|
HISTORIC BACKGROUND AT NIAGARA FALLS: THE PORTERS |
|
HISTORIC
BACKGROUND AT NIAGARA FALLS: by
P. M. Eckel The nineteenth century Porter brothers,
General Peter B. and Judge Augustus Porter, were not simple custodians of an
undeveloped park at Goat Island, but were active entrepreneurs. Augustus
Porter preceded his brother to western New York when the land was still
clothed in virgin timber and the Seneca still held rights to all the land
west of the Genesee River. Augustus was primarily a surveyor, marking
boundaries for the enormous land purchases of Phelps and Gorham east of the
Genesee River, and later for the Holland Land Company, which owned 3.3
million acres of western New York State. Peter B. Porter, a lawyer, had
graduated from Yale and was active in the State Republican party at the turn
of the eighteenth to nineteenth centuries. In 1800, when all land west of the
Genesee River, now divided into eight counties, was organized under the name
Ontario County, Peter B. Porter served as its county clerk. Although in many
ways a brilliant family, the Porters were to fall heir to a series of
disappointments, which were to dog them through the early decades of the
twentieth century. Perhaps their first disappointment was
the decision to back Aaron Burr for the scandalous New York State
gubernatorial race of 1804, which disrupted the unity of the Republican party
by Burr's "disregard of the gubernatorial choice of the regular
Republican leadership" (Chazanof, 1970). When Burr lost, Peter Porter
lost the clerkship given him by the Republican party in 1797 in return for
services rendered to the party "to [punish] him for his political
heresy" (Chazanof, 1970). This event highlighted the Porter's
willingness to break ranks or take risks, even to the breakdown of the union
of the young United States, as many believed Burr was intending, and the
division of their political party. By 1806 Peter B. Porter was elected
Congressman by the Republicans, and re-elected in 1810. In Congress, as
member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Peter Porter was an advocate of an
open war with England both because he "felt bitter over England's
conduct on the high seas" and because he "feared her close
relationship with the Indians" (Chazanof, 1970), but also because
"he wanted to add to his already sizable land holdings and was not
averse to expanding into Canada. He sought, too, a monopoly of the shipping
trade for his company [Porter, Barton Company] on the Great Lakes. He hoped
to take over the business of the wealthy English firm of Robert Hamilton
which controlled the forwarding trade on the Canadian side" (Chazanof,
1970). Peter Porter's center of operations was Black Rock, a town just north
of Buffalo, and later incorporated into Buffalo. Once war was declared on June 18, 1812,
Peter Porter "promptly resigned his office as congressman to join the
actual fighting in western New York and to sell supplies to the army "
(Chazanof, 1970). Porter came back to western New York to better handle the
business his company would have in supplying American government forces, and
to do the best he could to ensure a military success that would enhance his
economic interests and the interests of his government, that is, to redress
naval offenses to the United States by England, and England's apparent
rousing of the Indian peoples against American settlers. He distinguished
himself as a soldier in that conflict, and was willing to risk his life and
his holdings for a favorable outcome, for Congress granted P. B. Porter a
gold medal "in testimony of the high sense entertained by Congress of
his gallantry and good conduct in the battles of 1814 ... at Chippewa ...
Niagara (Lundy's Lane) [and] ... Erie" (Adams, 1927). However, the war "seriously
interfered with the transportation operations of this firm" to the
extent that when their twenty-year lease came up for renewal in 1817, it was
"extended for four years in recognition of the forced suspension of the
business during the war" (Adams, 1927). The United States Government had
purchased the Porter's ships and had them "added to the armed fleets on
the lakes" (A. L. Porter, 1875). While Peter B. Porter's sphere of
influence was international and centered in Black Rock, his brother, Judge
Augustus Porter confined himself to what would become the village of Niagara
Falls - most of the land of which he, or his interests, already owned
(Porter, in Adams, 1927). The war devastated the developing village of
Niagara. "At this place nothing was saved, except two or three small
dwellings and the log tavern ...," including Porter's home (A. L.
