In the second half of the nineteenth century, a movement to conserve natural resources and promote sustainable commercialism emerged. Though focused upon the country’s environment, the Conservation movement was in part driven by political and economic factors. It did not appeal to all people. Many industries supported Conservation policies and platforms because sustainability enhanced efficiency and therefore increased profit, while many rural residents and lower classes in fact felt displaced by encroaching Conservation policy. Major organizations and political figures, like President Theodore Roosevelt, influenced this movement and shaped its evolution from approximately 1850 until 1920.

Western water development spawned the Conservation movement. In the late 1880s, the term was used to express the idea of building reservoirs to “conserve” spring floodwaters for later use. Water Conservation was rooted in the idea that one source of water had many potential uses; Conservationists thus wanted to tap into these multiple uses in order to reap the most economic benefit for the country. The Federal Government participated in Conservation to further economic growth in the western part of the United States; Congress passed the Carey Act in 1894, which granted one million acres of land to each Western state to be used to finance irrigation.^[i] George H. Maxwell, a California water specialist, believed that water development and irrigation could solve all the nation’s problems because it would direct the migration people out of cities and back into rural areas. He organized the National Irrigation Association in 1899, which disseminated literature to the general populace and published a monthly periodical, Maxwell’s Talisman; his rigorous campaigning generated enough public interest to convince both major political parties to adopt corresponding platforms during the 1900 general election. The Republican platform, issued on June 19, 1900 and represented by William McKinley, stated:

In further pursuance of the constant policy of the Republican Party to provide free homes on the public domain, we recommend adequate national legislation to reclaim the arid lands of the United States, reserving control of the distribution of water for irrigation to the respective States and territories.^[ii]

On July 4, 1900, the Democratic Party, represented by nominee William Jennings Bryan, issued their platform, which similarly stated: "We favor an intelligent system of improving the arid lands of the West, storing the waters for the purpose of irrigation, and the holding of such lands for actual settlers.^[iii]” Both parties incorporated Conservation issues into their agendas. Even in its initial stages, the Conservation movement bred such an impassioned collective response, that it was easier to expand its reaches over time.

The irrigation movement soon became closely linked with forestry, as the latter directly affected water supply. Forests were important for watershed vegetation; they absorbed rainfall and delayed snow melting, thus increasing the levels of ground water and increasing the stores for summer use. They also hindered soil erosion in irrigation ditches and reservoirs.^[iv] Water irrigation advocates thus supported forestry conservation, in addition to water development; in the 1890s, Maxwell and the National Irrigation Association aggressively campaigned the Federal Government to “save the forests, store the floods, make homes on land.”^[v]

Congress saw the importance of this watershed vegetation, which collected rainwater, in preserving the rivers. The chairman of the committee, which created the Carey Act, reported:

We have made a provision in this bill authorizing the President of the United States whenever in his judgment he deems proper to do so, to make a reservation of the timber lands, principally applying in the watersheds of the West, so that the water supply in the country may be preserved.^[vi]

Conservation, especially of forestry, was considered essential to the prosperity of a nation. An immigrant from Germany, which is known as the birthplace of modern forestry^[vii], noted the United States’ position as one of the only industrialized countries to have neglected this concern. He said:

The forestry problem presents itself for consideration to every nation…all the European governments have properly equipped forest administrations. Russia, the English colonies in Asia and Australia, Japan, and even China have recognized the necessity for action in this direction, and have acted. The United States alone, among the civilized nations, has as yet failed to perceive the wide bearing which a proper forestry policy has on the material and moral development of a country.^[viii]

People like Maxwell and Gifford Pinchot, who had studied advanced forest practices for years in France and Germany and would eventually become the Chief of the Division of Forestry in the United States, understood the importance of Conservation for the nation’s well-being. With aggressive campaigning, Conservationist sentiment grew rapidly, influencing many different sects of society.

When it was established in 1875, the American Forestry Association comprised botanists and estate owners who advocated arboriculture, or the appreciation of trees, in order to preserve the nation’s forests. The Association created parks and established Arbor Day ^[ix]. As it organized with the irrigation movement, the American Forest Association shifted emphasis to sustainable forestry.

