Boston’s Role in the 19th-Century Environmental Movement

The port city of Boston, Massachusetts is recognized for its role in making America the independent country it is today. However, the history of this city is far more interesting than a tea-party protest against British rule. Bostonians have had a long and varied history of how they relate to their surrounding environment. For instance, citizens changed the famous Boston Common from a place of work to a place of pleasure.[] Originally, it was a place where livestock could graze and today it is a place to relax and recreate. One of the most significant changes that Boston experienced as a city was the filling of tidal salt marshes. Although salt marshes provide invaluable ecosystem services such as water filtration and flood mitigation, their value was underestimated in the 19th century. The process of filling in the wetlands to increase landmass affected Boston Harbor. As these tidal marshes were filled, lucrative shipping channels were becoming shallower.

This inspired some, like the Boston Marine Society and William Whiting, to question these practices. Although both of these entities were concerned with the economic viability of Boston Harbor, as they both represented the marine shipping industry, both entities also demonstrated an intimate understanding of the scientific literature of the time, understanding the changing hydrology of the water as a consequence of land filling.[] Scientific understanding is a crucial step on the road to creating environmentalism.[] Although Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring is often cited as the seminal work in scientific understanding of the environment[], the world of 19th century Boston made significant early contributions to forming American environmentalism.

By all measures, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring is an important milestone in the short and rich history of environmentalism. Silent Spring details the harmful effects of spraying pesticides on crops. Carson presented the average person a multifaceted characterization of ecological concepts.[] The effect of Carson’s book has often been equated with that of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, as both posed moral questions about humanity.[] Beecher explored the concept of man versus man while Carson scrutinized man versus nature. When Carson appeared before a Senate subcommittee to testify about the harmful effects of DDT, Senator Gruening of Alaska commented that “Every once in a while in the history of mankind, a book has appeared which has substantially altered the course of history”, contending that Silent Spring was one of those books.

Although Senator Gruening may have been onto something with the assertation that Carson’s book changed the course of history, citing this book as the beginning of the environmental movement is remiss. Crediting the publication of Carson’s book as the beginning of environmentalism ignores the significant contributions made to the movement prior to the sixties. Nature, as a concept, was recognized, written about, and valued long before the 1960s, especially by those with an intimate connection to the sea. With the advent of industrialization, people began to notice negative effects on their environment. Overlooking these early observations as contributions is a gross simplification of historical understanding. Unlike previous scholarship that argues that changes during the 1960s drove the environmental movement[], one could maintain that the story begins earlier in the 19th century. Industrial-era technological developments that allowed for more dramatic resource extraction, combined with recognizing the value of the environment drove the people of Boston to embrace preservation ideals. Investigating the broader history of human interaction with the environment is essential to understanding the processes of change. An understanding of these processes that altered that world around us will contribute to saving nature and the environment that the modern world relies on yet seems determined to obliterate.

An essential issue in understanding the history of environmentalism is defining a scope. How does one define “environmentalism”? Who is considered an “environmentalist”? These terms were not in use until the early 20th century. Is it fitting for these terms to be retroactively applied to people and events existing prior to their use? This research is focused on the way in which historical actors related to their environment. Historical actors will be considered “environmentalists” if they demonstrate some sort of regard for the protection, conservation, or restoration of natural landscapes. It is always risky to apply modern day definitions to the experiences of the past. Still, there is value in examining the ways historical figures related to the environment through their writings and actions. Exploring the different ways 19th-century Bostonians connected to their environment and the ways that those connections were translated to prospects of preservation, protection, and restoration can help inform future conduits of change.

The process of filling in tidal marshes in Boston began as the first permanent settlers arrived. In 1630, when Boston was founded as a city, the peninsula, known as Shawmut Peninsula to Native Americans, was only connected to the mainland by a thin strip. Although the filling of the marshes was minimal during the 17th and 18th centuries, the severe population increase that began in the 19th century prompted citizens to continue and expand this process. The city changed from a series of interconnected isthmuses to a homogeneous spread, more akin to the current landscape. In addition to the population boom prompting anthropogenic change in the land, Bostonians were motivated to keep pace with the growth of the port of New York. Citizens were afraid the encroachment of made lands on the harbor caused commerce in Boston to decline.[3]

The declining state of the harbor prompted shipping companies to scour shipping channels to maintain their depth. The harbor brought the city the majority of its wealth[5], thus the major concern over the degradation of the harbor. Some of the most prominent voices for the preservation and restoration of the harbor were William Whiting and the Boston Marine Society. Both of these entities employed important scientific methods to argue for the preservation and restoration of the harbor.