Porter, 1875). The log tavern was to become the famous Eagle Tavern of
Parkhurst Whitney. The Porters also lost their bid to have
the course of the Erie Canal run to Lake Ontario at Oswego "and around
Niagara Falls to Lake Erie," instead of the present interior route to
Buffalo. De Witt Clinton was governor of New York State when both houses of
the State legislature voted the survey of lands for the proposed canal
routes. Note that this De Witt Clinton was not, as is frequently supposed,
the "talented naturalist" of the same name. De Witt Clinton, the
naturalist, was "nephew of the seven-time governor of New York State,
former mayor of New York City, and a strong political leader in the Senate
who became interested in the canal" (Chazanof, 1970). It is perhaps
because of the nephew's scientific interest in the canal - in 1810 he was
made one of the commissioners to survey and study the canal proposal - that
scientific expeditions were launched on the canal after its opening (see
section above regarding George W. Clinton). Peter B. Porter "favored a canal
route that facilitated trade on the Great Lakes, and sought a passage by way
of Lake Ontario. [This route] would aid the Great Lakes shipping firm of
Porter, Barton and Company at Black Rock, for the canal would run from Albany
to Lake Ontario. The Porter, Barton Company had a twenty-year contract with
the State of New York that gave the Company a trade monopoly on the Niagara
River and over the Portage Road. [The Ontario route would] insure the trade
position of Porter's Company" (Chazanof, 1970). Porter was one of the
Canal commissioners. The Oswego-Lake Ontario route was not chosen by the
Legislature. The firm of Porter, Barton and Company
came into being with the grant by the state to the partners in the firm of
Augustus Porter, Peter B. Porter, Benjamin Barton and Joseph Annin to
authorize the company to own the lease of the Niagara portage by an Act of
1803 (Adams, 1927). Again, Porter wanted the western
terminus of the canal to be the Black Rock harbor, rather than the harbor to
be established at the City of Buffalo at the junction of Buffalo Creek with
Lake Erie. Cargo, destined primarily for Cleveland, was taken by ox or horse
teams from Lewiston to Fort Schlosser above the American Falls, and from
there poled up the River to warehouses in Black Rock for shipment west.
"Starting in 1806, when the legislature had permitted the sale of lands
in the vicinity of Black Rock, Augustus and Peter B. Porter had accumulated
sizable holdings in that area. They had joined with Benjamin Barton and
Barton's uncle, Joseph Annin, in buying some lots along the Niagara River
from Fort Niagara to Black Rock and in leasing the landing places at Black
Rock and Lewiston" (Chazanof, 1970). Augustus and Peter Porter, in
addition to their commercial vessels on the Great Lakes, "supplied the
military posts ... at Fort Niagara, Wayne, Chicago, and Michilimackinac ....
