THE NEWBERRY-WHITTLESEY CONTROVERSY AND ITS PROTAGONISTS: BACKGROUND, ARGUMENTS, AND OUTCOME OF A BITTER FEUD

IF 0.3 4区 哲学 Q4 GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Earth Sciences History Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.17704/1944-6187-41.1.77
J. Hannibal
{"title":"THE NEWBERRY-WHITTLESEY CONTROVERSY AND ITS PROTAGONISTS: BACKGROUND, ARGUMENTS, AND OUTCOME OF A BITTER FEUD","authors":"J. Hannibal","doi":"10.17704/1944-6187-41.1.77","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In 1869 a bitter feud broke out between two preeminent Ohio geologists, John Strong Newberry (1822–1892), and Colonel Charles Whittlesey (1806–1886), beginning with the naming of Newberry as State Geologist for Ohio, a position that both had lobbied for. The two protagonists had much in common, including their interests in Ohio geology, but they also had different geological and class backgrounds, interests, and talents. Whittlesey waged an unremitting campaign against the organization and emphasis of the Newberry Survey for more than a decade. This long battle played out on the political and public stage, with an exchange of acrimonious letters in newspapers across Ohio. Some of Whittlesey’s charges, such as absenteeism, were valid, and Newberry’s replies were overly strident. Newberry had supporters, including James Hall, but Whittlesey gained the support of Leo Lesquereux and Ebenezer B. Andrews, as well as many legislators and at least one influential newspaper. Whittlesey and Newberry made many contributions to geology and both have important geological features named for them. Both are buried in Cleveland’s Lake View Cemetery.","PeriodicalId":50560,"journal":{"name":"Earth Sciences History","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Earth Sciences History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17704/1944-6187-41.1.77","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In 1869 a bitter feud broke out between two preeminent Ohio geologists, John Strong Newberry (1822–1892), and Colonel Charles Whittlesey (1806–1886), beginning with the naming of Newberry as State Geologist for Ohio, a position that both had lobbied for. The two protagonists had much in common, including their interests in Ohio geology, but they also had different geological and class backgrounds, interests, and talents. Whittlesey waged an unremitting campaign against the organization and emphasis of the Newberry Survey for more than a decade. This long battle played out on the political and public stage, with an exchange of acrimonious letters in newspapers across Ohio. Some of Whittlesey’s charges, such as absenteeism, were valid, and Newberry’s replies were overly strident. Newberry had supporters, including James Hall, but Whittlesey gained the support of Leo Lesquereux and Ebenezer B. Andrews, as well as many legislators and at least one influential newspaper. Whittlesey and Newberry made many contributions to geology and both have important geological features named for them. Both are buried in Cleveland’s Lake View Cemetery.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
纽贝里-惠特尔西争议及其主角:一场激烈争执的背景、争论和结果
1869年,俄亥俄州两位杰出的地质学家John Strong Newberry(1822–1892)和Charles Whittlesey上校(1806–1886)之间爆发了一场激烈的争执,最初任命Newberry为俄亥俄州地质学家,这是两人都曾游说的职位。两位主角有很多共同点,包括他们对俄亥俄州地质的兴趣,但他们也有不同的地质和阶级背景、兴趣和才能。十多年来,Whittlesey发起了一场坚持不懈的运动,反对纽伯里调查的组织和重点。这场旷日持久的斗争在政治和公众舞台上上演,俄亥俄州各地的报纸上都有激烈的信件交流。Whittlesey的一些指控,如旷工,是有效的,而Newberry的回复过于尖锐。Newberry有支持者,包括James Hall,但Whittlesey获得了Leo Lesquereux和Ebenezer B.Andrews,以及许多立法者和至少一家有影响力的报纸的支持。Whittlesey和Newberry对地质学做出了许多贡献,他们都有以他们命名的重要地质特征。两人都被安葬在克利夫兰的湖景公墓。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Earth Sciences History
Earth Sciences History GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Earth Sciences History promotes and publishes historical work on all areas of the earth sciences – including geology, geography, geophysics, oceanography, paleontology, meteorology, and climatology. The journal honors and encourages a variety of approaches to historical study: biography, history of ideas, social history, and histories of institutions, organizations, and techniques. Articles are peer reviewed.
期刊最新文献
Letters from the President, Treasurer, Secretary and Editor's Introduction THE SOUTH DOES ALSO EXIST: THE CONTINENTAL DRIFT DEBATE IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE SOUTH-AFRICAN PALEOBOTANIST EDNA PLUMSTEAD SOME CHARACTERISTICS AND CAUSES OF CHANGES IN THE RATE OF DISCOVERY OF NEW MINERALS SINCE 1800 MINING PENCILS, SCULPTING GRAPHITE: THE SIBERIAN EXPEDITION OF J.-P. ALIBERT (1844–1857) AND THE EVOLVING 19TH CENTURY EUROPEAN VISUAL AND MATERIAL CULTURE RELATED TO EARTH SCIENCES EARLY EUROPEAN WOMEN IN SEISMOLOGY
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1