January 8, 2007
Time Furthers Swampy Myth; We Shake our Heads
Courtesy of our friends over at Fishbowl DC, today we discovered that Time had quietly launched a new blog on national politics. Called Swampland and featuring the online musings of Ana Marie Cox, Joe Klein, Karen Tumulty, and Jay Carney, there really isn't anything about this blog that sets it apart from the many other notable blogs on national politics, either independent or MSM-run. Except the name. Oh, the name.
We thought the myth had been settled. You know -- the myth. The one that says that Washington was originally built on a swamp. It's a myth that offers anyone with a mild criticism of Washington and its functions any number of clever zingers -- "Reform moves slowly in the swampy muck that was and is Washington," might go one. The problem is that it's simply not true. As far back as 2001 historians had all but put this one to rest, with one writing on a popular history listserv:
For the past ten years a number of historians of Washington, DC, have been trying to put to rest the idea that the city was built on a swamp. The Mall in particular was not a swamp, though it did have a river with a tidal flow next to it (where today's Constitution Avenue runs). As I read the web site in question, it does not suggest that the area was originally a swamp.If Time wants to be accurate, they should stick to what Washington could better be described as -- a tidal marsh. Then again, that doesn't make for any clever blog names, does it?The City of Washington, like every other US city founded in the 17th and 18th centuries along tidewater, did have low ground. But the knee jerk association of Washington with a swamp, on a list on urban history, does a disservice, unless we all want to join forces and begin talking about the New York swamp, and the Philadelphia swamp, and the Baltimore swamp, etc. It bears remembering that to many Europeans in the 18th century all of America was a swamp.
|
Please to be defining "swamp." This sounds like a semantic issue rather than a matter of historical record. After all, it's not like DC was founded during prehistoric times - presumably there's some written record from the 18th or early 19th centuries to tell us what used to be here.
The blog name actually isn't remotely original. The Chicago Tribune's DC politics blog has been called "The Swamp" for quite a while...
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/
Websters has the main difference between "swamp" and "marsh" as being the predominant type of vegetation. They're both wetlands. Given the topography of DC, obviously not all of it would qualify, regardless.
Websters has the main difference between the words "swamp" and "marsh" as being in the predominant type of vegetation- swamps mostly have trees, marshes mostly have grasses. But they're both wetlands.
Regardless, given the topography of DC, obviously not all of it would have qualified for either description. The mall might, but certainly not The Hill, or those areas above geographic landfall.
I'm guessing they called parts of Capitol Hill "Swampoodle" for a reason. Probably all the poodles.
There was an area in Philly called Swampoodle too.
Hmmm- there may be a potential anachromism here- was the disctinction between swamp and tidal marsh made during the 18th century? If not, in some instances, it would be appropriate to say the the founding fathers believed they built the city on a swamp (though I agree that it still stands as incorrect to say that the city was built on a swamp without that historical context).
That said, there's plenty of snarky marshy comments that can be made- The Marshmallow City, where soft legislation occurs, etc. Aren't bloggers supposed to be creative with the memes? I demand better soundbites!
Then again, that doesn't make for any clever blog names, does it?
They could call it "Marsher, Marsher, Marsher!"
Lisa Simpson in a famous rant said it was a "stinking swamp", and I side with her.
from The Scientists song Swampland:
"In my heart, there's a place called Swampland / Nine parts, water, one part sand."
The first page of a Google search lists references for Swampoodles in Texarkana and Massachusetts, too. Maybe they were both settled by Irish? It'd be interesting to know the etymology of the name.
Swamps can be marine and/or tidal. Blackwater is a cypress swamp on the Eastern Shore, for example.
I can't believe it! DCist being indignant about a pointless matter of semantics?!
Swamp, marsh, moist lowland whatever. Simply because some people don't like the wording does not make it a myth.
The "historian" you site calls himself an independent scholar. I can call myself that too. It doesn't make me credible. Please find a better source to back up your argument.
Dude, that's not a "clever" blog name.
Much of the area below (west) the Washington Monument was reclaimed, it was originally water. Look at an 1860 DC map and the White House has a boat dock.
No one builds in a swamp, but areas of tidal rivers like the Potomac are often quite marshy.
But we can still talk about the cockroaches, can't we?
I assumed they were referring to the fever swamp that is the minds of their principle writers.
Or....
The little outside press area outside the Senate is also known as "The Swamp." Perhaps the title is referencing that?
Of course, that would make sense - and that isn't something you often associate with Ana Marie Cox or Joe Klein.
I don't get it -- why is everybody against the swamp folklore? I think it's charming. I mean, we aren't a bunch of Rotarian boosters selling candy bars now, are we?
Let's just say that geographic exactitude was not Fanne's forte, if you take my meaning.
-
cesspool on the potomac!
Though there's little so bad that 43 can't make it worse. New Orleans, much of which really was a swamp back a couple of centuries ago, ended up a lake for a while. DC should perhaps count its blessings.
So our nation's leaders really are Marshans.
We can certainly still talk about cockroaches, bobo. I myself have stepped on DC cockroaches. DC has big red ones which squirt flurescent green juice when your boots crunch them. I stepped on one near the White House once that may or may not have been wearing a tie (I didn’t poke around the carcass).
"If Time wants to be accurate"...good one!
Every colonial-era east coast city was built on a tidal marsh. If you wanted to bring ocean-going sailing ships up to your city, you had to build on a bay or navigable river. Given the flat topography of the eastern coastal plain, that means mud flats. Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, DC, Richmond, Charleston- they all have embankments and large areas of fill along their waterfronts. All of them were built partially on marshes, none of them were built in swamps.
DC was built on a tidal marsh. In the course of building the city, the workers logged virtually all of the trees in the city limits. The result was enormous erosion that left the low-lying areas of the city swimming in mud. Every description of the city in the 19th century comments on the mud. DC wasn't built on a swamp. The building of DC turned it into a swamp. There's a metaphor in there somewhere.
Ok, so maybe it wasn't built in a swamp, but along about August it sure the hell FEELS like a swamp.
chicago blog accurately called "the swamp" because apparently the translation of "chicago" is "stinking onion swamp." oh, they meant DC? silly tribunes...