The firm also handled nearly all the business of the American fur companies
as well as that of large Indian traders. With its monopoly of transportation
along this much-used route, Porter, Barton and Company controlled the portage
business using the Niagara River" (Chazanof, 1970). It was out of Oswego
that the Porters received freight from New York to be shipped by them along
Lake Ontario, through the portage along the Niagara River to Lake Erie and on
to Cleveland and Pittsburgh (Adams, 1927). "Earlier, Peter Porter had
tried to influence Governor Tompkins in the selection of a canal route
directly to Oswego and Lake Ontario. Clinton claimed that Porter had 'infused
his opinions into Tompkins who is profoundly ignorant of the subject, whose
opinion [is] not worthy of respect but whose opposition is heretofore
indirect.'" (Chazanof, 1970). The Porter brothers also lost this bid, to
which they had contributed substantial money and effort. The Canal was to defeat the Porter's
usefulness as conveyors in Lake Ontario and the Niagara portage, since goods
could be now shipped directly to Lake Erie from Albany. The opening of the
canal had a "paralyzing influence upon the business prospects" of
the Porter company. Throughout the career of Peter B. and
Augustus Porter, both individuals had striven to manipulate government policy
for their own personal economic gain. Although devotion to one's company
interests and to one's government do not necessarily conflict, there is some
evidence, as given above, that the Porters, especially Peter B. Porter,
consistently used political position to further the interests of the family,
as when Peter was a member of the Federal Congress, a General of the United
States Army, and a commissioner of the Erie Canal. Chazanof, in his excellent
biography of Joseph Ellicott, does not characterize Peter B. Porter's
political efforts in this way, yet he presents historical information which,
in sum, presents Porter as using his political position as much to his
personal gain as for the people he was to represent. Perhaps this attitude
was central to the continuous history of failure of the Porter family to
succeed in the economic ventures which, although superficially they were in
advantageous positions to exploit, yet which eluded their grasp, bringing
riches to their rivals. Although they may have been quick to see political
and economic opportunity, they either did not integrate the welfare of their
company with the welfare of the State of New York or consistently misread
developments in the State with regard to western New York. For instance, it
was because Joseph Ellicott, Chief-agent for the Holland Land Company, in
many ways the Porter's chief political and economic rival in the first
decades of the nineteenth century, worked in good faith for the interests of
both company and State, that the State favored Ellicott's suggestions
regarding the route of the Erie Canal, for instance, over competing claims by
the Porter brothers (Chazanof, 1970). As mentioned above, in the section above
on land use on Goat Island, Augustus Porter acquired Goat Island in October
1815, sharing ownership of it with Peter Porter after November 16, 1816, when
the deed was finally given to the elder brother by the State of New York.
Augustus had originally applied for ownership of Goat Island in 1811, but at
the time the State needed a place for a second prison - the first having been
built in New York City - and was considering using Goat Island for such a
purpose, or as an arsenal, especially since western New York was badly
prepared for war with England. By 1819, the State had decided to build a
prison in Auburn, New York, and the war with England had come and gone. In
1814, Augustus Porter, a judge, "still wanted Goat Island, and he
finally outwitted the State, and obtained it" (Porter, 1900) by a legal
maneuver. Although the Porters and other business associates,
such as Benjamin Barton and Joseph Annin, Barton's uncle, had purchased the
lands east of Prospect Point and upriver to the east of Gill Creek at an
auction, February 26, 1805, being acreage on the "Mile Strip," the
islands in the Niagara River were still owned by the Seneca, probably as
acreage, together with their Reservations, not having been sold to business
interests during the Treaty of Big Tree in 1797. The Indian title to all the
islands in the Niagara River, previously reserved for them, had been
extinguished by the State of New York "only a few weeks before"
October, 1815 for "$1,000 cash and $1,500 a year in perpetuity"
(Porter, 1900). In addition to the purchase of
river-front property in association with their conveying and forwarding
operations, the Porters were "the largest owners of important tracts of
real estate favorably located for power development and manufacturing
purposes" (Adams, 1927). When the Erie Canal, which opened in 1825, made
redundant the Porter's principal sphere of financial operations, they began
to turn their attention away from Buffalo and on to Niagara Falls. "As pioneers in power development
the Porter Brothers again devoted their influences and activities to the up
building of Niagara as a center of population and commerce. In this new
period of their lives the great cataract was to be again the pivot of their
public lives. Its hindrance to commerce had been the foundation of their
business success; they now saw their opportunity in its vast undeveloped power,
which became their hope for the utilization of their large landed estate, as
well as for the community in which they dwelt" (Adams, 1927). On June 24, 1825, within a few years of
losing their lease for the portage business along the Niagara River, the
Porters issued an "Invitation to Eastern Capitalists and
Manufacturers." It is a central document in the "story of Niagara
Falls" for it was issued by one of the foremost regional capitalist
families of the time and represents the focus and direction of economic
development to exploit the falls of Niagara. As early as 1825, the Porters developed
a prospectus that described Goat Island (as Iris Island) to the economic
community of the United States as a "situation ... not surpassed, and
probably not equaled, in the United States, as a site for the establishment
of manufactures," The "adjoining banks appear to have been
expressly designed for the convenience of leading water from the river for
hydraulic operations. Practically speaking, the extent to which water-power
may be here applied is without limit. A thousand mills might be erected with
the same ease, and equally accessible, as if on a plain; and each supplied
with a never failing water-power" (Porter, in Adams, 1927). The grand
canal, or Erie Canal, was only ten miles upriver on a navigable waterway
where great transportation lines connect the area with New York City and
European markets, and the interior United States along the Great Lakes
shipping lanes. Downriver sits Lewiston "the head of the sloop
navigation of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence" and Canadian and
French-Canadian markets and shipping lines out of Montreal. Only ten years
earlier, the aboriginal peoples, the Seneca, had owned title to Goat Island. The environment about the falls is "rich
in soil, romantically beautiful in formation, and proverbial for salubrity.
