Analysis: Letters to John Muir

Dates: April 8, 1894; May 23, 1894; October 21, 1896; December 9, 1896; December 15, 1897; February 2, 1900

Author: Gifford Pinchot

Genre: letter

Summary Overview

These letters represent some of the communications between one of the leading conservationists at the end of the nineteenth century, Gifford Pinchot, and one of the leading preservationists, John Muir. While, initially, the two worked together to protect forests from wanton destruction, they parted ways in 1897 over the policies advocated by Pinchot in his December 1897 letter: the management of forests as resources versus their preservation in a natural state. Pinchot was from the East, with social and political connections that allowed him to be a part of the nation's power structure. As such, his views were important in the development of policies for the use of federal lands. Thus, throughout these letters are references to individuals and groups with whom Pinchot interacted and through whom he was able to directly shape the emerging policy for federally-owned forests.

Defining Moment

The 1890s represent a key period in the administration of the forests owned by the United States government. American economic growth during the previous decades had been built on virtually open access to government-owned natural resources, resulting in the shrinkage of the forests. There was growing concern regarding National Forest lands. It was also a time when there was a split between those who wanted to focus on managing forests (Pinchot) and those whose focus was on preserving wilderness areas (Muir). These letters, from Pinchot to Muir, were the primary means of communication between these two environmental leaders. Although there had been a Division of Forestry within the Department of Agriculture since 1881, it was not until 1891 that protected forest reserves were authorized by Congress. Even though the forest reserves were under the Department of the Interior, it was the Division of Forestry that was charged with drawing up plans for the use of all federally owned forests.

Although virtually all of these letters were written prior to Pinchot becoming Chief of the Division of Forestry, they do contain indications of not only Pinchot's appreciation of the forest and wilderness areas, but his philosophy toward managing these resources. Thus, while he was not against using federally-owned forests to provide lumber needed by society, Pinchot did believe that there was a science to forest management. In part, it was because of his scientific approach to the forests that, in 1896–1897, Muir and Pinchot came to a parting of ways. The 1897 letter reprinted here indicates this difference, Pinchot seeking a politically expedient way to conserve some of the forests as against Muir's desire to preserve entire areas. Thus, the curt 1900 letter, when Pinchot held the title of Forester, shows a very different relationship than the friendly correspondence of six years earlier. The split between the conservation movement and the preservation movement was, by then, clear. In Pinchot's case, achieving some conservation measures through means that were virtually a politically sure thing was a far better path than gambling everything on a high-risk approach requiring the preservation of large tracts through the building of a broader political consensus. For whatever reason, the enthusiasm of the early letters faded when Pinchot had an opportunity to make real changes within the political system.

Author Biography

Gifford Pinchot (1865–1946) was born into a wealthy family in Connecticut. He graduated from Yale University, and then studied forestry in France, because no forestry program existed in the United States. (He later had his family endow a forestry program at Yale.) In 1891, he started full-time work, quickly becoming forester at the Biltmore Estate, in North Carolina, and then moving on to become Chief of the Division of Forestry in 1898. He served in this agency, working closely with President Theodore Roosevelt, as it evolved into the US Forest Service, until resigning after arguing with President William H. Taft. He continued to work in the conservation movement through the National Conservation Association. He was governor in Pennsylvania for two terms, during which he focused on the needs of the rural population and on regulating utilities. He married Cornelia Bryce later in life and had one son.

Document Analysis

Gifford Pinchot and John Muir were worlds apart in every way except for their concern for forests. Pinchot was born into a supportive, wealthy New England family, an Ivy League graduate, formally trained in the methods of European forestry, and a part of the Eastern establishment, who used a scientific approach to implement his interest in conserving natural resources, especially the forests. Muir, a generation older, was born in Scotland as part of a working-class immigrant family, attended a few years of college, trained himself regarding forests, lived on the fringes of the American West, and approached many forests and wilderness areas in an almost spiritual way, seeking to preserve them, untouched. When the men first met, their common interest in experiencing forests and making this experience available to others, brought them together. However, as they developed different sociopolitical bases for their efforts to control the development of the federally-owned forests, their ways began to diverge. In the end, while they could both seek the same goals, the friendship had disappeared; they were only professional allies.

The two letters that Pinchot sent to Muir in 1894 were letters of friendship. They two men had met in 1893, when Muir was in New York. Assuming that they each discussed their work, Pinchot's April 1894 letter basically summarizes the work he had recently completed at the Biltmore Estate, along with related documents. Demands upon Pinchot to publish a book on forestry, and his willingness to do that rather than travel through the western United States, was an indication of the differences between Pinchot and Muir. Muir would have done just the opposite. It also indicates the fact that Pinchot was interested in applying science to forestry and using this to develop the means for conservation. The May 1894 letter indicates that Pinchot had been introduced to Muir's new advocacy group, the Sierra Club.

The 1896 letters were sent after the National Forest Commission, composed of leading scientists with ties to the federal government, had been established, giving Pinchot a means to directly influence federal policy. This differed greatly from the Sierra Club, which did not have the connections in Washington that the commission had. Muir wanted things to change immediately, while Pinchot was willing to work through the system. This was reflected in the second letter, where Pinchot passively accepted a delay in the National Forest Commission report. The trip to which Pinchot refers was a fact-finding tour for the commission, for which Pinchot was the secretary and which Muir joined unofficially. Mr. Fernow, the Chief of the Forest Division and the immediate predecessor to Pinchot, was not a member of the commission. Thus, his disagreements with Pinchot were not only based on the differences between his Prussian training and Pinchot's French training, but also on professional rivalry. Pinchot did not want to lose possible support from the Forest Division, so he let things slide. Thus, even in these friendly letters to Muir, Pinchot comes through clearly as concerned with political realities, not just nature conservation.

The 1897 and 1900 letters were from a period when Pinchot was a part of the Forest Division, initially as a special agent, then as its head. Here, the division with Muir is clear. In the 1897 letter, Pinchot makes it clear that he was willing to take small steps and preserve some land while losing other areas. The land disposal, to which Pinchot refers, was states seeking land in order to allow more economic development on it than the federal government would allow. Pinchot believed that preserving some by presidential declaration would “secure essentially the same result” as the more ambitious proposal from Muir. In the 1900 letter, Pinchot acknowledged receiving the “information I was after,” and gave a standard affirmation of keeping in touch, perhaps without meaning it. While even Muir accepted the idea that some of the National Forests would be harvested to supply lumber to the country, he differed with Pinchot as to the extent to which this should happen. Thus, with the 1900 letter, it was clear that the two men, who once had been close associates, were going their separate ways.

Bibliography and Additional Reading

Forest History Society. “Gifford Pinchot (1865–1946).” U.S. Forest Service History. Durham, North Carolina: Forest History Society, 2014. Web. 15 Oct. 2014.

Miller, Char. Gifford Pinchot and the Making of Modern Environmentalism. Washington, DC: Island P, 2004. Print.

Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission. “Governor Gifford Pinchot,” Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission, 2014. Web. 15 Oct. 2014.

Pinchot, Gifford. Breaking New Ground. 1947. Washington, DC: Island P, 1998. Print.

Walsh, Barry, Edward Barnard, & John Nesbitt. “The Pinchot-Muir Split Revisited,” Society of American Foresters. Bethesda, Maryland: Society of American Foresters, 2014. Web. 15 Oct. 2014.