From the Notebook

The Background

The following article, published in the Manufacturers’ Record in 1892, was written by W.W. Goodrich, an architect who practiced in Atlanta between 1889 and 1895.

Here, Goodrich engages in the sort of masturbatory civic boosterism that Atlantans devour, describing the city in such gushing, over-the-top terms that the article could be easily mistaken for parody.

That Goodrich saw fit to write this embarrassing concoction of lies and fantasy for a nationally distributed publication underscores how deeply Atlantans swim in their own illusion, convinced that they are somehow exceptional and superior to other cities.

However, as any visitor in Goodrich’s time or now could attest, Atlanta is an aggressively mediocre city with scant culture and no distinguishable identity.

Atlanta’s defining feature is its population of conceited, ignorant inhabitants who loathe and despise each other while desperately seeking validation for their delusions of grandeur.

Indeed, few cities are so blithely arrogant as Atlanta, with so little of substance to show for it: Atlanta is the child who demands praise for using the toilet; the man with an average penis who is convinced he has a sizeable endowment; the insecure teenager desperate to be seen as popular, unaware that absolutely no one thinks about them.

Atlanta is a city built by frauds and liars, and Goodrich happened to be both. Before he arrived in Atlanta, he had a record of larceny and check fraud in Colorado, California, and Massachusetts,^{3 4 5 6 7} and many of the fantastical claims from his life story are easily disproven by the historical record.

Keep that in mind when Goodrich describes Atlantans as “moral heroes,” refers to the city in utopian terms as a place where “democrats and republicans work harmoniously for the public good,” and compares the city’s antebellum architecture (no, Sherman didn’t burn all of it) to that of ancient Greece.

Halfway through, the article turns into an advertisement for Georgia marble, a material so prohibitively expensive for use in construction that even the Georgia State Capitol was built with cheaper Indiana limestone.⁸

Shortly before writing this article, Goodrich toured the Georgia Marble Company’s quarry,⁹ and he may have been an investor in the business. Goodrich was also the designer for two of the marble buildings he lists here: the Herald Publishing Company Building and the R.F. Gould Residence in Atlanta’s Inman Park.¹⁰

Goodrich concludes the article by praising the architecture of Atlanta, which then, as now, consisted almost entirely of artless, watered-down imitations of superior designs from better cities—often a decade or more out of fashion by the time Atlantans in their insecure posturing began demanding them.

“Atlanta has no style of architecture,” Goodrich exclaims. “This shows the wisdom of her architects.”

Or as G.L. Norrman more accurately described Atlanta architecture: “The prevailing style is no style at all.”⁹

---

Atlanta’s Unique, Composite and Attractive Architecture.

By W.W. Goodrich

The hero rises above his environment, and ennobles mankind.

The people of Atlanta are moral heroes, who have put themselves in touch with each other and with their countrymen of our common land.

Here democrats and republicans work harmoniously for the public good, eschewing partisanship and striving in accord to upbuild a great city. Here is a charity between the vast political parties that commands admiration.

The blending of opposite political forces and opinions and the burial of dead issues have brought Atlanta to the front, and built her wonderfully up.

The architecture of Atlanta is progressive; from the simple taste of the artisan to the mansion of the rich is but a step, and the spirit of all, even the humblest, is to betterment. Under this universal inspiration Atlanta is surely marching to permanent superiority of architecture.

Before the war architecture was a blending of the Jacobian and the Colonial, of which excellent examples are still extant, the fluted columns of the simple orders, in bold effrontery, giving a classic invitation to come in and hear the oratory of the old masters of that art, now almost extinct. Looking on these facades I almost imagine I am in the classic land of Greece, in the temples of the gods, listening to a Socrates.

When Sherman destroyed Atlanta he little thought, probably, that a city would arise upon its ruins. Could he now look from the aspiring roof of the stately Equitable building he would see a grand metropolis on the wreck of old Atlanta, and on every hand majestic monuments of architects’ skill, and beautiful structural facades that fascinate the vision and compel the admiration of the most careless observer.

The principal building material for architectural effect and artistic embellishment is from the Georgia Marble Co.’s quarries at Tate, Pickens county, Ga. This marble leads the world. It is the granular marble, that resists all atmospheric action, stands all strains and finishes in a superb and harmonious whole. And this marble can be used at no greater expense than the finer grades of pressed brick.

Among the structures wholly or in part of Georgia marble are these:

• Herald building, daily newspaper, entire front.
• The R.F. Gould residence, wholly of marble, even the chimneys of this imperial stone, beautifully carved, and the heat and acids of the smoke do not tarnish the chimneys in the least.
• The Equitable building, in part.
• The Inman Building, in part.
• The High building, in part.
• The Aragon Hotel, in part.

And there are many others wholly or in part marble throughout Atlanta.

In all my experience with building stones Georgia marble gives me the greatest satisfaction for a perfect building material that will last and not be affected by heat or cold, nor the action of frost in freezing.

I have seen the cities of the growing West spring up in a day, figuratively speaking. They have their set back, but Atlanta grows on, and no matter what the financial state of the land at large, she climbs higher with her sky scrapers.