The pure and limpid waters of the Niagara" abound. "The extensive
forests which border the Niagara, the lake and the canal, and cover the
islands in the river, will furnish a cheap and abundant supply of fuel for
manufacturing purposes, for many years to come" until transportation
lines became established and coal could be imported from the coal mines to
the south and west. Goat Island itself "contains about
seventy acres of excellent land, the upper half of which might be covered
with machinery, propelled by water-power; and the lower half, situated in the
midst of the falls and rapids, where Nature courts the imagination in her
most sublime, beautiful and fascinating forms, might be converted into
delightful seats for the residence of private gentlemen, or appropriated to
hotels and pleasure grounds for the accommodation of the numerous strangers
who annually visit this spot" (Porter, in Adams, 1927). The striking aspect of this document is
that in all the subsequent literature cited down to the present day by social
forces opposed to spoliation of the very beauties extolled by the Porters in
1825, no reference has ever been made, to this writer's knowledge, of this
early scheme to sell Niagara Falls and reduce it to a manufactory. Much of
the literature written about the Falls after its establishment as an
international park in 1885 has seemed to pick up a kind of literary
iconography due to the intense use of rhetorical phrases and artifice. One
kind of icon is the list of developments proposed for the
"pristine" Goat Island made by people other than the Porters,
started by Peter A. Porter in his history of Goat Island (1900) and repeated
by park proponents into the twentieth century. This icon is called
"proposed uses" after Porter's subtitle in his essay where he lists
uses such as "for a sheep pen," State prison, State arsenal, circus
ground (P. T. Barnum), picnic ground and terminal of the Erie railroad (Jim
Fiske), etc. Cornelius Vanderbilt, Sr. was said to have wanted "to buy
it for use as a pleasure ground in connection with his railroads...."
Peter B. and Augustus Porter had offered up the Island for sale to
capitalists, such as Mr. Vanderbilt, for just such a purpose, although the
economic ambitions of the Porter family do not appear in these lists. Porter
even seems to condemn such uses of Goat Island by "men seeming to be
unable to realize (when they think they see a dollar for themselves)"
that Goat Island deserved to retain its beautiful native environment, even
though the family had earlier cheerfully offered up the island to capitalists
for hydraulic, manufacturing and hotel development. In the "Invitation to Eastern
Capitalists and Manufacturers" is laid out the advantages of exploiting
Niagara Falls, which have not changed down to the present day. This document
is the first of several to be written during the nineteenth century appealing
to capital for development of Niagara Falls. Only details have changed. It is ironic that the very qualities of
virginity, tranquility, purity, and natural beauty were to have an appeal to
men of wealth who were promised the destruction of the forests to fuel
industries since known to be notorious for their atmospheric polluting
qualities, especially with the introduction of coal as an energy source. The
"salubrious" vicinity of the Falls would become environmentally
poisoned in association with the "thousand mills," just as the
great manufacturing centers of the industrial revolution in Great Britain
became so. Niagara's waters, known for their purity and
"limpidity," were guaranteed to become deeply polluted by the
"thousand mills," several of them pulp and lumber mills exploiting
local forests, to be perched on its banks. Industries would cover the
vicinity of the falls, "rich in soil," with manufactories,
railroads, storage areas for goods and raw materials and raw dirt roads. Cheek by jowl could be established
hotels and pleasure grounds in the midst of a sea of industrial development.
