Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:45:58.997Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Political Development of Scientific Capacity in the United States*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2014

Andrew S. Kelly
Andrew S. Kelly*
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When well directed, science is the greatest agency for the welfare of mankind. John Wesley Powell, the director of the United States Geological Survey (USGS), delivered this message to Congress in 1884. The purpose of Powell's testimony to Congress was not to argue for the erection of an organizational framework for American science, but to defend the one that had been put in place decades earlier. At the time of Powell's testimony, the United States had already begun to assume the mantle of the greatest scientific nation on the planet. “I have studied the question closely,” declared W. H. Smyth, the president of the Royal Geographical Society of London, “and do not hesitate to pronounce the conviction that though the Americans were last in the field, they have, per saltum, leaped into the very front of the rank.” The organizational structure at the heart of America's rapid scientific rise was initially constructed by scientists serving in the nineteenth-century American bureaucracy—by men like John W. Powell. Often seen as a source of state incapacity, in this instance, the federal bureaucracy was the most important force in American scientific development.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in American Political Development , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , April 2014 , pp. 1 - 25
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I am grateful to James Mahoney, Daniel Galvin, Monica Prasad, Jesse Dillon Savage, Gerald Berk, Eric Schickler, Danny Schneider, the participants of the Miller Center National Fellowship Conference (Spring 2012), and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. I would also like to thank the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Scholars in Health Policy Research Program for their generous support.

References

1. John Wesley Powell, Testimony Before the Joint Commission to Consider the Present Organization of the Signal Service, Geological Survey, Coast and Geodeti Survey, and the Hydrographic Office of the Navy Department with a View to Secure Greater Efficiency and Economy of Administration of the Public Service in Said Bureaus, Sen. Misc. Doc. 82, 49th Congress, 1st Sess., 1886, 17, 180. To be referred to henceforth as the Allison Commission.

2. W.H. Smyth, quoted in Stachurski, Richard, Longitude by Wire: Finding North America (Columbia: The University of South Carolina Press, 2009)Google Scholar, 107.

3. Albert Williams to George Becker, 3 June 1884, George Becker Papers, Box 15, Library of Congress.

4. Organisation of Economic Co-Operation and Development, The Research System: France, Germany, and the United Kingdom (Paris: OECD Publications, 1967)Google Scholar, 15.

5. Proctor, Richard, Wages and Wants of Science-Workers (London: Smith, Elder, & Co., 1876)Google Scholar, 105.

6. It was secretary of the treasury, William Crawford, who described to Superintendent Hassler the “general dissatisfaction” that existed within Congress in regards to the Survey. See Ferdinand Hassler, Principal Documents Relating to the Survey of the Coast, quoted in Capt. Theberge, Albert E., The Coast Survey, 1807–1867, Vol. 1 (Washington, D.C.: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, 1998)Google Scholar, 14; Goode, G. Browne, The Origins of the National Scientific and Educational Institutions of the United States (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1890)Google Scholar, 90. On the disbandment of the Survey and its poor record of work after its transfer to the Navy, see Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, Ex. Doc. No. 36, 31st Congress, 2nd Session, 2-3; Goode, The Origin of the National Scientific and Educational Institutions of the United States, 90. In 1851, the Secretary of the Treasury observed that the Coast Survey, while under Naval control from 1819–1832, the survey received no similar levels of praise compared to when the Survey when under civilian control. Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, Ex. Doc. No. 36, 31st Congress, 2nd Session, 13. An article in Hunt's Merchants' Magazine and Commerical Review from Feb. 1849, described Naval control of the Survey as having “no general system.” The article, which was most likely authored by James Ferguson and Matthew Fontaine, who were no friends to the Coast Survey under Bache's control, went on to described the work under the Navy as “unconnected” and performed without supervision “at great expense, and to little purpose.”

7. Skowronek, Stephen, Building A New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877–1920 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Balogh, Brian, A Government Out of Sight: The Mystery of National Authority in Nineteenth-Century America (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wilson, Mark R., “The Politics of Procurement: Military Origins of Bureaucratic Autonomy,” The Journal of Policy History 18 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rockwell, Stephen J., Indian Affairs and the Administrative State in the Nineteenth Century (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Adler, William, “State Capacity and Bureaucratic Autonomy in the Early United States: The Case of the Army Corps of Topographical Engineers,” Studies in American Political Development 26 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. Adler, “State Capacity and Bureaucratic Autonomy in the Early United States,” 14.

9. Balogh, Brian, A Government Out of Sight: The Mystery of National Authority in Nineteenth-Century America (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, ascribes the motivations of the federal government for contracting with private actors to the desire to hide or retrospectively deny the role of the federal government in a given policy area.

10. The fact that the source of policy reproduction is different from the source of policy generation, in no way minimizes or negates the important role of scientific bureaucrats in the development of American scientific capacity. As James Mahoney has written, it is often the case in historical explanations that the processes of reproduction are different from the processes responsible for policy genesis. Mahoney, James, “Path dependence in historical sociology,” Theory and Society 29 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar: 512.

11. Geiger, Roger, To Advance Knowledge: The Growth of American Research Universities (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986)Google Scholar, 1.