Her homes have more of architectural merit with each passing period or building construction. Each new house builder vies as never before to outdo his friend in home building and in home comforts. There is no accepted or popular pattern, no slavish imitation of any model, however liked, no wholesale adoption of architectural fashions, but a sturdy originality and independence of taste and idea that are always seeking and finding new effects and comforts.

Atlanta has no style of architecture. This shows the wisdom of her architects. We see a picturesque blending of all styles, the best of all styles grouped in a myriad of beautiful and harmonious, but differing and exquisitely unlike wholes. Such a composite and yet symmetrical and attractive architecture was never before seen, the outcome of a growing architectural taste, and presenting with absolute freedom from copied uniformity a rare and delightful variety and originality of gems of architectural beauty.

Every residence is different, and new combinations of grace and convenience constantly enrapture the eye.

The democracy in architecture relieves the sky line, and in a wholesale innovation, wherein monotony is destroyed, a scenic effect is given to the streets and lawns that could not be obtained any other way, and that makes Atlanta the very ideal of architectural taste and loveliness.¹¹

References

1. Illustration: “Pencil Sketch Of Marble Residence Of E.F. Gould”. The Atlanta Journal, April 21, 1891, p. 5. ↩︎
2. “Edgewood Avenue House Is Destroyed By Fire”. The Atlanta Journal, January 28, 1918, p. 9. ↩︎
3. “Held to Answer”. Rocky Mountain News (Denver), March 26, 1881, p. 2. ↩︎
4. “Probably a Sharp Swindler”. Daily National Republican (Washington, D.C.), November 27, 1883, p. 3. ↩︎
5. “An Old Fraud Heard From”. Los Angeles Herald, March 16, 1884, p. 4. ↩︎
6. “A Worthless Check”. The Boston Herald, November 27, 1883, p. 1. ↩︎
7. “Operation With Checks”. Boston Daily Advertiser, November 27, 1883, p. 8. ↩︎
8. “The Capitol Contract”. The Atlanta Constitution, September 27, 1884, p. 7. ↩︎
9. “A Delightful Excursion”. The Atlanta Constitution, February 20, 1892, p. 1. ↩︎
10. “W.W. Goodrich & Co., Architects”. Norfolk Virginian (Norfolk, Virginia), August 17, 1892, p. 2. ↩︎
11. Goodrich, W.W. “Atlanta’s Unique, Composite And Attractive Architecture.” Manufacturers’ Record, Vol. 22, no. 4 (August 26, 1892), p. 64. ↩︎

The Background

Just six days after his previous letter to The Atlanta Constitution, W.W. Goodrich returned to bloviate about manufacturing.

In the following letter, Goodrich suggested Atlanta could attract manufacturers by emulating “wide-awake” cities like Detroit, Denver, and… Rahway, New Jersey (yeah, I dunno), offering residents tax-exempt stocks in local companies and buying from those companies to the exclusion of outside markets.

In a poorly constructed run-on sentence, he also opined that bringing industry to Atlanta would “solve the domestic labor problem.”

And if his insinuation wasn’t clear enough, Goodrich added: “white artisan labor or factory help bring in their families, female help that would enter our homes and supplant the idle, shiftless race that is now a nuisance.” Lovely.

Goodrich noted the “cassiterite or tin ore” in “North Temercal”, California, a place that apparently never existed—except in his delusional mind.

Just as deranged was his parting vision of Atlanta as a city where “the fires of blast furnaces…should light up the horizon of the setting sun to illuminate the whole night away, only to welcome the rising sun, and be dissipated in the light of a cloudless day.”

Have I mentioned lately how much I detest this despicable, fraudulent, lying, racist hack of a writer and architect?

---

Stand by the Manufacturers.

Editor Constitution–Your articles on manufacturing enterprises, that should be attracted and retained in Atlanta, and encouraged by Atlanta capital, is the uppermost subject in the minds of the leading business men. Mr. Kirkpatrick, of Bain & Kirkpatrick, a courteous gentleman with whom I have had frequent conversations upon this subject, and who is alive to the necessity of Atlanta’s present and future greatness, has spoken in no uncertain tones upon this wide-awake subject. Mr. Kirkpatrick, who is well read and versed in how to get manufacturers to locate, favors the plan adopted by all wide-awake cities, as Detroit, Denver, Rahway, Newark, Elizabethtown and the hosts of cities of Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio and Indiana–this is, for the citizens to take stock, as far as possible, in all laudable enterprises, exempt them from taxation for a specified time, and buy from their half their goods to the exclusion of outside markets. In other words, protection to home enterprise, home capital and home industry.

We have near us vast deposits of iron, coal and the fluxes. In North Temercal, Cal., in Dakota and elsewhere in the United States. We have unbounded supplies in cassiterite or tin ore. We can manufacture the iron here in Atlanta and cast the plates with American tin, and save as per enclosed article at least $25,000,000 annually that now goes abroad.

One industry brings another. Atlanta would be the leading city of the south in everything attainable for the advancement of the body politic.

Again the bringing of these various industries would solve the domestic labor problem, the white artisan labor or factory help bring in their families, female help that would enter our homes and supplant the idle, shiftless race that is now a nuisance.