Perhaps in this characterization is a naive quality on the part of the
participants generally ignorant of the environmental problems associated with
industry, or naively hopeful that with careful planning, such degradation could
be avoided. The belief that a garden could exist satisfactorily with
machinery operating in it is and was the fond hope of all who sought and seek
to develop Niagara Falls, promising to leave its environment intact, or to
use the environment as a device to disguise the ugly facets of industry. Already in 1825 the Niagara riverbank
supported: "a large and valuable grist-mill, saw-mill, two woolen cloth
factories, two clothier's shops, several carding and spinning machines, a
forge, paper-mill, etc." (Porter, in Adams, 1927). Augustus Porter, who
resided in the area of Niagara Falls opposite Goat Island, perhaps on the
site of the homestead of John Stedman, had erected a large flouring mill,
sold later to the Wetmore Brothers. The paper mill, built in 1823 by Jesse
Symonds near the Goat Island bridge, was one of the largest in the country
(A. L. Porter, 1875). In 1826, Porter and Clark built a large paper mill on
Bath Island, which was extended later by L. C. Woodruff (A. L. Porter, 1875).
The famous Cataract House "was built, in part, by David Chapman in
1824" (Porter, 1875). All this development due to the attraction of
capital investment to the hydraulic capability of the Niagara riverbanks
ended temporarily when the Erie Canal opened in 1825, and such capital
attached itself to towns along this important transportation route. The effect of the opening of the Canal
was "to divert all the business of transportation from the old channel,
and attract all enterprise and capital, seeking employment, to the numerous
villages growing up on the line of the canal. Another injurious effect of the
canal on this locality [i.e. Niagara Falls], though beneficial to the new
villages, was the large water power it [i.e. the canal] afforded, at points
where little or none had previously existed; at Black Rock, Lockport, Medina
and other towns west of Rochester, adding greatly to their growth, and
proportionally lessening ours" [at Niagara Falls] (A. L. Porter, 1875). The Porters in 1825 appear to have been
rich in land if not in capital, and they occupied themselves for the
remainder of the century selling off parcels along the river bit by bit, and
attempting themselves to capitalize and get developed a hydraulic canal on
their properties at Niagara Falls leading from the water in the upper river
to the lip of the Niagara gorge just below the cataracts. In 1825 Peter B.
and Augustus Porter were willing to subdivide their Goat Island and other
Niagara properties, and it is likely that Peter B. Porter tried to officially
change the name of Goat Island to "Iris Island" in the treaty with
Britain ending the War of 1812, the latter name appearing in the prospectus
of 1825, in anticipation of making the land intended for sale to appear more
attractive, together with the healthy, clean, loveliness of the pre-sale
property. The name "Iris" is in reference to the rainbows generated
by sunlight in the mist from the falls. Judge Augustus Porter did not have
sufficient capital to develop a hydraulic canal for it involved "an
expense greater than his own means would afford. His heirs, believing in his
estimate of the importance of the work, finally succeeded in securing the
means necessary for this great public improvement, by a free gift of the
water power, and of about seventy acres of land, lying in the village,
adjoining the lower end of the canal" (A. L. Porter, 1875). This
"gift" was part of the conspectus Augustus Porter issued to
capitalists and manufacturers in 1847 proposing construction of a hydraulic
canal commencing "above the great Falls, and terminating on the high
bank about half a mile below" (Porter, in Adams, 1927). The canal project began when "Caleb
S. Woodhull of New York, and Walter Bryant and associates of Boston, in 1852,
entered into a contract with the heirs of Augustus Porter" to purchase
the properties from the Porters pertinent to establishment of the canal and
its operation (Adams, 1927). About 45 acres of land on the gorge rim were
involved, extending one mile down the river from below the American Falls. The
Niagara Falls Hydraulic Company was established by the investors. Ground was
broken in 1853 and a prospectus was issued by the company in that year. In the prospectus, specific reference is
