1561551837124.png


No one says the people of "the South" forgot about the Transcontinental RR. It simply was not an issue that was being pushed by "the South" because "the South" had other fish to fry. Very clearly, the politicians of "the South" chose to support Stephen Douglas and his RR plan when they wanted to get "Popular Sovereignty" written into the Nebraska Act; very clearly, their support for a "southern route" fell away after 1854. You cannot wish these things away and make them vanish to enhance your vision of history. If you wish to be taken seriously, you must acknowledge them and show how the real people of "the South" made these choices is they were as fanataic about this Transcontinental RR as you would have us believe they were.
 
You speak in terms of religious fervor about a matter that was simply normal activity. If you are writing "to serve", you seem to think of whatever it is you are serving with the zeal of a fanatic -- and it appears you think of all those who merely think differently than you as false prophets, benighted heathen, and idolaters.

Historical truth does exist. It is clear that Southern leaders put less and less effort into support for a "southern route" as the 1850s wore on. While it is certain that around 1853 there was strong support for some type of "southern route", the southerners themselves could not unite around one plan; their own division was their biggest problem. After 1854, Southern political support for that effort dwindled as "the South" concentrated on the slavery issue, on the Nebraska Act changes, "Popular Sovereignity" and pushing the expansion of slavery in "Bleeding Kansas".

From the article in the OP, the one you declared your familiarity with:
View attachment 313277

No one says the people of "the South" forgot about the Transcontinental RR. It simply was not an issue that was being pushed by "the South" because "the South" had other fish to fry. Very clearly, the politicians of "the South" chose to support Stephen Douglas and his RR plan when they wanted to get "Popular Sovereignty" written into the Nebraska Act; very clearly, their support for a "southern route" fell away after 1854. You cannot wish these things away and make them vanish to enhance your vision of history. If you wish to be taken seriously, you must acknowledge them and show how the real people of "the South" made these choices is they were as fanataic about this Transcontinental RR as you would have us believe they were.

Thanks for your post.

"In order for me to be taken seriously"? Apparently you have. But thanks for your admonition.

Inability to unite on a footprint is NOT tantamount to disinterest but is tantamount to a non-sequitur, as is your proclamation about my "religious fervor." But I do suffer from "fact fervor."

Let's reduce and review this to something simple for readers to decide.

1. You argue that southern interest in a southern TRR footprint diminished after 1855.
2. I argue that it increased.

I think we have spilled enough ink on the topic for readers to decide, though facts don't bend to votes.

Seriously,

James
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your post.

"In order for me to be taken seriously"? Apparently you have. But thanks for your admonition.

Inability to unite on a footprint is NOT tantamount to disinterest but is tantamount to a non-sequitur, as is your proclamation about my "religious fervor." But I do suffer from "fact fervor."

Let's reduce and review this to something simple for readers to decide.

1. You argue that southern interest in a southern TRR footprint diminished after 1855.
2. I argue that it increased.

I think we have spilled enough ink on the topic for readers to decide, though facts don't bend to votes.

Seriously,

James

Well, I apologize if I have offended you, but the study of history is not a popularity contest. Facts and truth do exist. They do matter. If you want your theory to be listened to and treated seriously, you actually do need to relate your belief to the known facts.
 
Well, I apologize if I have offended you, but the study of history is not a popularity contest. Facts and truth do exist. They do matter. If you want your theory to be listened to and treated seriously, you actually do need to relate your belief to the known facts.

Trice,

Thank you for your kind and sensitive apology which I accept even though I was not offended.

I could not agree more that facts and truth exist, contrary to the totally subjectivists who people our planet. I am not among them.