12. Congressional Record, 45th Congress, 3rd Sess., 1879, 8, 1202–11, 1211. See especially the floor speeches of Representatives Haskell (R-KS) and Maginnis (D-MT).

13. Hamilton, William, “Report of the Survey of the Coast of the United States,” Journal of the Franklin Institute (8 Feb. 1849)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 2.

14. Ibid.

15. Chamber of Commerce of Charleston to the United States Congress, undated, Alexander Dallas Bache Papers, Box 5, Smithsonian Institute Archives. Although the letter is undated, it is likely from Feb. 1849, given its location in the archives and the adjacent letters in Box 5, as well as its reference to the political debates of early 1849. Additional letters supporting the USCS were sent to congress from the Chamber of Commerce of New York as well as from the Insurance Offices of Boston, whose concern for the “security of the navigation of our shores” motivated their support of the USCS. Chamber of Commerce of New York to Alexander Dallas Bache, New York Chamber of Commerce, 4 Nov. 1845, Alexander Dallas Bache Papers, Box 3, “Coast Survey Correspondence,” Smithsonian Institute Archives. Insurance Offices of Boston to the United States Congress, undated, Alexander Dallas Bache Papers, Box 5, “Coast Survey Correspondence,” Smithsonian Institute Archives. There is no readable date given on this letter, but it is of a similar nature to, and found with, letters from Jan.1849.

16. Congressional Record, 45th Congress, 3rd Sess., 1879, 8, 1203.

17. Ibid.

18. Thomas Jefferson, quoted in Penick, James L. et al. , eds., The Politics of American Science: 1939 to the Present (Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1965)Google Scholar, 3.

19. The expansion of coastline was the result of the addition of Florida, Texas, California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska.

20. Skocpol, Theda and Finegold, Kenneth, “State Capacity and Economic Intervention in the Early New Deal,” Political Science Quarterly 97 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weir, Margaret and Skocpol, Theda, “State Structures and the Possibility for ‘Keynesian’ Responses to the Great Depression in Sweden, Britain, and the United States,” in Bringing the State Back In, ed. Evans, Peter, Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, and Skocpol, Theda (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1985).Google Scholar

21. A portion of Ferdinand R. Hassler's contract, which he signed in 1816, is reprinted in the Congressional Globe, 30th Congress, 2nd Sess., 1849, 18, 197. This was the same contract that Hassler signed when he was reappointed superintendent when the Survey was transferred back to the Treasury Department from the Navy in 1832. The key passage of the contract states that the work of the Coast Survey “shall not be carried on in the form of a bureau or office.”

22. Other targets of congressional opposition included the successful efforts to impede the establishment of a national university, the construction of a national observatory, and the creation of a Department of Science.

23. Gilpin, Robert, “Introduction: Natural Scientists in Policy-Making,” in Scientists and National Policy Making, ed. Gilpin, Robert and Wright, Christopher (New York: Columbia University Press, 1964)Google Scholar, 2.

24. Kevles, Daniel, “The Physics, Mathematics, and Chemistry Communities: A Comparative Analysis,” in The Organization of Knowledge in Modern America, 1860–1920, ed. Oleson, Alexandra and Voss, John (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979), 139–140 Google Scholar; Reich, Leonard S., The Making of American Industrial Research: Science and Business at GE and Bell, 1876–1926 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1985)Google Scholar, 29; Dupree, A. Hunter, Science in the Federal Government: A History of Policies and Activities (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 271. Andrew Carnegie, for example, was ridiculed by his competitors for his decision to employ a university-trained metallurgic chemist to oversee his blast furnace operations. Carnegie would, of course, be proven correct in his decision, but science had yet to earn widespread acceptance or support from leading industries. Miller, Howard S., Dollars For Research: Science and Its Patrons in Nineteenth Century America (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1970)Google Scholar, 171.

25. Mine Owner, quoted in Spence, Clark C., Mining Engineers and the American West: The Lace-Boot Brigade, 1849–1933 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970)Google Scholar, 74. Freiberg was a leading scientific school in Germany. Prior to the expansion of graduate education opportunities in the United States, Germany was a popular destination for young men seeking advanced training.

26. Skocpol, Theda, “Bringing the State Back In: Strategies of Analysis in Current Research,” in Bringing the State Back In, ed. Evans et al. Google Scholar; Gilpin, “Introduction,” 2.

27. William C. Darrah details several common frauds that were committed under the western land laws, including one that saw the use of a miniature house that was moved from one piece of land to another, with sworn statements submitted to the land office that a settler had erected a house and claimed the land. Darrah, Powell of the Colorado (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951), 225–26Google Scholar; Representative Wigginton (D-CA), details the ways that farmers had been cheated out of their land and the government cheated out of its money through the schemes of surveyors general. Congressional Record, 45th Congress, 3rd Sess., 1879, 8, 1200.

28. See floor speech of Sen. Henry L. Dawes, Congressional Record, 52nd Congress, 1st Sess., 1892, 23, 5889.

29. The role of the federal government in helping to develop inchoate scientific institutions in the United States resembles that which was played by governments supporting economic development in late developing states. See Gerschenkron, Alexander, Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective (Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 1963)Google Scholar; Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995).Google Scholar

30. McClellan, James E., Science Reorganized: Scientific Societies in the Eighteenth Century (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985)Google Scholar, 142.