Whiting was a Boston lawyer who presented to the committee of the legislature advocating for the preservation of the Boston Harbor. Throughout his presentation, he demonstrated significant scientific understanding. In his argument he says, “Again, narrowing the channel, and thereby accelerating the current, would cause the Chelsea shore to wear away.”[6] Even though hydrology was in its infancy during the 1800s, Whiting demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of hydrological changes resulting from anthropogenic change. Whiting implied that human-mediated alterations to the harbor would bring negative results, “why should we not use the bold water that we can use without encroaching upon the harbor before we undertake to create that which may be attended with the most disastrous result of all?” Whiting argued for harbor preservation to safeguard the economic interests of the shipping industry in Boston. People relate to their environment in a variety of ways, and Whiting related to his environment by advocating for the protection and preservation of Boston’s harbor for economic interests.

Another major actor in advocacy of the preservation of Boston Harbor was the Boston Marine Society. Similar to Whiting, the Boston Marine Society represented the interests of the shipping industry. The Marine Society was founded in 1742 by a group of sea captains. The society was a place where anyone concerned with maritime commerce could come to discuss issues. When Bostonians argued over bringing a fresh water supply to the city in 1846, the Marine Society was adamant in their belief that the city’s other water problems, such as keeping sufficient water in the channel for shipping, needed to be dealt with first. Much like Whiting, members of the Boston Marine Society shared a strong conviction for conserving Boston Harbor.

The society wanted to shield economic interests in the city by protecting the harbor from human-mediated change. This connection between environmental integrity and economics was a new concept for 19th-century businessmen; the status-quo for the time was to extract as many resources as possible for economic gain. For example, mills killed an enormous number of birds per year. Yet, legislation to protect birds was heavily contested by the millinery industry to protect their economic interests. The fact that both Whiting and the Boston Marine Society recognized that they had to conserve the harbor to protect the financial benefits of the asset demonstrates that both of the entities began forming preservation attitudes in 19th-century Boston.

Bostonians began experiencing the negative effects of tidal marsh filling. As Whiting and the Boston Marine Society demonstrated, there was a concern of economic degradation connected to tidal landfilling. There were some horrible aesthetic effects associated with landfilling. For instance, decaying vegetation underneath all of the fill created a noxious gas. Furthermore, Boston’s antiquated sewer system was not prepared to handle the growth in population tolerated by the newly created land. This resulted in sewers often backing up into the basements of citizens. The maritime industry was not the only entity that experienced the harmful effects of created land. The negative effects experienced by citizens and industry alike primed many to join Whiting and the Marine Society to advocate for preservation and resource management.

Some of the most significant evidence to support the advent of environmentalism prior to Silent Spring came from the transcendental movement. This movement was in response to the rational thinking of the Enlightenment movement. Transcendentalism focused on the fundamental unity of life.[5] Two of the most instrumental writers of this movement came from the greater Boston area. Ralph Waldo Emerson was born in Boston Massachusetts in 1803[6], and crafted a number of essays that suggested a new method of relating to the environment. Henry David Thoreau, another influential transcendental writer, was born in Concord Massachusetts and was greatly influenced by Emerson. Emerson and Thoreau cultivated a special friendship that influenced each other’s writings. Both of the Massachusetts-based writers influenced the creation of environmentalism through their written work on humans’ connection to nature.

Emerson’s most influential work, an essay entitled Nature, exemplifies the connectivity between humans and nature. For instance, Emerson writes:

The greatest delight which the fields and woods minister, is the suggestion of an occult relation between man and the vegetable. I am not alone and unacknowledged. They nod to me and I to them. The waving of the boughs in the storm, is new to me and old. It takes me by surprise, and yet is not unknown. Its effect is like that of a higher thought or a better emotion coming over me, when I deemed I was thinking justly or doing right. [28: Emerson, Ralph Waldo, Nature (1836) New York: Random House, 1929.E]

Emerson demonstrates a clear, spiritual relationship between man and nature (or “the vegetable”). His personification of nature serves to strengthen the link he describes. By personifying the vegetables, readers may more easily connect to the vegetable, and by extension nature. Additionally, some conservation sentiments may come from this personification. It has long been established, by Abrahamic texts, that it is not right to kill another thing with thought and feeling. For a long time, animals, vegetables, and nature had not been considered to have any experience beyond simply existing. Emerson’s personification of nature implies the need for protection and respect.

If nature were to have human qualities, it would make sense to have an impulse to preserve it. An important aspect of the creation of the environmental movement is defining new ways for people to relate to the environment. For instance, the preservation sentiment, exhibited by both William Whiting and the Boston Marine Society, shows that commerce can relate to their environment beyond wanting to extract all resources from it. Emerson’s work brings about a different relation to the environment; he views nature as a place that humans can spiritually connect to and are fundamentally a part of. Both ways of connecting to the natural world around are significant building blocks of an environmental movement that will come to fruition nearly one-hundred years later.

