-
Notes
- Oregon State University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
148 Notes Introduction 1. William O. Douglas, “America’s Vanishing Wilderness,” Ladies’ Home Journal 81 (July 1964), 77. 2. Douglas, “America’s Vanishing Wilderness,” 37-41, 77. Women’s magazines and clubs had long participated in conservation, but a review of the contents of Ladies’ Home Journal in 1964 shows that Supreme Court justices did not write articles and environmental issues did not typically appear. Kimberly A. Jarvis, “Gender and Wilderness Conservation,” in American Wilderness: A New History, ed. Michael Lewis (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007): 149-65 offers a fine overview. The classic statement is Carolyn Merchant, “Women of the Progressive Era Conservation Movement, 1900-1916,” Environmental Review 8 (Spring 1984): 57-85. 3. Douglas, “America’s Vanishing Wilderness,” 39. 4. Ibid., 40. 5. Mark Harvey, Wilderness Forever: Howard Zahniser and the Path to the Wilderness Act (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2005) is the best source for the Wilderness Act. Also see Harvey, “Loving the Wild in Postwar America,” in American Wilderness, ed. Michael Lewis, 187-203; James Morton Turner, “The Politics of Modern Wilderness,” in American Wilderness, ed. Michael Lewis, 243-61; Michael Frome, Battle for the Wilderness, revised ed. (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1997); Roderick Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, third ed. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1982); and Craig W. Allin, The Politics of Wilderness Preservation (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1982). For the interwar roots of wilderness activism, see Paul S. Sutter, Driven Wild: How the Fight Against Automobiles Launched the Modern Wilderness Movement (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2002). 6. A note on terminology is necessary. For the most part, I will use conservation or conservationist, not environmentalism or environmentalist, to describe Douglas’s work, because most activists in Douglas’s circles and of his generation still called themselves conservationists until the mid-1970s or so. While not a perfect characterization, Samuel P. Hays’s distinction between conservation and environmentalism is useful. He saw conservation as primarily focused on efficient management of resources by experts, while environmentalism emphasized amenities for a better quality of life. Many of Douglas’s concerns bridged this divide. See Hays, in collaboration with Barbara D. Hays, Beauty, Health, and Permanence: Environmental Politics in the United States, 1955-1985 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 21-22. 7. Douglas, “America’s Vanishing Wilderness,” 77. Kevin Marsh shows local and national coordination well in Drawing Lines in the Forest: Creating Wilderness in the Pacific Northwest (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2007). See also Hays, Beauty, Health, and Permanence; and Turner, “Politics of Modern Wilderness,” for this strategy. 8. Douglas, “America’s Vanishing Wilderness,” 77. The best assessment of Douglas’s judicial career, including his stance on minority rights is Howard Ball and Phillip J. Cooper, Of Power and Right: Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, and America’s notes: Introduction 149 Constitutional Revolution (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992); see also the essays in Stephen L. Wasby, ed., “He Shall Not Pass This Way Again”: The Legacy of Justice William O. Douglas (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press for the William O. Douglas Institute, 1990); and the letters in Melvin I. Urofsky, with the assistance of Philip E. Urofsky, ed., The Douglas Letters: Selections from the Private Papers of Justice William O. Douglas (Bethesda: Adler and Adler, 1987), esp. 14862 . 9. Stephen Fox included him with five other “free-lancers,” amateurs whose careers were outside conservation but who used their prominence to expose Americans to various elements of conservation politics. Besides Douglas, Fox includes John D. Rockefeller, Bernard DeVoto, Joseph Wood Krutch, Charles Lindbergh, and Aldo Leopold. Considering Leopold an amateur in conservation makes little sense, given his decades of formal work in the Forest Service and as a professor. As the only figure within this group with a government appointment, Douglas gained a level of public standing with somewhat greater salience than the others to speak and act on these issues. Fox, The American Conservation Movement: John Muir and His Legacy (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1981), 218-49. 10. Edward Shils, The Intellectuals and the Powers and Other Essays (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 3-22; Edward W. Said, Representations of the Intellectual: The 1993 Reith Lectures (New York: Vintage Books, 1994), 3-23, 85102 , quotation from 11; Richard A. Posner, Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001), esp. 1-40, quotation from 35. I thank Sean Quinlan for assistance with these ideas. “Public philosopher” is Charles Reich’s term...