31. On the underdevelopment of American science, particularly in terms of libraries and astronomical observatories and other key facilities, see London Athenaeum, May 1840, reprinted in Goode, G. Brown, The Origins of the National Scientific and Educational Institutions of the United States (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1890), 102–105 Google Scholar; Musto, David, “A Survey of the American Observatory Movement, 1800–1850,” Vistas in Astronomy 9 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar: 92; Stephens, Carlene, “Astronomy as a Public Utility,” Journal of the History of Astronomy 21 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar: 24; Reingold, Nathan, “Alexander Dallas Bache, Science and Technology in the American Idiom,” Technology and Culture 11 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar: 177. Academic life in the first half of the nineteenth century was described by Edward P. Cheyney as the “low water mark in academic life in America.” Cheyney, Edward P., “The Connection of Alexander Dallas Bache with the University of Pennsylvania,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 84 (1941)Google Scholar: 151. Such accounts are confirmed in the writings of professors such as Louis Agassiz and Nathaniel Shaler, who both discussed the want of resources at Harvard. See, Lurie, Edward, Louis Agassiz: A Life In Science (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1960)Google Scholar, 137; Agassiz, Elizabeth C., ed., Louis Agassiz: His Life and Correspondence (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1885)Google Scholar, 462; Nathaniel S. Shaler, “Geology,” Harvard Graduates' Magazine, Vol. 1, 1893, 286.

32. This phenomenon of policy feedback, in which interest group action follows, rather than precedes, government policies, has been described elsewhere by Skocpol, Theda in Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and for a review of related literature, see Pierson, Paul, “When Effects Become Causes: Policy Feedback and Political Change,” World Politics 45 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33. Bensel, Richard, Yankee Leviathan: The Origins of Central State Authority in America, 1859–1877 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990)Google Scholar, 74.

34. Congressional Record, 45th Congress, 3rd Sess., 1879, 8, 3202. Even when amendments were offered, the Congressional Globe did not publish a record on individual votes. Often, the only information provided is a statement as to whether an amendment passed or was defeated.

35. During the 36th Congress in 1859, the Coast Survey was supporting during debates by five Democrats (Representatives Cochrane (NY), Miles (SC), Nichols (TN), Adrain (NJ), and Underwood (GA)) and five Republicans (Representatives Comins (MA), Stanton (OH), Morse (ME), Howard (MI) and Stewart (PA)). Those speaking in opposition to the Survey in 1859 were also evenly split between Republicans (Washburn (WI), Blair (MO), and Washburne (IL)) and Democrats (Burnett (KY), Phelps (MO), and Garnett (VA)). Congressional Globe, 35th Congress, 2nd Sess., 1859, 28, 1469–77.

36. Bensel, Yankee Leviathan, 74. Washburn's amendment attempted to cut $250,000 for the Survey of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. This included the salary for the superintendent and his assistants.

37. Similar levels of bipartisan support and opposition are also clear in the Coast Survey debates of 1861. Speaking in support of the Survey in 1861 were representatives Eliot (R-MA), Stanton (R-OH), Cochrane (D-NY), Stevens (D-WA), and Florence (D-PA). Taking positions against the Survey were representatives Maynard (R-TN), Phelps (D-MO), and Quarles (I-TN). Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 2nd Sess., 1861, 30, 297–301.

38. McIntosh, James et al. , eds., The Papers of Jefferson Davis, vol. 3: 1846–1848 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University, 1981), 3–6.Google Scholar

39. Speaking in opposition to the Survey in 1879 were representatives Haskell (R-KS), Page (R-CA), Dunnell (R-MN), Patterson (D-CO), Maginnis (D-MT), and Fuller (D-IN). In support of the Survey in 1879 were Atkins (D-TN), Hewitt (D-NY), Wigginton (D-CA), Garfield (R-OH), and Butler (R-NY). Congressional Record, 45th Congress, 3rd Sess., 1879, 8, 1197–1210. In 1892, Republicans represented nearly all the participants to the debate, both for and against the USGS. In opposition were Sanders (R-MT), Stewart (R-NV), Wolcott (R-CO), Carey (R-WY), and Vest (D-MO). Representing those in support of the USGS were Platt (R-CT), Hawley (R-CT), Dawes (R-MA), Allison (R-IA), Higgins (R-DE), and Call (D-FL). Congressional Record, 52nd Congress, 1st Sess., 1892, 23, 5887-5891, 6151–56.

40. Congressional Record, 45th Congress, 3rd Sess., 1879, 8, 1199. The other congressmen joining Wigginton were Atkins (D-TN), Hewitt (D-NY), Garfield (R-OH), and Butler (R-NY).

41. The list of nongovernment partners of the USGS was composed from the Annual Reports of the Director of the United States Geological Survey between 1882–1902.

42. Rothenberg, Marc, ed., The Papers of Joseph Henry, Volume 5 (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1985)Google Scholar 478.

43. John W. Powell to George F. Becker, 29 Apr. 1884, George F. Becker Papers, Box 15, Library of Congress.

44. White, Leonard, The Jacksonians: A Study in Administrative History, 1829–1861 (New York: The MacMillan Compnay, 1956)Google Scholar, 329; John, Richard R., Spreading the News: The American Postal System from Franklin to Morse (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998)Google Scholar, 219.