made to the possible degradation of the falls area by manufacturing
activities. In addition to its advantages for industrial development,
"[Niagara Fall's] attractiveness as a watering place will continue
undiminished; for the proposed situation of the factories is such as to
preclude the possibility of their detracting in the least from the grandeur
of the cataract" and the "celebrity which now attaches to the
place, as the possessor of the sublimest of nature's works, will not be
lessened when it shall be one of the great workshops of the world, sending forth
daily the wonderful creations of human industry and skill." The
industrialists were acknowledging by this time the "celebrity"
attached to the natural phenomenon of Niagara Falls, the association of a
wealthy clientele with this "watering place," the sublimity of this
"work of nature." It must be remembered that the hydraulic canal
was not yet in operation, no tailraces were discharging over the gorge rim,
and much of the upper river had not been developed. One must assume that
criticism already existed against the industrial development which was
already established beside the big hotels on the riverbank above the falls,
and such criticism was known to men of capital. Here, too, is the pitting of the
"wonderful creations of human industry and skill" against the "sublimest
of nature's works," which will be met with in future arguments for
development of the falls, as though if the two were thrown together the value
of both would be increased. As time went by, this company could not
meet its financial obligations. The company was sold to a new group of
investors in 1856, who called their company the Niagara Falls Water Power
Company. This was the "Day Company" after Horace H. Day who owned
controlling interest in the company, and after whom the inlet portion of the
canal on the upper river was named ("Port Day"). Commercial use of
the canal began in 1858, but the full development of the canal was not
complete until 1862. Adams (1927) published a print of the unused first water
allowed through the canal and over the high bank at the lower end of the
canal in 1857. It was in the year 1857, too, that
Frederick Church first displayed his influential painting "The Great
Fall, Niagara." It was seven feet in length, and three and one half feet
in height and depicted the Horseshoe Falls. It "enraptured critics on
both sides of the Atlantic" (Roper, 1973) and probably did much to
reinforce the international respect for the visual integrity of the falls.
Indeed, depictions of the falls abounded for it was "the most frequently
described and depicted natural wonder in North America. No other site in the
New World was represented so many times by so many artists in so many ways.
From 1760 to 1900, countless amateur sketchers and professional painters,
foreign and native-born alike, swarmed over the location, picturing the
waterfalls from every possible vantage point" (Adamson, 1985). Church's
"Niagara" was the climax of American landscape painting of the
nineteenth century (Adamson, 1985). Church's picture became a sensation in
New York City where "thousands were crowding into the Broadway gallery
daily to see [it]" (Adamson, 1985). When the painting went to England
"the English press was ... unanimous in its praise" and contributed
greatly to the prestige of American culture and its potential (Adamson,
1985). The Niagara Falls Water Power Company
became financially exhausted in its turn, and its directors, in 1860, sold
the company to Horace H. Day outright. Throughout the Civil War years
(1861-1865), Horace Day promoted full excavation of the canal. As the War proceeded, perhaps the reason
Day was able to continue excavation to the extent that occurred was due to
pressures to generate industrial goods for the Union cause, which promoted
expansion of industry throughout the Union-allied states. The war began in a
business depression, which may have accounted for the failure of the company
established in 1856. Imposition of tariffs baring imports of European goods
together with huge government expenditures appears to have created a booming
northern economy, at least for company owners if not labor. Contractors to
the government made "fabulous fortunes," generating a new class of
businessmen. "Particularly ostentatious and offensive were the nouveaux
riches and the "shoddy" rich who had waxed fat from war contracts.