Of course, I do wish for my theory to get a fair hearing and to be treated seriously, as I am dead serious about it. However, I suffer no illusions that that could happen in my lifetime. "Slavery Only" has a major head start, and it will take years for an alternative interpretation of causation to sink in. Not enough historians own enough real estate to understand this major real estate issue. The war was about land, pure and simple. No western territories, no war. No theft from Mexico, nothing for a bunch of thieves to fight over, as all the war was was a falling out among thieves --with all due respect to R.E. Lee and U.S. Grant et al. Had America's western boundary been where the Mississippi flowed then and now, there would have been nothing to fight over. And had there been no TRR in view, there was no way to get products in Colorado or Kansas easily to market. Every once in a while some tweak of a piece of real estate sends its value upward exponentially.

I had something similar happen in my experience, though in a railroad reverse effect. I owned 20 acres of land fronted by a major highway but obstructed from decent access by a railroad that ran parallel to the highwway and almost right next to it. One day the railroad elected to abandon its 2,200 lineal foot spur on my property, and it suddenly, overnight, zoomed from Industrial zoning (FedEx warehouse, etc. at the then price of $2.00-3.00 per square foot) to commercial zoning ($10-12 per square foot, McDonalds, Burger King, etc). This in microcosm happened to the trans-Mississippi West with the coming of the TRR. Suddenly it was well worth fighting for, exponentially more so than even $4 billion of slaves, if all it was worth at the time was $1.00 per square foot. But as time has shown, it was worth well more than that.

War and politics are about nothing but real estate, short and simple. That is my view.

With every good wish and gratitude for your engagement on this topic that I personally find utterly fascinating and neglected,

James
 
To All,

From the book, Reluctant Confederates, by Daniel W. Crofts, (@uaskme and my new favorite author) chapter 5, page 106, paragraph 2, which all can be read here on this forum by clicking on the following link:

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/tariffs.1205/page-55#post-1813708

Scroll down to about paragraph 5 to see how Texas secession and slavery led to the demise of a Southern effort to build a transcontinental rail road from east Texas.

Unionblue
PS: If anyone is smart enough to bring this particular post to this thread of @trice , I would appreciate it. :smile:
 
To All,

From the book, Reluctant Confederates, by Daniel W. Crofts, (@uaskme and my new favorite author) chapter 5, page 106, paragraph 2, which all can be read here on this forum by clicking on the following link:

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/tariffs.1205/page-55#post-1813708

Scroll down to about paragraph 5 to see how Texas secession and slavery led to the demise of a Southern effort to build a transcontinental rail road from east Texas.

Unionblue
PS: If anyone is smart enough to bring this particular post to this thread of @trice , I would appreciate it. :smile:

Crofts is correct. I posted earlier about the Credit Mobilier Company. Duff Green started the company to build the Southern Route. It was active in 1859. So the Lower Souths secession stopped the effort. A Yankee bought the Company which ended up in a huge scandal during the Grant Administration. Credit Mobilier was the scheme used to finance the Norths TRR. Want Green wanted to do in the South.

All of this is evidence that the South was trying to build the TRR right up till Secession. And James Lutzweiler tells us plans extended past Secession. @trice says the South gave up in 53. Which was before the Pacific Railroad Surveys and all the discussion of the different Routes. So here is another Historian, who Confirms the Story.

So, thanks UB for this post. I stopped posting because of the lack of interest. Thanks for your Interest.
 
Crofts is correct. I posted earlier about the Credit Mobilier Company. Duff Green started the company to build the Southern Route. It was active in 1859. So the Lower Souths secession stopped the effort. A Yankee bought the Company which ended up in a huge scandal during the Grant Administration. Credit Mobilier was the scheme used to finance the Norths TRR. Want Green wanted to do in the South.

As my Dad's old boss Sydney used to tell him: "Money attracts thieves". It doesn't seem to matter what era of civilization or culture we look at; that adage seems to apply to all times and all peoples.

All of this is evidence that the South was trying to build the TRR right up till Secession. And James Lutzweiler tells us plans extended past Secession. @trice says the South gave up in 53. Which was before the Pacific Railroad Surveys and all the discussion of the different Routes. So here is another Historian, who Confirms the Story.


If you are going to lay blame on me for things, please try to be accurate. I have not said this and have repeatedly said something completely different. Try reading what I actually said.
 