One major forestry project was the preservation of the Adirondacks, the mountains in northern New York. This mountain range contained the source of the Hudson River, which was commemorated by Conservationists and Preservationists in 1910, during the dedication of the Palisades Interstate Park. Continued deforestation of the Adirondacks would lead to the drying up of the Hudson River. George Perkins Marsh, fish commissioner and diplomat from Vermont, advocated for government ownership of the Adirondacks for its preservation. Marsh’s ideals of preservation were influenced by his stay in Turkey during the Crimean War. He correlated the infertility of the land to the decline of the Roman civilization. His theories for the “Old World” extended to predictions for future civilizations, and thus urged immediate action to preserve American forests, to prevent “desolation almost as complete as that of the moon” as was evident in the Mediterranean and Asian countries of ancient civilizations. In Man and Nature, a pivotal work published in 1864 inspiring Conservation ideals, he commented on the consequences of human actions upon nature. He said:

The fact that, of all organic beings, man alone is regarded as essentially a destructive power, and that he wields energies to resist which, nature—that nature whom all material life and all inorganic substance obey—is wholly impotent, tends to prove that, though living in physical nature, he is not of her, that he is of more exalted parentage, and belongs to a higher order of existences that those born of her womb and submissive to her dictates^[x].

Marsh attributed the proliferation of carnivorous insects, the endangerment of many bird species, the drying up of rivers and canals through deforestation, and the devastation of sand dunes and beaches to human exploitation of the earth. He opted for government control of the land to protect it, for he did not trust the locals of the Adirondacks. He compared the “backwoodsman” to a beaver in their use of timber, except that the animal uses the forest for necessity, and allows for natural regeneration of trees, while the human inflicts damage upon the forest that is “not healed until he withdraws the arm that gave the blow.”^[xi] While private ownership of land brought short-term gain, Marsh believed that state ownership invested in long-term public welfare.

The New York State Legislature formed a committee in 1872, which favored Marsh’s plan of preservation. It was decided that protection of the Adirondacks was necessary for the reasons Marsh had outlined, including destruction of water flow and local mismanagement. Additionally, the State legislature perceived the rural life of the woods as more morally inclined and healthy than life in the cities. Of this idealized life in the midst of nature, they said:

The field sports of the wilderness are remarkably exhilarating, and strengthen and revive the human frame. The boating, trampling, hunting and fishing expedition afford that physical training which modern Americans—of the Eastern States—stand sadly in need of, and which we must hope will, with the fashionable young men of period, yet replace the vicious, enervating, debasing pleasures of the cities. It is to their eager pursuit of field sports that metropolitan Englishmen owe their superiority of physical power, with the skillful use of firearms, independence, fearlessness, cool presence of mind, and ability which they possess to bear fatigues of war and exigencies of military service.

To foster and promote these natural and healthy exercises among the young men of the State, it is necessary in some measure to preserve the game, and the forest which affords it shelter.^[xii]

The committee thus linked an environmental crisis to a social crisis, as Marsh had connected a civilization’s decline to its environmental deterioration. In the next twenty years, the Committee proceeded to act in support of protecting the Adirondacks. In 1883, the New York State legislature passed an act forbidding sales of lands within these mountains, and two years later, the Forest Preserve was created. The Preserve comprised all the land in the Adirondacks owned by the State.^[xiii]

The remarkable actions of the State to preserve the drying rivers of the Adirondacks, including the Mohawk, the Black, and the Hudson rivers, were not universally well-received, and led to competition for public space. The romanticized view of the rugged woodsman was distorted, and Conservation leaders soon came in conflict with locals in the Adirondacks. Additionally, those Conservationists who did not romanticize local residents of the Adirondacks, but held a primitive view of them, thought preservation of the mountain range and its forests would improve lives of the woodsmen. However, with the State’s restrictive measures on hunting and timber, which was needed for fuel, residents felt invaded and resisted Conservation efforts. As the state expanded its territory, many local inhabitants found themselves squatting on State territory by default, for which they would be subject to fines. Furthermore, gaming regulations were seen as solely benefiting the city sportsmen, for most residents hunted for food, not recreation.

^[I]n them days, nobody said a word if a poor man wanted a little mean an’ killed it, but now they’re savin’ it until the dudes get time to come up here an’ kill it an’ some of ‘em leave a deer to rot in the woods, an’ on’y take the horns ef it’s a buck, or the tail ef it’s a doe, just so’s they can brag about it when they go home, an’ they’d put me in jail ef I kille a deer when I needed meat. I dunno what we’re a-comin’ to in this free country.^[xiv]

Local residents argued that as members of the public, they had a right to public property.