45. Carpenter, Daniel, The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Reputations, Networks, and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 1862–1928 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001)Google Scholar. More recent studies by William Adler and Stephen Rockwell have examined earlier instances of bureaucratic autonomy from the nineteenth century that were overlooked by Carpenter. Adler identifies a conditional, more easily reversible and short-lived form of autonomy that was most directly the product of the long tenures in office, a perceived expertise, and policy knowledge of bureau chiefs. In addition to the mezzo-level officers at the focus of Carpenter's work, Rockwell identifies the bureaucratic autonomy of “street level operators.” Rockwell, Stephen J., Indian Affairs and the Administrative State in the Nineteenth Century (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 33; Adler, William, “State Capacity and Bureaucratic Autonomy in the Early United States: The Case of the Army Corps of Topographical Engineers,” Studies in American Political Development 26 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 1.

46. Carpenter, The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy, 4.

47. Congressional Record, 45th Congress, 3rd Sess., 1879, 8, 1203; Congressional Record, 52nd Congress, 1st Sess., 1892, 23, 5890.

48. Report of the National Academy of Science to the Allison Commission, 7.

49. Congressional Record, 52nd Congress, 1st Sess., 1892, 23, 6151.

50. Congressional Record, 45th Congress, 3rd Sess., 1879, 8, 3202.

51. Price, Don K., Government and science, their dynamic relation in American democracy (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1981).Google Scholar

52. Fry, G.K., Statesmen in Disguise: The Changing Role of the Administrative Class of the British Home Civil Service (London: MacMillan Press, 1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar,199, 207; MacLeod, Roy M., Government and Expertise: Specialists, administrators and professionals, 1860–1919 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 15–16 Google Scholar; Finer, Herman, The British Civil Service (London: George Allen Unwin LTD, 1937)Google Scholar, 44; Cohen, Emmeline, The Growth of the British Civil Service, 1790–1939 (London: Taylor and Francis Ltd, 1941), 100–01Google Scholar; Meriam, Lewis, Public Personnel Problems: From the Standpoint of the Operating Officer (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1938)Google Scholar, 322; Stillman, Richard J., Creating the American State: Moral Reformers and the Modern Administrative World They Made (Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 1998)Google Scholar, 37; Sutherland, Gillian, ed., Studies in the Growth of Nineteenth Century Government (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1972)Google Scholar, 8. Even reports from the British government itself show a strong preference for generalists over experts. See Smellie, K.B., A Hundred Years of English Government (New York: MacMillan Company, 1937)Google Scholar, 111.

53. The Pendleton Act did not play a role in the entrance of scientists in the nineteenth-century American state. As it has been observed, noticeable enforcement was not completed until 1908–1920. Carpenter, The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy, 10; James, “Patronage Regimes and American Party Development,” 49.

54. George Becker to University of California, Berkeley, Board of Regents, 24 June 1879, George Becker Papers, Box 15, Library of Congress. Once in the bureaucracy, scientists enjoyed uncharacteristically long tenures for the time period. Becker, for example, served from 1879 until his death in 1919. The men who rose to the position of director of the USGS were career officials who were largely promoted from the lower ranks. The directors of the Geological Survey who served between 1881–1943 were all promoted up from the lower ranks of the scientific bureau. John W. Powell was in charge of Paleontology before assuming the directorship; Charles Walcott began as an assistant geologist; Otis Smith joined the bureau directly from his graduate studies at John Hopkins; and Walter Mendenhall came straight from the Ohio Normal University and rose through the ranks over the course of thirty-six years before being named director.

55. William Adler makes an important addition to theories of bureaucratic autonomy by highlighting the importance of relaxed congressional oversight and long tenures of mezzo-level bureaucrats, but the primary importance is placed on long tenures and their role in producing for an agency a reputation as “neutral, professional experts who were providing the best technical advice available to policymakers.” The long tenures, perceived expertise, and the policy knowledge of bureau chiefs are at the heart of a bureau chief's ability to influence and convince presidents, secretaries of war, and Congress to pass their preferred policy goals. Adler, William, “State Capacity and Bureaucratic Autonomy in the Early United States: The Case of the Army Corps of Topographical Engineers,” Studies in American Political Development 26 (2012), 108, 110–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Mark R. Wilson also identifies Congress's inability to monitor the Quartermaster's Department as helping to produce bureaucratic autonomy, but in this case, the brief interlude of autonomy was caused by an overwhelmed Congress in the middle of the national crisis that was the Civil War. Wilson, Mark R., “The Politics of Procurement: Military Origins of Bureaucratic Autonomy,” The Journal of Policy History 18 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar: 54.

56. McCormick, Richard L., The Party Period and Public Policy: American Politics from the Age of Jackson to the Progressive Era (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968)Google Scholar, 205.

