Theodore Rex - Edmund Morris [346]
104 The United States acknowledged For TR’s wistfulness regarding Canada, see Morris, Rise of Theodore Roosevelt, 334.
105 This was the only TR, Letters, vol. 3, 21, 65–66, 109; see also TR, Works, vol. 15, 335–36.
106 Roosevelt could claim Marks, Velvet on Iron, 72; TR, Letters, vol. 2, 1209, 1186–87; Kenton J. Clymer, John Hay: The Gentleman as Diplomat (Ann Arbor, 1975), 177–79. See also David H. Burton, “Theodore Roosevelt and His English Correspondents: A Special Relationship of Friends,” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, new series, vol. 63, pt. 2 (1973): 39–42.
107 Now there was this new David McCullough, The Path Between the Seas (New York, 1977), 256–59.
108 Roosevelt privately favored Allan Nevins, Henry White: Thirty Years of American Diplomacy (New York, 1930), 156.
109 The stupendous task TR, Works, vol. 15, 273; Senator W. A. Harris to John Tyler Morgan, 29 Oct. 1901 (JTM); TR, Public Papers of Theodore Roosevelt, Governor (Albany, 1899–1900), 298; TR, Letters, vol. 3, 52; Holger Herwig, Politics of Frustration: The United States in German Naval Planning, 1889–1941 (Boston, 1976), 70; Marks, Velvet on Iron, 5–6.
110 Even so, Panama McCullough, Path Between the Seas, 264–65; Campbell, Great Britain and the U.S., 71.
111 That reluctant appendix Review of Reviews, Sept. 1901; TR, Autobiography, 528–30; The New York Times, 16 Sept. 1901. The first-cited periodical almost wistfully contemplated the day when the United States “should come into full authority” in Panama. “That isthmus is of no practical value to the Republic of Colombia.… It would be to our advantage to purchase [it] at a fair price.” The author of these words was TR’s friend and adviser Albert Shaw.
112 THE ALLEGHENY FOOTHILLS Olean, City of Natural Advantages (illustrated commercial guidebook, 1889, NYPL); WPA Guide to New York (1940); Sullivan, Our Times, vol. 1, 28, and vol. 2, 271–99.
113 “The party of” Qu. in Sullivan, Our Times, vol. 2, 250. The following account of the rise of the trusts prior to 16 Sept. 1901 is based on ibid., vol. 2, 307–37; Mowry, Era of Theodore Roosevelt, 6–10; Fine, Laissez-Faire; Hans B. Thorelli, Federal Antitrust Policy (Baltimore, 1955); and Naomi Lamoreaux, The Great Merger Movement in American Business, 1895–1904 (New York, 1985).
114 His profits were Faulkner, Decline of Laissez-Faire, 167–77; Lamoreaux, Great Merger Movement, 159; Charles W. McCurdy, “The Knight Sugar Decision of 1895 and the Modernization of American Corporation Law, 1869–1903,” Business History Review Index, autumn 1979. For a detailed study of the Sherman Act, see Thorelli, Federal Antitrust Policy. For statistics showing the pace of business combination prior to 1901, see Ralph L. Nelson, Merger Movements in American Industry, 1895–1956 (Princeton, N.J., 1959).
115 In 1898, there Olivier Zunz, Making America Corporate, 1870–1920 (Chicago, 1990), 68.
116 Ideologically, Roosevelt Nelson, Merger Movements, 33–34, 37; Thorelli, Federal Antitrust Policy, 411–16. For TR’s attitude toward the trusts, see, e.g., TR, Letters, vol. 2, 1400, 1493–94 (comments of John M. Blum); vol. 3, 122, 159–60; and TR, Works, vol. 15, 315.
117 He saw “grave dangers” This opinion was shared by most turn-of-the-century economists (Mowry, Era of Theodore Roosevelt, 53). For revisionist views, see Alfred P. Chandler, Jr., The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (Cambridge, Mass., 1977), and Albro Martin, James J. Hill and the Opening of the Northwest (New York, 1976). Martin helps demolish the “Robber Baron” cliché of earlier writers. Elsewhere, he views equably the tendency of a modern,