"Shoddy" - a reclaimed inferior wool substituted by dishonest
manufacturers who attained great profits - came to denote any contractor who
made exorbitant profits by supplying the government with inferior goods. Most
businessmen were honest and conscientious, but even legitimate profits were
very high" (Encyclopedia Americana, 1927). Labor was in short supply
throughout the north during the Civil War, and this may have crippled
completion of Day's hydraulic canal. By 1877, the canal was one mile long,
"with a capacity of about 27,000 horse-power" when, after borrowing
and spending "more than $800,000," including Mr. Day's "entire
fortune," "the company had exhausted its resources and credit
before the canal could be sufficiently extended to justify lessees in the
construction of manufactories" (Adams, 1927). Day's company sold its property at
auction, May 1, 1877, to Jacob F. Schoellkopf and associates, of Buffalo, for
$71,000, with $5,000 to "settle accounts" bringing the figure to
$76,000 (Adams, 1927). Building on the efforts of the past, it did not appear
to require vast amounts of capital for Schoellkopf to finally turn the canal
into a successful operation. "An old property owner declared
when the sale was announced, 'Now we can add a hundred dollars to the price
of every lot'" (Adams, 1927). The oldest and most extensive property
owners were the Porters. The citizens of the village of Niagara Falls were
said to have expressed "much satisfaction" over the purchase by Mr.
Schoellkopf and associates, who were considered, at least by Adams, to have
"the means to develop the power and the community of Niagara as they
conceived it possible and profitable [and] were hailed as a favorable omen of
progress and success for Niagara power" (Adams, 1927). Jacob Schoellkopf had come to Buffalo,
New York, in 1843. He was described (Brown & Watson, 1982) as "the
young German immigrant who arrived with a few hundred dollars in his pocket
and became "King Jacob," founding a family dynasty with almost
legendary accomplishments in nearly everything related to capitalism."
He opened a small leather shop in Buffalo and, "because he was a hard
working man ... soon had tanneries in Buffalo, Chicago, and Milwaukee"
(Brown & Watson, 1982). No doubt the principle source of Schoellkopf's
wealth was in supplying leather goods to the Union army - one can imagine the
need for leather of the cavalry alone. "Jacob Schoellkopf may have best
exemplified the German immigrant whose diligent enterprise put an end to
Yankee exclusivity in [Buffalo's] commercial and industrial power
structure" (Brown & Watson, 1982). Yankee may have meant
"vintage Anglo-Saxon or 'old family'," according to these authors. With the success of the hydraulic canal
came the fruition of the warning hinted at in the prospectus of 1853.
Degradation of Niagara's environment, already stimulating protest before
1853, would soon become critical and would worsen as a necessary consequence
of industrial development. The success of the canal would present an almost
irresistible momentum for accelerated industrialization of the village of
Niagara Falls, the Niagara environment and all of western New York State and
adjacent Ontario. BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, Edward Dean. 1927. Niagara Power:
History of the Niagara Falls Power Company 1886-1918. 2 Vols. Niagara Falls
Power Company, Niagara Falls, New York. Adamson, J. E.
1985. Niagara, Two Centuries of Changing Attitudes, 1697-1901. Corcoran
Gallery, Washington, D.C. Brown, R. C.
& B. Watson. 1981. Buffalo, Lake City in Niagara Land. Windsor
Publications, Inc., Buffalo. Chazanof, William. 1970. Joseph Ellicott
and the Holland Land Company; the opening of western New York. Syracuse
University Press, Syracuse, New York. Porter, Albert H. 1875. Niagara from
1805 to 1875, by an old resident. Privately printed pamphlet in Buffalo and
Erie County Public Library. Porter, P. A.
1900. Goat Island, in Sixteenth Annual Report of the Commission for the State
Reservation at Niagara for the Year 1899. Albany, pp. 75-129. Roper, L. W.
1973. A biography of Fredrick Law Olmsted. Johns Hopkins University,
Baltimore. |
|
|