Henry David Thoreau further expands on the idea of a spiritual connection that Emerson first writes about. One of Thoreau’s most well-known writings is Walden or Life in the Woods. Thoreau documents the year he spent in solitude, reflecting on the different revelations he had when he was in isolation from all the underpinning of 19th-century life and the expedition of spiritual discovery one can have in nature. Thoreau makes a case for the necessity of nature: [29: Thoreau, Henry D., J. Lyndon Shanley, and John Updike. Walden. Princeton Classics ed. Princeton Classics. Princeton, New Jersey; Oxford, [England]: Princeton University Press, 2016.]

We need the tonic of wildness… At the same time that we are earnest to explore and learn all things, we require that all things be mysterious and unexplorable, that land and sea be infinitely wild, unsurveyed and unfathomed by us because unfathomable. We can never have enough of Nature. [30: Thoreau, 318.]

Thoreau argues that humans need nature to thrive in this life. This interprets nature slightly differently than Emerson. While Emerson contends that the natural world is “not unfamiliar”[1], Thoreau contends that nature is “infinitely wild”. Walden has made many contributions to modern environmental ethics. Thoreau argues that the protection of nature enriches our own lives, here a major cornerstone of all contemporary environmental ethics. Thoreau is also one of the first to argue that non-human things had intrinsic value, another modern philosophical argument for preservation. These ideas, particularly of the value of wild nature, had a significant effect on mid to late 19th-century preservation efforts in Boston.

During the mid to late 19th-century, Boston was experiencing rapid changes to their landscape. Not only were tidal marshes being filled in at an unmatched level, the rate of population growth in the suburbs was unprecedented.[5] Influenced by Emerson’s call for tonic-like wild spaces and the growing body of work from George Perkins Marsh and John Muir extolling the value of forests, Bostonians felt the need to increase their wild space.[6] Elizur Wright took this growing body of literature to heart, and heavily advocated for the creation of natural forest spaces in Boston. Wright had radical ideas for his time that the atmosphere was a common right, and the creation of municipal woods would aid in that public right. Eventually, Wright was successful in his endeavors; Massachusetts Congress passed the Forest Law of 1882, which enabled towns and cities to preserve different forested areas. Wright’s endeavors mirror current-day battles for forest conservation. The story of Massachusetts’s Forest Law and Boston’s conservation of forests for public use demonstrates the influence of transcendentalists like Thoreau and solidifies the notion that the environmental movement started long before Carson put pen to paper.

Numerous laws attempting to aid water quality were inspired by the dreadful state of Massachusetts’s water. In 1869, the nation’s first state board of health was created in Massachusetts. Appointed to the chair was Boston doctor Henry Ingersoll Bowditch, a liberal by modern standards and a radical for his time who was both a staunch abolitionist and supporter of women’s rights. The Massachusetts Board of Health, led by Bowditch, advocated that citizens had a right to uncontaminated air, soil, and water[1], claiming that these rights were a natural extension of traditional American rights. In 1878, the Massachusetts legislature passed a law to protect the state’s waterways.

This new legislation prohibited individuals, corporations, and cities to “discharge any polluting substance so as either singly or in combination with other similar acts… [to] pollute its waters.” Bowditch and the Massachusetts legislature recognized connections between abysmal environmental conditions and poor community health.

Much evidence exists to support the claim that environmentalism began prior to the modern movement of the 1960s. However, one may notice that the most compelling evidence is lacking in major connections to the maritime world. Though Whiting and the Boston Marine Society made arguments for the preservation of Boston Harbor, their reasoning was motivated by economic interests in the harbor. Most of the significant evidence of environmentalism is made through land-based arguments, like Elizur Wright’s quest for the creation of wild spaces in Boston.

There appears to be a gap in 19th-century maritime environmental history. Scholarship has explored the maritime environmental movement prior to 19th-century New England.[5] People understood that overfishing depleted future fish stocks, evidenced in Massachusetts passed several laws protecting different fish species at that time.[6] However, there is little evidence of literature exploring maritime environmentalism in the 19th century, likely due to the fact that most environmental sentiment must be deduced between the lines. Though the historical lack of grand, sweeping protection for the ocean can be somewhat disappointing, it suggests a lesson that present-day policymakers should keep in mind. As we create the “green new deal” and hope for the “green revolution”, it is pertinent to remember that the world isn’t only made up of the land our societies are formed on. The vast blue ocean that comprises most of Earth, the great climate regulator that makes this planet habitable, that infinitely wild space deserves as much protection as the verdant hills. Boston serves as a case study for the incredible ways that humans have engineered the modern landscape and the ways that humans have come to appreciate the space around them.

A case study that leaves us a warning for a future focused on the conservation of the marine world. Mid to late 19th-century Bostonians demonstrated early concern for marine world, but soon were distracted by creating parks and falling in love with forests. The ocean has been snubbed for too long and needs more attention in our preservation efforts.