bedsitter23

Hell Gate of the Mississippi, the Effie Afton Trial and Abraham Lincoln's Role in It by Larry A. Riney

My rating: 2 of 5 stars


I have found that some times the most interesting books are local history that I find while visiting somewhere, and I picked this up while visiting the Quad Cities.

The Effie Afton trial is an interesting story that I doubt many people (myself included) know, but was one of the biggest trials of the day.

The Effie Afton was a large steamboat which crashed into the first railroad bridge that crossed the Mississippi River at Rock Island, Illinois. What makes this a significant event was with this bridge, for the first time, goods could be carried by train from the East to West. This was a threat to the previous way of life which was River travel. This incident pitted the Railroads vs the Boating industry, and also Chicago as an up and coming city versus St Louis and other river towns.

The question was if (as the Captain of the Effie Afton explained) the bridge was too much a threat to ships passing (a "Hell gate") and should be torn down. The railroads blamed the captain's negligence, or suggested that the crash was done on purpose to prove a point (or the ship burned for insurance purposes).

The book describes the trial, with a brief history of beforehand, which includes some references to big names of the day like Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis (Secretary of War Davis wanted the railroad, but to cross in the South, not the North). The other reason this trial is trial is of interest is that it is the only well-documented trail featuring Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was not the main counsel, but he was part of the Defense team, and here was sowing the very early seeds of what would be his Presidential career.

Lincoln is on the Defense Team, which given his image as a young riverman, has been lost to time. Here, he backed the railroad interests.

The Missouri Republican and the (Chicago) Daily Democratic Press both sent their best reporters and each put their slant on the proceedings.

The trial lasts 15 days with some dubious direction- the trial takes place in Chicago, and also some jury members seem to have ties to Railroad stock, an obvious bias.

It results in a hung jury- so ultimately the Bridge stands, despite the best workings of the City of St. Louis and rivermen. The few previous precedents such as Erie Canal legislation ultimately make the case that the Greater Good lies with the expansion of the railroad. There is a follow up trial in Iowa where the Rivermen win, but for geographic reasons with the bulk of the bridge in Illinois, is a mere ceremonial win.

The story eventually ends with a whimper not a bang, as with the secession of the South, all parties involved see the need for the Mississippi River crossing, and the story fades away after appeals and retrial.

There is also a (most likely) apocryphal story of how Abraham Lincoln went to the site of the accident and with great sleuthing determined that the bridge was indeed passable. This story makes Lincoln look like the genius of the trial, but only shows up 50 years later in the history written by the railroad companies of that day.

This an interesting topic and worthwhile, if any of the following topics are of interest- Lincoln, Quad Cities and Mississippi River history, Westward Expansion, river travel and mainly- jury selection and the court system in the mid 19th Century.

This is a very academic book, and though, relatively short at 240 pages (with pictures), it is dense. Riney provides a blow-by-blow account that covers every day and every aspect of the trial. This is all backed up with reference to the two newspapers covering the trial and many other sources. For most, this is probably too much detail. For me, that worked against the book, although that much detail may be of interest to some seeking out that level of information.

That was my small quibble with a book that ultimately taught me about an aspect of history I had never heard before.



View all my reviews

You may be aware of Lay's Chips contest to create a new potato chip for the masses (and award a million dollars while doing it).

The three flavors are Cheesy garlicbread, the spicy Sriracha, and that regional favorite Chicken&Waffles.

Of course, the buzz around (and the one I have tried) is Chicken&Waffles.



So?

I will say that I didn't like it, and after a half-dozen i was done.  That opinion wasn't unanimous in the office though.

To me, it was too salty for a dessert chip and too sweet for a potato chip.  I heard Guy Fieri describe these chips as tasting like 'burned ice cream cones" and that is probably the closest description to what I thought.

I think trying to capture the flavor of these two distinct things is a bit more challenging than throwing a couple of flavors together.  The chip appears to be a mix of chicken bouillon flavor and maple syrup taste, which yes, in theory, does fulfill both sides represented.

I think the chip could have been served better by reaching more into a chicken flavor (and if not that extreme, then the other) instead of trying to meet in the middle.

In any case, while I would never buy these chips.  I would consider this a resounding success.  These chips are the most buzzed about food product that I have seen for a long time.