The ambiguity in what and who constituted “the public” became more complex as wealthy investors opted to privatize regions of the Adirondacks. Affluent sportsmen, who lived in urban cities but came to enjoy the woods every weekend, wished to buy portions of the forest; they sought to create private parks to preserve the Adirondacks. Local residents of the Adirondacks resisted, as it would allow for an unfair advantage for the sportsmen in hunting. In response to local outcry, the New York State legislature allocated one million dollars to purchase land for the Forest Preserve. By 1907, the State had added 1.5 million acres to the Preserve, though most of the Adirondacks remained privately owned.

Conservation in the Adirondacks strongly affected the economy of that region. Because of game laws and regulations on timber, local residents had to find other ways to provide for themselves and their families, and many took advantage of the newly booming tourist industry. Many local residents used their background to their benefit as tour guides. Thus, there was increase in wage-labor, especially in the service industry.

The American Forestry Association supported fire control as another measure to protect the forests; many forest fires in the Adirondacks were attributed to local resistance against Conservation policies. In 1911 Congress passed the Weeks Act, providing “federal financial aid to any state that would take up a program to protect from fire the timberlands at the headwaters of navigable streams.”^[xv] Further economic advantages came about with the scientific investigations of various trees, which resulted in understanding various tree diseases, the chemistry of maple sugar, and methods of extracting turpentine, which all held commercial value.

Pinchot attributed much of the success of the federal forestry program to President Roosevelt’s influence. In an article for Century magazine, he stated:

The program of forestry stands upon practical conceptions…the test of utility has given the forest movement and the forest policy alike new strength and new acceptance. Forest reserves were never so popular as they are today, because they were never so well understood. For this result the President’s Western trip last spring, during which he constantly advocated forest preservation for economic reasons, is largely responsible.^[xvi]

Like with many major progressive movements of the time, the persons promoting the ideals aided in the diffusion of the subject into the public arena, through education or campaigning. J. Pierpont Morgan made significant monetary contributions for the protection of the Palisades, a project undertaken by both Preservationists and Conservationists.

Additionally, Women played a significant role in the development of the Conservation movement. Since the inception of the General Federation of Women’s Club in 1890, members have been active in beautifying schools and parks and vacant lots, and even corresponded with German women active in the forestry movement for advice. They worked to promote the Conservation ideology in schools, and even held writing contests on such topics as the importance of clean water.^[xvii] From about 1905, classrooms around the country began including in their syllabi “nature study,” in which students were encouraged to interact with the outdoors, without books or other academic restraints. ^[xviii] Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR), whose Conservation committee chair was Pinchot’s mother, also played a significant role in the preservation of the Palisades, the Appalachian mountains, and Niagara Falls. Because most politicians wanted them to focus their efforts upon children rather than men, the DAR ran a column in their monthly newsletter on the importance of instilling virtues of Conservation in children.^[xix]

From its origins as a derivation of the water irrigation movement, the forestry conservation movement gained enough support to sustain itself on its own, breaking from joint campaigns to lobbying of its own platform and through its own organization.

Ideologies of the Conservation and Historic Preservation movements converged for the protection of the Palisades Interstate Park. The park contained parts of the Hudson River and its tributaries, and members of both groups sought its perpetuation. During the dedication of the Palisades Interstate Park, Governor Charles Hughes of New York acknowledge the site as one of great human achievement and progress, but also the environment which made possible these successful endeavors. He said:

The Celebration should…direct our attention to this priceless gift of nature. We ascend beyond the tidal sweep of the silent forest where the river takes its source. There at the headwaters of the Hudson and its principal tributaries, we learn the necessity of forest preservation. If we would preserve the source of industrial power, if we would secure and maintain proper regulation of the flow of our streams and make them agencies of progress rather than devastating forces, we must conserve the forests of our country…the people have not awakened too soon.