As my Dad's old boss Sydney used to tell him: "Money attracts thieves". It doesn't seem to matter what era of civilization or culture we look at; that adage seems to apply to all times and all peoples.

You said the South gave up on the TTR 53 or 54 and concentrated on Slavery. Not trying to put words in your mouth. Said it repeatedly, didn’t you? I don’t care and not trying to call you out. Just thought you would like to see UBs post.



If you are going to lay blame on me for things, please try to be accurate. I have not said this and have repeatedly said something completely different. Try reading what I actually said.
 
Crofts is correct. I posted earlier about the Credit Mobilier Company. Duff Green started the company to build the Southern Route. It was active in 1859. So the Lower Souths secession stopped the effort. A Yankee bought the Company which ended up in a huge scandal during the Grant Administration. Credit Mobilier was the scheme used to finance the Norths TRR. Want Green wanted to do in the South.

All of this is evidence that the South was trying to build the TRR right up till Secession. And James Lutzweiler tells us plans extended past Secession. @trice says the South gave up in 53. Which was before the Pacific Railroad Surveys and all the discussion of the different Routes. So here is another Historian, who Confirms the Story.

So, thanks UB for this post. I stopped posting because of the lack of interest. Thanks for your Interest.

@uaskme ,

I see that you have totally ignored paragraph 5 on Crofts comments on why the TRR was abandoned, that the secession of Texas and the conflict over slavery drove away foreign investment and took away any initiative for a southern route.

Odd how that one thing can be overlooked in an almost frantic theory that secession had the time and effort to plan a TRR "past Secession" or that "right up till Secession" the country, to include the South was focused on slavery and secession, almost exclusively, as indicated by the existing historical paper trail.

That is what Crofts is "Confirming" that secession over slavery killed the southern route.

Unionblue
 
@uaskme ,

I see that you have totally ignored paragraph 5 on Crofts comments on why the TRR was abandoned, that the secession of Texas and the conflict over slavery drove away foreign investment and took away any initiative for a southern route.

Odd how that one thing can be overlooked in an almost frantic theory that secession had the time and effort to plan a TRR "past Secession" or that "right up till Secession" the country, to include the South was focused on slavery and secession, almost exclusively, as indicated by the existing historical paper trail.

That is what Crofts is "Confirming" that secession over slavery killed the southern route.

Unionblue

What it Confirms is that the South was developing the TRR before it seceded. That puts the timeline in 61. Is’t this exciting? Also confirmed by Duff Green developing Credit Mobilier in 1859. Lincoln was elected, Texas seceded. It is not mutually exclusive. Texas and the South, could of done both. The South wasn’t going to get Federal Help with the TRR, after the Election Of a Republican President. They would of had to do it in their own. So, why stay in the Union. The Lower South, calculated the Value Of Union. Determined it wasn’t worth it. Maybe if you read Mr Lutzweiler’s book, you will understand, Why? If a Democrat had of been elected odds are the Lower South could not of seceded.

Thanks for your contribution and the stimulating Conversation.
 
What it Confirms is that the South was developing the TRR before it seceded. That puts the timeline in 61. Is’t this exciting? Also confirmed by Duff Green developing Credit Mobilier in 1859. Lincoln was elected, Texas seceded. It is not mutually exclusive. Texas and the South, could of done both. The South wasn’t going to get Federal Help with the TRR, after the Election Of a Republican President. They would of had to do it in their own. So, why stay in the Union. The Lower South, calculated the Value Of Union. Determined it wasn’t worth it. Maybe if you read Mr Lutzweiler’s book, you will understand, Why? If a Democrat had of been elected odds are the Lower South could not of seceded.

Thanks for your contribution and the stimulating Conversation.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-gadsden-purchase-and-a-failed-attempt-at-a-southern-railroad

The south was never going to privately fund a railroad before secession and the confederacy was preoccupied and over extended after. They only made a tiny halfhearted effort to gain the territory during the war. The road would not come to pass until federal funds became available.
 
Back
Top