An Unanswerable Argument in Favor of Forests: Progressive Conservation, Compromise, and the 1903 Creation of Michigan's First Forest Reserve

An Unanswerable Argument in Favor of Forests: Progressive Conservation, Compromise, and the 1903 Creation of Michigan’s First Forest Reserve by Joseph J. Jones In the winter of 1894-1895, forester Austin Cary traveled through Michigan and Wisconsin collecting information on the remaining whitepine stands and cutover tracts for the U.S. Division of Forestry.1 During his survey, he measured trees, checked stumps, and studied the soil, topography, and climate. He also assessed damage from fire and grazing in the cutover. After touring Michigan’s northern Lower Peninsula, Cary stopped in Chicago at the offices of the Northwestern Lumberman to report his findings. From this study, he unequivocally concluded that white and Norway pine could be grown in the cutover again. He argued that if fire and grazing were eliminated from the cutover, then young seedlings could take root and thrive. Furthermore, if such work was done immediately, merchantable timber could be harvested in forty years.2 Although agricultural boosters and most lumbermen rejected Cary’s call for reforestation, a group of forestry advocates coalesced around the progressive notion of public, scientific management of the cutover as opposed to private agricultural use. This small cadre of scientists, lumbermen, businessmen, politicians, farmers, and horticulturalists viewed the cutover with concern as homesteads began to revert to the state for unpaid property taxes. They suspected that agricultural boosters exaggerated the promises of farming the former pinery. Furthermore, 1 At various times, “cutover” has been spelled as one word, two words, or as a hyphenated term. For the purposes of simplicity, I use it as one word (both as a noun and an adjective) unless quoting a text that has an alternate spelling. 2 Norway pine is commonly referred to as red pine today. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1895 Report of the Chief of the Division of Forestry (Washington: GPO, 1896), 149-150; “Reforesting Michigan Pine Lands,” Northwestern Lumberman, February 9, 1895, Box 21, Michigan Forests and Forestry folder, USFS Newspaper Clippings File, Forest History Society (FHS), Durham, NC. THE MICHIGAN HISTORICAL REVIEW 39:1 (Spring 2013): PP 101-132.©2013 by Central Michigan University. ISSN 0890-1686 All Rights Reserved. 102 The Michigan Historical Review while industrialization balanced agriculture in the economy of southern Michigan, the northern half of the peninsula lagged behind as lumbering declined. Agriculture was not replacing logging as fast as many boosters had anticipated. In response, this body of progressives pushed forestry as the solution to the region’s uncertain future.3 However, the debate was not between extra-local progressive elites and local landowners and businessmen. Supporters of both farming and forest land use could be found throughout Michigan and at every political, economic, and social level. In this evenly divided debate, mediated compromise was the means for creating broad support for the state’s reforestation efforts, especially regarding Michigan’s first forest reserve near Higgins Lake. Early Conservation Politics in Michigan The Republican Party dominated the political landscape of Michigan in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Between 1852 and 1933, the Democrats held the governor’s office for only eight years, and the party lacked a statewide organization. Most meaningful political debates, therefore, happened within the Republican Party. Around the turn of the century, the Republican Party split into two factions. Senator James McMillan, a railroad and shipping tycoon from Detroit who had turned his attention and clout to politics, directed the party’s machinery. His party stalwarts served the business interests in the state and were both fiscally and politically conservative. Legislators did not initiate new policies without McMillan’s approval. Progressives comprised the other faction and sought to eliminate government corruption and favoritism to business, to expand municipal and state control of utilities, and to institute scientific management of state lands. The main leaders of this movement were Detroit newspaperman James Scripps, Grand Rapids politician William Alden Smith, and Hazen Pingree, who served terms both as Detroit’s mayor and as Michigan’s governor. As the party stalwarts had little interest in conservation issues, the support for government management of natural resources came from the Progressives.4 3 Norman John Schmaltz, “Cutover Land Crusade: The Michigan Forest Conservation Movement, 1899...