On this Earth Day, we’re taking a look at President Theodore Roosevelt – who many consider to be the nation’s foremost environmentalist president. His conservation accomplishments are prodigious – protecting hundreds of millions of acres of land, starting the Forest Service and signing the Antiquities Act. His interest in nature and science was a key part of his personal affairs as well.
A 1907 letter from Roosevelt to his friend and naturalist John Burroughs that’s part of the Raab Collection delves into what became known as the Nature Fakers Controversy. In it, Roosevelt thanks Burroughs for defending him in print and questions the views of Reverend William Long, another naturalist.
For more about the controversy and Roosevelt’s views of nature, WAMC's Jim Levulis spoke with Nathan Raab, president of the Raab Collection.
Raab: Well, John Burrows is what I think of as one of America's great naturalists who brought the message of the outdoors and environmental preservation as we think of it today, to a generation of America's leaders in the beginning of the 20th century. So when you think of Theodore Roosevelt, you also think of the influence he had on people like Edison and Henry Ford. And he was a good spokesperson for the environment. And so what we think of today as environmental preservation and the safeguarding of our natural resources, he was a pioneer in that field when few people were thinking about it. And the necessity wasn't as high. He's got a strong connection with New York state as does Theodore Roosevelt. And the two of them, because they were both environmentally minded and I think of, you know, Roosevelt as in the more modern sense, America's first naturalist environmentalist president, very mindful of the impact of us on the environment, but also the necessity to keep our natural resources for the next generation, which is why you see Burroughs and Theodore Roosevelt in such close contact over so many of these issues. But also you see Burroughs pop up periodically throughout the lives of these people and important moments. Burroughs went out to Yellowstone with Theodore Roosevelt during his presidency, which was a crucial visit by an American president to a national park, a park that remains today one of America's most iconic.
Levulis: When it pertains to this June 15, 1907 letter between President Theodore Roosevelt and John Burroughs. President Roosevelt is thanking Burroughs for defending him in this in what became known as the Nature fakers controversy. Can you detail what exactly that was?
Raab: Well, at the risk of stepping on the toes of credentialed biologists or animal behavioralists here, let's sum it up and say that the nature fakers controversy boiled down to whether the behavior of animals was a function of learned behavior. Think very much the way a parent would teach a child. Or instinct. And, you know, you're dealing with a debate that's happening in the beginning of the 20th century, the 1900s. The research, the knowledge base that we've built up at this point was not present. And so you have these, you know, in some cases, amateur naturalists, without a PhD, or whatever the appropriate degree would be at the end of their name, engaging in these very public debates over whether the behavior that you see animals engaging in on a daily basis, was a function of something built into their genetic code, passed down from generation to generation by virtue of their instinct, or something that as they were growing up, their community, individuals within their community taught them as individuals that they then learned on an individual level. I think that most people would not adopt that latter perspective. And indeed, Theodore Roosevelt did not. But what you see in a letter like this is, Roosevelt arguing very strongly that people who believe that animals learned in this individual-to-individual level where, you know, Theodore Roosevelt was no shy writer. You know, he would speak of them in the most, you know, we will consider today to be fairly stern, perhaps bordering on obnoxious terms. Basically, they didn't know what they were talking about. That his experience was that animals learned by instinct. In discussing this debate he discusses the Cardiff Giant. And I had to look up what the Cardiff Giant was, but evidently it was a hoax that was sort of shopped around as a carnival-style amusement, which was effectively a statue that was created at the time, which is like the 1860s or 70s, which was passed off as a fossilized human. And it's this massive 3,000-pound, 10-foot human, which is later discovered to be a fake. Which is in a museum in New York state, The Farmers Museum [in Cooperstown.] But he compares the people who believe that to people who would believe in the Cardiff Giant.
Levulis: Yeah, absolutely. I took note of that line from President Roosevelt. He says “The Outlook,” referring to a magazine there, “might just as well take the Cardiff Giant seriously as to take Reverend William Long's stories seriously.” Reverend William Long, the naturalist, that Burroughs and Theodore Roosevelt are discussing here. But yeah, the Cardiff Giant uncovered at a farm in Cardiff, New York, where it came from, that’s south of Syracuse. So yeah, that was a very intriguing and at the time, understanding that this was, you know, relatively soon thereafter, this hoax was, yeah, late 1860s. A very direct line from President Roosevelt. Basically calling Reverend William Long's conclusion there a sham.
Raab: Yeah, you know, he's almost implying, I think that that Long is intentionally misleading. You know whether Roosevelt thought him a carnival barker, or a liar, or just a fool, or some combination of all of the above. The Outlook publication was one with which, with which Theodore Roosevelt had a long-standing relationship. And indeed, he wrote for the Outlook for many years after he left the presidency. And so some of the letters that that you see of Roosevelt from that period, are on Outlook letterhead.
Levulis: And I wanted to get your thoughts, having dug into a lot of this material involving President Theodore Roosevelt and his love of nature, his pursuit of it. And I wonder, given that knowledge that you have, the direct primary source documents that you've seen, what do you make of this sort of more modern debate about his love of nature, his intentions. You know he was an avid hunter and some people might see that as not truly a lover of nature?
Raab: Well, I think it is hard to take people out of the context in which they lived. It is difficult and I think dangerous. And, you know, a very sort of myopic way to look at it. To say I am judging you by the standards 2023. But applying that to 1900. Would Theodore Roosevelt have fit in with the definition of what we consider today to be environmentalist? I think in some ways, yes. And in some ways, certainly not. But does that mean that he was not somebody who cared about nature and was intent on protecting it, found solace in it, felt at home with it. I think you’d find it hard to argue that that wasn't the case. And you know, I don't know if you could go back to that period of time and find anybody who would fit in with today's definition of what an environmentalist is. There a variety of reasons for that. And, you know, to a certain extent, this is just my opinion, but the world is different today. The challenges we face on an environmental basis are different today. There are species alive that Theodore Roosevelt saw that no longer exist. There are portions of the world that were unexplored then. The world seems bigger. And we know things now they didn't know. So I you know, to me, Theodore Roosevelt is as close to an environmentalist in this era as one could find. You can go back to and look at as many people do appropriately and look at a man like Henry David Thoreau and say, well, that's a true environmentalist, a vegetarian and wrote about nature. And I think that, you know, you could make an argument that he was the most eloquent early proponent of environmental preservation. But I don't think that takes away from someone like Theodore Roosevelt. And, you know, sure, he was a hunter, and he killed what we now know of today as endangered species. And I don't think anybody's arguing that that was a good thing. But I think it is hard, and ultimately unfair to judge somebody who lived in a different era, by the standards and with the knowledge of our era. That doesn't mean that they were right. It just means that this is a nuanced issue.