Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126
Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127
Patricia Bixel draws some interesting points in her discussion of the rebuilding of Galveston following the massive hurricane of 1900. The barrier island on which the city lays, “while magical places, are not necessarily appropriate for major human habitation.” I couldn’t agree more. However, it’s incredibly difficult to deny the draw of places like Galveston. While I’ve never been, I’ve experience other barrier islands like Key West, Hilton Head, and Topsail. So, I can understand why the citizens of Galveston were willing to fork over a substantial amount of money to “save” the city.
The methods chosen to save the city are worthy of the ultimate praise. While I’m no engineer, I can imagine that the construction of the sea wall, elevating an entire city, and dredging the bay were incredible feats. Notwithstanding these improvements were done over a century ago without modern technology that would make the process much simpler. As I was reading Bixel’s work, I thought that maybe the sea wall would be a little overkill and not building the wall would save the citizens some money. On many other islands, the protective measures taken do not include a concrete sea wall. The dunes act as a protective barrier and compliment the buildings being elevated on stilts. However, Galveston’s unique position being so close to sea level required that more drastic measures be taken. Bixel points out that without the sea wall, the sand used to elevate the city would simply wash away. Without elevating the city, the sea wall only protects against the blunt force of the waves, but would still permit flooding. These two measures work in conjunction to protect the city against further devastation. As proof of their effectiveness, Galveston witnessed another powerful storm in 1915 that caused much less damage and loss of life. However, the citizens continued to promote the hubris of the period by rejecting assistance from fellow Americans. This act of defiance was intended to show Galveston’s improvements and the citizen’s solidarity to encourage economic development that the 1900 storm retarded. They might not have been so arrogant, however, had they decided to follow the advice of the French colonel who advocated a battery be built to destroy the hurricane with artillery shells.
While Bixel makes good points, I think she also hampers the effectiveness of her article by briefly throwing in substantial points. Her inclusion of politics could be further enhanced. Yes, the wealthy white took over the cleaning up process and neglected African-Americans and those without substantial means, but how did this affect the rebuilding process? Was this a predecessor to Katrina’s rebuilding with similar consequences and racial tensions? What could have been different if all voices were heard instead of the wealthy businessmen? Maybe she would have to do some speculation, but it could be substantiated speculation with primary sources from people who felt left out. I can speculate that these people were so devastated by the storm’s destruction that they may not have cared as much as Bixel seems to think. These people may have just wanted the city returned back to normalcy and who better to do that than those who built the city? Galveston initially developed because businesses were attracted by the deep bay, so why shouldn’t businesses be in charge of the rebuilding? Playing devil’s advocate, the deprived may have been upset by their lack of voice. They might have complained privately in diaries and letters, or publicly in the newspapers. I don’t know, but I’m not paid the big bucks to write articles either. I would have appreciated a more inclusive picture by Bixel if she’s going to bring these issues up in her article.
Becky, excellent point about Galveston’s future. Love the extra research.