He proceeded to acknowledge Conservation efforts of New York State, emphasizing the great benefit to the economy with increased efficiency and use of waterpower. Conservationists like Governor Hughes saw the Hudson Fulton Celebration of 1909 as an event that would draw attention to the importance of preserving forestland and rivers for economic and social benefit; the Celebration was seen as “an impetus to the movement to this end which too long has languished because of public inattention.”^[xxi]

The significant contributions of women to the preservation of the Palisades were recognized by George Perkins, President of the New York Commission of the Palisades Interstate Park. He said:

The first tangible plan toward protecting the Palisades was a proposal in 1895 to induce the National government to secure them for military purposes. A Commission was appointed for this purpose, but the scheme fell through. The outlook for preservation after this juncture seemed most discouraging. At this juncture the women of New Jersey took up the work, and with great zeal and intelligence the New Jersey State Federation of Women’s Clubs began an active campaign, resulting in the passage of a bill in 1899…empowering the Governor to appoint a committee of five to investigate. ^[xxii]

Perkins proceeded to acknowledge their substantial role in raising money for the erection of monuments on the Palisades. To commemorate their efforts, a monument would be created and dedicated to the women.

Conservation evolved yet again as the forestry movement influenced the subsequent range conservation movement, particular to western United States. Grazing, for both cattle and sheep, comprised one of the primary commercial uses of forests. Leading figures in range conservation were Frederick Coville and Albert Potter, each of whom contributed to the opening of several forest reserves around the country for grazing. As with forest preservation, a major issue that arose was competition for public space, as livestock breeders came into conflict with a growing population.

To attack this problem, President Roosevelt created the Public Lands Commission in the fall of 1903.^[xxiii] This Commission essentially promoted order among the three growing sects of the Conservation movement, forestry, water development, and range preservation. Most decisions about land ownership were specific to the circumstance, though the Commission did abide by general guidelines in maintaining order.

Professional organizations, like the American Society of Civil Engineers, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, and the American Institute of Mining Engineers, all of which promoted efficiency, maintained close contact with the Roosevelt administration.^[xxiv] They supported the use of hydroelectric power to decrease the dependency on coal. Until approximately 1908, the Conservation agenda was carried out smoothly, with only minor hindrances, like the conflicting interests within the movement. Efficiency became the main goal of the Conservation movement, and in 1908 President Roosevelt confirmed this sentiment in an address at the Conference of Governors in Washington:

Finally, let us remember that the conservation of natural resources…is yet but part of another and greater problem…the problem of national efficiency, the patriotic duty of insuring the safety and continuance of the nation.^[xxv]

The effort to preserve natural resources thus became inseparable from the desire to increase efficiency in production of goods, for efficient modes of production led to decreased natural waste and economic growth. This agenda infiltrated foreign policy under the Roosevelt Administration. The President held a conference dedicated to promoting economic stability and growth through increasing efficiency in modes of production. At the North American Conservation Conference, at which Canada and Mexico were present, Roosevelt stressed international cooperation and echoed sentiments of the American Conservation movement. He said:

With nations whose boundaries march along a great extent of land frontier, as with Canada, the United States, and Mexico, there are necessarily large tracts of land in which the welfare of the people depends upon the action not only of one country, but of the neighboring country…you cannot cut down the forests on the headwaters of an international stream without having it hurt both nations…Ultimately, each of us will profit immeasurably if…each strives to advance by joining with the other for common advancement.^[xxvi]

However, commercial agendas had dominated Conservation to such a degree that the movement evolved once more, from one with an economic agenda to one with a moral mission.

Groups like DAR and the General Federation of Women’s Club viewed industrialism as a threat to the individual, for “sprawling urban monstrosities were replacing sobriety, honesty, and hard work with disease, immorality, and squalor…traditional American values were on the point of extinction.”^[xxvii] Their perspective of Conservation directed people away from the rapidly modernizing notions of society to the seeming slower-paced countryside, and placed emphasis on public parks, much like the Preservation movement, which emerged around the same time. Instead of sustainable forestry, this new strand of Conservation focused upon a sustainable life, away from materialism and embedded in tradition and natural beauty

In 1904, organizations sharing similar views on seemingly encroaching industrial power joined to form the American Civic Association. A major focus of the Association was the restoration of parks and forests. One member of the Association once claimed that “National Parks represent opportunities for worship through which one comes to understand more fully certain of the attributes of nature and its Creator.”^[xxviii] Unlike the Preservation movement, which sought to save and protect pre-existing public spaces to embed into collective memory the significance of historical events, the Conservation movement sought to preserve parks and forests in order to recall American civic values, as they were identified with the countryside and rugged frontier. Both movements sought to instill values from a different moment in time, to extend this chosen moment into the contemporary arena, and shape the public mindset to identify with these values. These impulses to preserve historic value and conserve nature were visible in the Hudson Fulton Celebration, especially with respect to protection of the Palisades, which represented the junction of these two ideals, of preservation of history through the conservation of nature.

