Having enjoyed everyone's postings on the swamp issue, I'd like to echo
George LaRoche's take. I'd also like to suggest that the "swamps" were
probably situational. That is, at various times large stands of trees and
vegetation were cleared for development that didn't happen quickly enough
during the city's first 60 years or so. The occasional, widespread patches
of bare ground (as well as the unpaved streets) made for marvelous puddles
when the weather dictated them, and I would suggest that this was part of
the origin of the various "swamp" descriptions.

Jane Freundel Levey

----- Original Message -----
From: "H-DC Editor" <dc-edit@mail.h-net.msu.edu>
To: <H-DC@H-NET.MSU.EDU>
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: Swamps and Washington x-post from H-Urban (4) (fwd)


> From: "George S. LaRoche" <LaRoche@us.net>
>
> At the risk of beating a dead horse (but because our editor is compiling a
> list of considerations about the "swamp myth") . . .
>
> None of the conditions which Ms. Dante lists are present in the early
> District (heat, humidity, transformation of the Ellipse area into a "fetid
> marsh" by its use as a septic field for the White House, silted up areas,
> dredging of mudflats, malaria, or yellow fever) were particular to
> swampts.  In fact, in the middle of a large swamp such as those which run
> (and more ran) down the coast of South Carolina and into Georgia, it's
> actually cooler than outside the swamp and there is less risk of malaria
> because there are fewer mosquitoes because there are fewer warm-blooded
> animals for them to dine upon.  Malaria and yellow fever were not uncommon
> in all cities when the District was in its infancy, and a poorly laid out
> septic field is always going to be a stinking mess.
>
> Our forebears, who lived closer to the land and closer to the natural
> conditions of the land (not having air conditioning and all the other
> amenities of modern life to insulate them from those natural conditions)
> certainly had a more finely attuned sense of the quality and condition of
a
> piece of land than we do today.  But like us, they were less inclined to
> always speak the strict truth than they were to speak in whatever terms
> would shape the response of their audience to their ends.  So when
> diplimats wrote home about the terrible conditions in the District, they
> wanted their governments to take pity on them and recall them or send them
> to more popular posts.  And when a politician referred to some aspect of
> the District, it probably had more to do with the politician's agenda than
> with the facts of the situation.
>
> So we need to study whatever evidence there is of what was here,
> physically, apart from these representations, and I gather that this
> evidence shows tidal marshes, mud flats, shoals, some scattered small
bogs,
> and lots and lots of very nice, gently rolling wooded land with fairly
good
> dark topsoil.
>
> Also, recall that George Washington worked hard to make sure that the
jewel
> in his crown of achievements would be a grand and wonderful city, drawing
> people and attention from all corners; I seriously doubt he would have
> started it off to those ends in the middle of a swamp.
>
> George S. LaRoche
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 11:44 AM 6/25/2001 -0400, you wrote:
> >From: "Mary L. Dante" <dante@CapAccess.org>
> >
> >When Bob Arnebeck first wrote that DC was never a swampy area, I was
> >puzzled because it seemed to fly in the face of the direct experience
of
> >members of my family.
> >
> >My grandmother (b. 1874) remembered Tiber Creek as an open sewer
> >producing a foul odor.  My father always said that Potomac Park,the
> >Mall, and National Airport were built on "made land" because the areas
> >had once been below the level of the Potomac River.  And many
buildings
> >in downtown DC, he said, have sump pumps in their basements or
> >sub-basements because they are below the level of the water table.
> >
> >In addition, we have the complaints of foreign diplomats, such as
> >Augustus John Foster, secretary to the British ambassador, who wrote
> >home in 1805 about the "sweltering city" from which residents of
> >Washington escaped, if possible, during the summer.  This aspect of
> >Washington has not changed.
> >
> >I think the post of Carl Abbott goes far towards explaining why it is
> >that Bob Arnebeck denies the appellation, and why it is that others
> >insist on it.  They are speaking of different eras in the history of
the
> >city.  Perhaps "swamp" is not the proper technical terminology, but it
> >is what the ordinary citizen might have called the conditions near the
> >River.
> >
> >Old pictures (drawings & paintings) of the city do indicate that
before
> >the trees were cut down to build the houses and shops, this was a
> >forested area.  And before the rivers silted up, the tidal marshes
could
> >well have been described by the "laity" as swamps.
> >
> >The heat, the humidity, the transformation of the Ellipse area into a
> >"fetid marsh" by its de facto use as a septic field for the White
House,
> >the silted up areas, the dredging and the mudflats, the malaria and
> >yellow fever, probably combined to give Washington the reputation of
> >being a swamp, both among its own citizens and its visitors, and by
> >politicians with something to gain by so describing it.
> >
> >Mary L. Dante
> >mld
> >dante@capaccess.org



Matthew Gilmore
H-DC
list co-editor, web editor
dc-edit@mail.h-net.msu.edu
http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~dclist/ [list website]
http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/lists/subscribe.cgi?list=H-DC [subscribe to
H-DC]

Remember to check
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=lm&list=h-dc
for past list messages.

Humanities & Social
Sciences Online

Copyright © 1995-2006 - Contact Us
RSS | Validate: XHTML | CSS