57. Wiebe, Robert H., The Search for Order, 1877–1920 (New York: Hill and Wang, 1967), 28–32 Google Scholar. Scott C. James argues that two distinct patronage periods occurred in the nineteenth century: the “Age of Jackson” (1829–1861) and the Gilded Age (1877–1897). These two periods do run through the historical era under examination in this article, but even in conceding to James's argument, the differing uses of patronage identified by James in the Age of Jackson and the Gilded Age do not suggest that the overall effect of patronage on scientific development, which I argue stayed consistent through the nineteenth century, would have changed from one period to the next. There is, for example, no reason to believe that the distributive nature of policies changed or that the changing motivation and goal of patronage appointments resulted in stronger congressional oversight and regulation. James argues that the main use, not the level, of patronage differed from one period to the next. In the Jacksonian period, patronage was “pure-and-simple” spoils-rotation, meant to spread the fruits as widely as possible so as to increase the legitimacy of the party in this earlier period. In the Gilded Age, on the other hand, patronage was used more systematically to enhance party organization and reward loyalty. James finds that the presidential vote margins, voter turnout, third-party voting, and the number of electoral votes at stake affected the number of appointments and removals across states in this latter period. The number of removals, however, differed only slightly from one period to the next. The largest change James identifies came in the form of fewer early removals in the Gilded Age. In the Gilded Age, presidents more commonly let commissions expire before making a new appointment, but the point in time where early removals dropped below removals from expired commissions was not until part way through the Gilded Age, which is well toward the end of the period under examination in this article. James, Scott C., “Patronage Regimes and American Party Development from ‘The Age of Jackson’ to the Progressive Era,” British Journal of Political Science (Jan. 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For an account of nineteenth-century patronage and party politics that identifies a single pattern of partisan voting and policy making, see McCormick, Richard L., The Party Period and Public Policy: American Politics from the Age of Jackson to the Progressive Era (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968).Google Scholar

58. Guston, D.H., “Congressmen and Scientists in the Making of Science Policy,” Minerva 32 (1994)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed: 47.

59. Schattschneider, E.E., Politics, Pressures and the Tariff (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1935)Google Scholar, 288; Pierson, Paul, “When Effect Becomes Cause: Policy Feedback and Political Change,” World Politics 45 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

60. Joseph Henry to Asa Gray, 21 Feb. 1849, in Joseph Henry Papers, Volume 7, ed. Marc Rothenberg (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press), 480.

61. Pierson, Paul, Dismantling the Welfare State? (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 17. In this seminal work, Pierson describes how spending cuts alone do not define retrenchment, but that we must also look at how structural changes can “alter the political environment” to increase the likelihood of successful retrenchment efforts in the future.

62. Mahoney, James, “Path dependence in historical sociology,” Theory and Society 29 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar: 517; Hacker, Jacob S., “Policy Drift: The Hidden Politics of US Welfare State Retrenchment,” in Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies, ed. Streeck, Wolfgang and Thelen, Kathleen (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005)Google Scholar, 44.

63. Novak, William J., “The Myth of the ‘Weak’ American State,” The American Historical Review 113 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar: 765.

64. Moore, Colin, “State Building Through Partnership: Delegation, Public-Private Partnerships, and the Political Development of American Imperialism, 1898–1916,” Studies in American Political Development 25 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar: 34.

65. Hacker, Jacob S., The Divided Welfare State: The Battle Over Public and Private Social Benefits in the United States (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Howard, Christopher, The Hidden Welfare State: Tax Expenditures and Social Policy in the United States (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997)Google Scholar; Clemens, Elisabeth, “Lineages of the Rube Goldberg State,” in The Art of the State: Rethinking Political Institutions, ed. Shapiro, Ian et al. (New York: New York University Press, 2006)Google Scholar; Moore, “State Building Through Partnership”; Balogh, Brian, A Government Out of Sight: The Mystery of National Authority in Nineteenth-Century America (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kosar, Kevin R., The Quasi Government: Hybrid Organizations with Both Government and Private Sector Characteristics (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, 2011).Google Scholar

66. Evans, Embedded Autonomy, 37.

67. Moore, “State Building Through Partnership,” 34.

68. Clemens, “Lineages of the Rube Goldberg State.”

69. Novak, “The Myth of the ‘Weak’ American State,” 762.

70. Jilly M. Hruby et al., “The Evolution of Federally Funded Research and Development Centers,” Public Interest Report, Spring 2011.

71. Evans, Embedded Autonomy.

72. John W. Powell, testimony before the Allison Commission Testimony, 187.

73. Ibid.

74. Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, Ex. Doc. No. 36, 31st Congress, 2nd Sess., 15 Feb. 1851, 14.

75. Slotten, Hugh, “The Dilemmas of Science in the United States: Alexander Dallas Bache and the U.S. Coast Survey,” Isis 84 (Mar. 1993)Google Scholar: 35.

76. An Act to carry into Effect the Act to provide for a survey of the coast of the United States, U.S. Statutes at Large 4 (1832)Google Scholar: 570.

77. Congressional Globe, 30th Congress, 2nd Sess., 1849, 18, 200.

78. “Review of the Annual Report of the U.S. Coast Survey,” American Journal of Science and Arts 5 (1848)Google Scholar: 307; Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, Ex. Doc. No. 36, 31st Congress, 2nd Sess., 23; Joseph Henry, “The Coast Survey,” Princeton Review, Apr. 1845, 22–23.

79. Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, Ex. Doc. No. 36, 31st Congress, 2nd Session, 22. An article from the North American Review extended the calculations of productivity to 1,857, concluding that the period between 1845 and 1857 saw the appropriations for the Coast Survey increase by a factor of four, while the filed work increased by a factor of seven, and the office work by a factor of ten. “United States Coast Survey,” North American Review (Apr. 1860): 441.

80. William Mitchell to Alexander Dallas Bache, A Report of the Superintendent of the Coast Survey showing the Progress of the Survey for the Year 1845, Appendix No. IV, 43–44.

81. “Review of the Annual Report of the U.S. Coast Survey,” American Journal of Science and Arts 5 (May 1848): 311–12Google Scholar; A Report of the Superintendent of the Coast Survey showing the Progress of the Survey for the Year 1845, 5, 8–9, 14.

82. For information on Agassiz's and Davis's expedition aboard the of the USS Bibb, see A Report of the Superintendent of the Coast Survey showing the Progress of the Survey for the Year 1847, 15; Hogan, Edward R., Of the Human Heart: A Biography of Benjamin Peirce (Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University Press, 2008)Google Scholar, 119; “Review of the Annual Report of the U.S. Coast Survey,” 318; Agassiz, Louis Agassiz, 456; Alexander Agassiz, “Biographical Memoir of Louis Francois de Pourtales, 1824–1880, read before the National Academy of Sciences, 22 Apr. 1881, 81.

83. Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, 31st Congress, 2nd Sess., Ex. Doc. No. 36, 15 Feb. 1851, 35. In the report, the secretary outlines how the capabilities for identifying the life of the sea bottom and the precision required for useful soundings was not often present within the ranks of federal scientists.

84. Agassiz, Louis Agassiz, 456, 462; Lurie, Louis Agassiz, 137.

85. “Review of the Annual Report of the U.S. Coast Survey,” 318.

86. Agassiz, Louis Agassiz, 455.

87. Hamilton, William, “Report on the Survey of the Coast of the United States,” Journal of the Franklin Institute, 8 Feb. 1849 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 213.

88. Slotten, Hugh R., Patronage, Practice, and the Culture of American Science: Alexander Dallas Bache and the U.S. Coast Survey (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1994)Google Scholar, 144; Hogan, Of the Human Heart, 106.

89. Alexander Dallas Bache to J. M. Wampler, 4 Apr. 1853, quoted in Odgers, Merle M., Alexander Dallas Bache: Scientist and Educator, 1806–1867 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1947)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 158.

90. “United States Coast Survey: Notice of the Visit of the American Association for the Advancement of Education to the Coast Survey Office,” American Journal of Education (1856)Google Scholar: 105.

91. Benjamin Peirce, quoted in Hogan, Of the Human Heart, 108.

92. Walcott, Charles D., “Relations of the National Government to Higher Education and Research,” Science 13 (28 June 28 1901)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed: 1007.

93. “United States Coast Survey: Notice of the Visit of the American Association for the Advancement of Education to the Coast Survey Office,” American Journal of Education (1856).Google Scholar

94. In a letter to Andrew Carnegie discussing the formation of the Carnegie Institution of Washington (CIW), Charles D. Walcott described how collectivism had won out of individualism in American science. It was this approach that was informing the early development of the CIW, which was heavily influenced by federal science. Charles D. Walcott to Andrew Carnegie, 25 Jan. 1903, Charles D. Walcott Papers, Box 32, Smithsonian Institute Archives.

95. “Report on the Coast Survey,” American Association for the Advancement of Science 13 (1860): 138.

96. Stephens, “Astronomy as a Public Utility,” 21; Musto, “A Survey of the American Observatory Movement, 1800–1850,” 90; Stachurski, Longitude By Wire, 126; Hogan, Of the Human Heart, 114.

97. William C. Bond, “Report to the Committee for visiting the Observatory,” History and Description of the Astronomical Observatory of Harvard College (4 Dec. 1851): cliv.

98. A Report of the Superintendent of the Coast Survey showing the Progress of the Survey for the Year 1845, 6.

99. Congressional Globe, 30th Congress, 2nd Sess., 1849, 18, 208.

100. Report on the Coast Survey, American Association for the Advancement of Science 13 (1860): 138.

101. James, Mary Ann, Elites in Conflict: The Antebellum Clash Over the Dudley Observatory (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987)Google Scholar, provides a comprehensive history of the Dudley Observatory.

102. Benjamin A. Gould, “Report to the Superintendent of the Coast Survey,” 1 Oct. 1857, in A Report of the Superintendent of the Coast Survey showing the Progress of the Survey for the Year 1857, Appendix 27, 310.

103. C.H.F. Peters, “Report to the Superintendent of the Coast Survey,” A Report of the Superintendent of the Coast Survey showing the Progress of the Survey for the Year 1856, Appendix no. 25, 198.

104. Goldfarb, Stephen, “Science and Democracy: A History of the Cincinnati Observatory, 1842–1872,” Ohio History 78 (1969)Google Scholar: 176.

105. Ibid.; Slotten, Patronage, Practice, and the Culture of American Science, 120; Elias Loomis, “Astronomical Observatories in the United States,” Harper's New Monthly Magazine 13 (1856): 38.

106. The Longitude Division was later transferred to Harvard University and placed under the guidance of Benjamin Peirce and then Benjamin Gould.