These groups posed a threat to the previous model of conservationist efficiency. It was difficult to argue and operate rationally when faced with moral ideologies. Moral fervor infused the movement. Controversial events, like the Pinchot-Ballinger controversy^[1], diverted focus from and lost public trust in the movement, and in the early twentieth century, Conservation began to decline. The term Conservation evolved once again to incorporate almost all progressive movements of the time, including human health, conservation of the morals of youth, civic beauty. Conservationist women used the term to advance their political importance to society. Inan address to the Conservation Congress of 1909, Mrs. Overton Ellis of the General Federation of Women’s Clubs said, “Conservation, in its material and ethical sense is the basic principle in the life of a woman.” ^[xxix] Their importance and contribution to the movement led the prevalent issue of women’s suffrage; however, anti-suffrage groups also used conservation to promote the idea that a woman voting was unnatural. Throughout its lifetime, the meaning of Conservation changed constantly, integrating new ideals and social responses to contemporary dilemmas.

Conservation was conflicted between private and public ownership; there existed confusion as to what constituted “public.” Geologist Thomas C. Chamberlain wrote in 1910:

In their fundamental nature, the problems of conservation and the problems of possession are distinct questions…the conservation of natural resources centers in the scientific and technical; the right of ownership and the most desirable form of ownership center in the political and sociological.^[xxx]

It is evident that throughout its existence, Conservation was deeply intertwined with the political sphere. As Chamberlain suggests, different aspects of Conservation merited different aspects of society, either that of research and scientific development, or the political and collective. Pinchot recognized this conflict of ownership, in which “public welfare is set against private welfare,”^[xxxi] and attributed this problem to the fight against trusts and big businesses. He incorporated the Conservationist approach to efficiency in his argument against monopolies and large profits, saying that excessive profits to the few mean excessive costs to the many…the test of a successful civilization is the well-being of its average citizens, not the building up of a social system in which the benefits go only to a few. The problem is not merely economic. It is moral.^[xxxii]

The Conservation movement thus infused many facets of society, affecting people in government, in agriculture, in urban centers. The movement seemed to be initially spearheaded by leaders of a specific type; all were educated men, many of whom had gained international perspective from studies abroad. Marsh and Pinchot, for example used many European forestry practices as foils for the American forestry program. Coville graduated from Cornell University before he took post with the Department of Agriculture in Washington, and Potter worked in different universities in Germany before working at various laboratories in the United States.

Conservation became an influence deeply entrenched in political, economic, and social elements of the country. Its ideals were present in the New York based Hudson-Fulton Celebration of 1909, which aimed to exult the progress of the city, recall civic memory, and instill a sense of pride for New York’s rich background and culture. The importance of natural landscape especially resonated with those who lived in the cities; in his address during the dedication of the Palisades, Hughes tapped into this pull towards nature, and expressed his gratitude for such natural beauty. He said:

Within a short distance of the great metropolis, within easy reach of its teeming population, lies this extensive area of natural beauty, making with its fascinating story a special appeal to the patriotic American heart…The Highlands of the Hudson and these Palisades…must be put beyond the reach of the devastating hand and conserved for the general good, and on future centennial anniversaries the measures taken to that end…may well be regarded as our most important contribution to the welfare of succeeding generations.^[xxxiii]

Hughes emphasized the significance of the Palisades especially to New Yorkers, as the inhabitants of the proximate “great metropolis,” a notion that was prevalent during the Hudson-Fulton Celebration. Furthermore, it was not just the aesthetic appeal of the Palisades that grew appreciation from those living across the Hudson, but rather, its historic significance; this sense of latent meaning in physical and natural objects resonated greatly with the ideals driving the Celebration. Parks and rivers that seem merely natural spaces to the contemporary eye were actually repositories of historic value, bearing context that members of the Celebration Commission wished to propagate.

In the 70 years of its existence, Conservation grew from a move to save resources for industrial use, to the idea of protecting the natural frontier as a reminder of tradition and American values in face of industrialization, to moral ideas extending to Conservation of home and even Conservation of childhood. The Hudson Fulton Celebration of 1909 was notably shaped by the ideals of the movement, and promoted the virtues of efficiency and aesthetics during the dedication of the Palisades and throughout the Celebration.

Endnotes