107. A Report of the Superintendent of the Coast Survey showing the Progress of the Survey for the Year 1856, 46.

108. See A Report of the Superintendent of the Coast Survey showing the Progress of the Survey for the Year 1857, 42.

109. Stephens, Lester D., Science, Race, and Religion in the American South: John Bachman and the Charleston Circle of Naturalists (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000)Google Scholar, 108.

110. Ibid.

111. Loomis, “Astronomical Observatories in the United States,” 44; Stephens, Science, Race, and Religion in the American South, 108; Slotten, Patronage, Practice, and the Culture of American Science, 119; Report of the Superintendent showing the Progress of the Survey during the Year 1849, 44.

112. Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, Ex. Doc. No. 36, 31st Congress, 2nd Session, 35.

113. Chamber of Commerce of Charleston to the United States Congress, Alexander Dallas Bache Papers, Box 5, Smithsonian Institute Archives. The letter is undated but likely from Feb. 1849, given its location in the archives and the adjacent letters in Box 5.

114. Worster, Donald, A River Running West (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001)Google Scholar, 417.

115. John W. Powell, testimony before the Allison Commission, 196.

116. Schuchert and LeVene, O.C. Marsh, 272, 280–81; Beecher, Charles E., “Othniel Charles Marsh,” The American Journal of Science, Fourth Series, VII (June 1899)CrossRefGoogle Scholar: 411.

117. Charles Schuchert and C. M. LeVene, O.C. Marsh, 326.

118. Charles D. Walcott to Smithsonian Secretary Langley, 9 Dec. 1899, quoted in Schuchert and LeVene, O.C. Marsh, 287.

119. Beecher, “Othniel Charles Marsh,” 414.

120. Schuchert and LeVene, O.C. Marsh, 302.

121. Ibid.

122. Ibid.

123. Walcott, Charles D., “Relations of the National Government to Higher Education and Research,” Science 13 (28 June 1901)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed: 1007.

124. Charles D. Walcott to Henry S. Williams, June 16, 1890, Charles D. Walcott Papers, Smithsonian Institute Archives.

125. Mining and Scientific Press, quoted in, Spence, Mining Engineers and the American West, 60.

126. Shaler, “Geology,” 286.

127. Seventh Annual Report of the Director of the United States Geological Survey, Ex. Doc. 1, Part 5, 49th Congress, 2nd Sess., 1886, 64. On page 84 of the report, the names of these assistants are given: T.W. Harris, A.S. Haskell, R. Hayward, J.P. Johnson, and C.S. Thompson. Graduate students were paid at most $100 per month, and at times their work was uncompensated except for research expenses such as travel, food, and lodging.

128. Thirteenth Annual Report of the Director of the United States Geological Survey, Ex. Doc. 1, Part 5, 52nd Congress, 2nd Sess., 1892, Report of Chief Disbursement Clerk, Jonathan D. McChesney, 200–12. The employment of Whittle is also discussed in a letter between Davis and Chamberlin on 1 Sept. 1885, quoted in J.Chorley, Richard et al. , ed., The History of the Study of Landforms Or the Development of Geomorphology Volume 2, the Life and Work of William Morris Davis (London: Methuen, 1974)Google Scholar 141.

129. Davis and Chamberlin on 1 Sept. 1885, quoted in Chorley et al., The History of the Study of Landforms, 141.

130. Charles Walcott to Alpheus Hyatt, 26 Jan. 1891, Charles Walcott Papers, Box 26, Smithsonian Institute Archives.

131. Charles D. Walcott to O. C. Marsh, 8 Mar. 1891, Othniel Charles Marsh Papers (MS343), Box 33, Folder 1427, Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University Library.

132. Sixth Annual Report of the Director of the United States Geological Survey, Ex. Doc. 1, Part 5, 49th Congress, 1st Sess., 1885, 45.

133. Fourth Annual Report of the Director of the United States Geological Survey, Ex. Doc. 1, Part 5, 48th Congress, 1st Sess., 1883, 32.

134. Bailey, Sturges W., ed., The History of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison 1848–1980 (Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison Press, 1981)Google Scholar 14.

135. Third Annual Report of the Director of the United States Geological Survey, Ex. Doc. 1, Part 5, 47th Congress, 2nd Sess., 1882, 14.

136. Sixth Annual Report of the Director of the United States Geological Survey, Ex. Doc. 1, Part 5, 49th Congress, 1st Sess., 1885, 52.

137. The list of nongovernment partners of the USGS was compiled from the Annual Reports of the Director of the United States Geological Survey for the years 1882–1902.

138. Thirteenth Annual Report of the Director of the United States Geological Survey, Ex. Doc. 1, Part 5, 52nd Congress, 2nd Sess., 1892, part 1, 89.

139. John W. Powell, testimony before the Allison Commission, 77.

140. Ibid., 178.

141. Thirteenth Annual Report of the Director of the United States Geological Survey, Ex. Doc. 1, Part 5, 52nd Congress, 2nd Sess., 1892, part 1, 89.

142. Twelfth Annual Report of the Director of the United States Geological Survey, Ex. Doc. 1, Part 5, 52nd Congress, 1st Sess., 1891, 71.

143. Fifth Annual Report of the Director of the United States Geological Survey, Ex. Doc. 1, Part 5, 48th Congress, 2nd Sess., 1884, XXVII; Seventeenth Annual Report of the Director of the United States Geological Survey, Ex. Doc. 1, Part 5, 54th Congress, 2nd Sess., 1896, 68, 548; Twenty-Fourth Annual Report of the Director of the United States Geological Survey, Ex. Doc. No. 5, 58th Congress, 2nd Sess., 1903, 75.

144. John W. Powell to O. C. Marsh, 13 May 1887, Othniel Charles Marsh Papers (MS 343), Box 26, Folder 1096, Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University Library.

145. Ibid.

146. At the beginning of the reports of the APS and the AAAS, it is stated that the reports are in response to a request by Superintendent Bache. The report of the Franklin Institute does not make mention of a request directly from Bache, but we can safely assume that a similar request was made of all three associations. Copies of the reports of the APS, AAAS, and the Franklin Institute are found in the Alexander Dallas Bache Papers, Box 5, Smithsonian Institute.

147. Congressional Globe, 30th Congress, 2nd Sess., Appendix, 1849, 18, 201.

148. Congressional Globe, 35th Congress, 2nd Sess., 1859, 28, 1473

149. Joseph Henry, “The Coast Survey,” Princeton Review (Apr. 1845).

150. Alexander Dallas Bache to Joseph Henry, 27 May 27 1845, Joseph Henry Papers, Vol. 6: 279–80; Joseph Henry to Alexander Dallas Bache, 15 Mar. 1845, Alexander Dallas Bache Papers, Box 3, Smithsonian Institute Archives; additional letters were written to Bache on 6 May 1845, and 10 July 1846, Alexander Dallas Bache Papers, Box 3, Smithsonian Institute Archives. In the letter from 1846, Henry discusses a public lecture made on the topic of the Princeton Review article; Joseph Henry to Lewis R. Gibbes, 31 May 1845, Joseph Henry Papers, Vol. 6: 284.

151. Hunt's Merchants' Magazine and Commercial Review (Feb. 1849), 132.

152. University of Virginia Professor to Bache, 11–17 Jan. 1849. Alexander Dallas Bache Papers, Box 4, Smithsonian Institute. The sender's signature is illegible, and the date is not clear. The correspondences on either side of this letter in the chronologically organized folder were from 10 Jan. 1849 and 17 Jan. 1849.

153. University of Virginia to the United States Senate, 31 Jan. 1849, Alexander Dallas Bache Papers, Box 5, The Smithsonian Institute.

154. Congressional Globe, 30th Congress, 2nd Sess., 1849, Appendix, 18, 203; Congressional Globe, 35th Congress, 2nd Sess., 159, 28, 1470–71.

155. Charles D. Walcott to Professor Henry S. Williams, 17 July 1890, Charles D. Walcott Papers, Box 26, Smithsonian Institute Archives.

156. Charles D. Walcott to Professor S. H. Scudder, 9 Mar. 1892, Charles D. Walcott Papers, Box 27, Smithsonian Institute Archive.

157. O.C. Marsh to Orville Platt, 31 May 1892, Othniel Charles Marsh Papers (MS343), Box 33, Folder 1427, Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University Library.

158. O.C. Marsh to Joseph Hawley, 11 July 1892, Othniel Charles Marsh Papers (MS343), Box 33, Folder 1427, Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University Library.

159. Congressional Record, 52nd Congress, 1st Sess., 1892, 23, 5887.

160. Congressional Globe, 35th Congress, 2nd Sess., 1859, 28, 1476.

161. Congressional Globe, 35th Congress, 2nd Sess., 1859, 28, 1473.

162. “Survey of the Coast of the United States,” Hunt's Merchants' Magazine and Commercial Review, Feb. 1849, 131.

163. B.B., “The Coast Survey,” New York Times, Nov. 18, 1858.

164. Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 2nd Sess., 1861, 30, 299.

165. Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 2nd Sess., 1861, 30, 299.

166. Congressional Record, 49 th Congress, 1st Sess., 1886, 17, 6297–98.

167. Congressional Record, 52nd Congresss, 1st Sess., 1892, 23, 5888

168. Congressional Record, 52nd Congresss, 1st Sess., 1892, 23, 6155.

169. Pierson, Paul, Dismantling the Welfare State?: Reagan, Thatcher and the Politics of Retrenchment (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

170. Ibid, Mahoney, James, “Path dependence in historical sociology,” Theory and Society 29 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar: 512.

171. Congressional Globe, 30th Congress, 2nd Sess., 1849, 18, 196; Congressional Globe, 30th Congress, 2nd Sess., 1849, 18, 212.

172. Congressional Globe, 30th Congress, 2nd Sess., 1849, 18, 198.

173. Congressional Globe, 35th Congress, 2nd Sess., 1859, 28, 1470.

174. B.B., “The Coast Survey,” New York Times, 18 Nov. 1858.

175. Congressional Globe, 35th Congress, 2nd Sess., 1859, 28, 1473–74.

176. Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 2nd Sess., 1861, 30, 300.

177. Congressional Record, 49 th Congress, 1st Sess., 1886, 17, 6300.

178. Congressional Globe, 30th Congress, 2nd Sess., 1849, Appendix, 18, 197.