I am surprised at the lack of interest of some of the editorial fraternity, to the one thing needful for the supremacy of Atlanta as a commercial city. Why, sir, manufacturing enterprises should crown all the business of ingress into this city. The fires of blast furnaces, or rolling mills, of various shops from the making of a pin or needle to the turning out of a thoroughly well built locomotive, or a stationary engine, should light up the horizon of the setting sun to illuminate the whole night away, only to welcome the rising sun, and be dissipated in the light of a cloudless day.

W.W. GOODRICH³

References

1. “New Plant Of J.K. Orr Shoe Co. Which Will Be Completed April 1”. The Atlanta Journal, January 28, 1907, p. 3. ↩︎
2. “First Train Load Of Machinery Brought South For Shoe Factory”. The Atlanta Constitution, April 7, 1907, p. 5. ↩︎
3. Goodrich, W.W. “Stand by the Manufacturers.” The Atlanta Constitution, July 19, 1892, p. 4. ↩︎

The Background

In July 1892, The Atlanta Constitution published the following blurb titled “Why Not Come South?”, inviting “native Americans” of the northern states—by which they meant White people—to move to the Southeast:

The Constitution wrote:

“There are several millions of well-to-do native Americans in the north and west who are dissatisfied with their environment.

“They are not millionaires and they are not paupers. They belong to the great middle class, owning their homes, and having money in the bank or invested in real estate and various enterprises.

“What these people want is security. They view with apprehension the little civil war at Homestead, and they remember the bloody riots of Pittsburg, the troubles at Spring Valley and Braidwood, Ill., Hocking valley, Brazil, Ind., and the Reading colleries, where the employers provoked disturbance and then shot down their laborers. Where will it all end? is the question asked by these law-abiding and peaceful people.

“Another element of dissatisfaction is the rigorous climate, which oppresses the Americans of today more than it did their more hardy ancestors. And still another grievance is the rapid influx of foreigners, many of whom belong to the anarchist element of Europe.

“We would say to these middle-class native Americans of the north and west that our great Piedmont region, and many other localities in the south, offer them health, happiness, peace and prosperity. They will find here a purely American population, with diversified industries, and all the conveniences and luxuries of civilization. They will find a progressive people who have forgotten the old war issues, and who are now engaged in developing their resources. And they will find cheap and productive lands, tempting business opportunities, a warm-hearted, hospitable people, and a land where there has never been a clash of arms between capital and labor, and where the reign of law is upheld by a conservative God-fearing people.

“But the race problem? Well, come down here help us settle it. We are willing to trust you. When you settle among us and see the situation as it is you will be on our side. Think it over. Abandon a section hampered by so many increasing disadvantages–give it up to the plutocrats and their serfs–give it up to the immigrant hordes who are turning it into another Europe with all of Europe’s worst evils and few of its good points. Southward ho! should be the cry, and if you are wise you will lose no time in seeking homes this favored garden of the gods!”¹

The article was quite typical of the self-fellating promotional slop that filled Atlanta’s newspapers at the time, and while its language is perhaps a bit too coarse for the sensitive, modern palette that prefers its bullshit served in benign, fuzzy terms, it’s astounding how little has actually changed in 130 years.

In a country founded and built by immigrants, Americans still fear a “rapid influx of foreigners,” with entire political campaigns built on stoking a collective terror over “immigrant hordes who are turning it into another Europe.”

In the 1890s, the “anarchist element” that spurred labor strikes was the bogeyman, because God forbid workers have rights. Today, it’s the socialist element, because God forbid everyone has access to healthcare. Different century, same old tired nonsense.

People from all parts of the United States have poured into the Deep South unabated since the mid-20th century, often blaming the “rigorous climate” from whence they migrated. More often than not, however, the driving reason is that they entertain utopian delusions of the Southeast as a place of “cheap and productive lands…where the reign of law is upheld by a conservative God-fearing people” and a “purely American population.”

Instead, what the immigrant to the Southeast invariably finds is a sweltering shithole of empty promises, a land of angry and aggrieved infants who seek to control and dominate each other in the most insidious way possible: through syrupy smiles and passive-aggressive sneers, blasphemously invoking the name of Jesus to justify their satanic oppression.

It’s not that cheap, either—especially in Atlanta.

The Constitution‘s claim that the Southeast was “a land where there has never been a clash of arms between capital and labor” glossed over the fact that Atlanta and the region barely had any industry to speak of in the 1890s, and what little there was ran largely off prison labor^{2 3} and other exploited workers, including women and children.

For instance, in 1900, a federal commission visited the Fulton Bag and Cotton Mills (pictured at top), one of the city’s earliest manufacturers, and found a “deplorable condition of affairs,”⁴ including workers under the age of 12.⁵ Laborers worked 66 hours a week⁶ and were forced to live in “ramshackle structures,”⁷ complaining that “nearly the full amount of their wages was deducted for rent charges and charges at the company store.”⁸

The Constitution‘s hand-waving dismissal of the “race problem” was also particularly galling: “When you settle among us and see the situation as it is you will be on our side.” Which is to say: you, too, will like White supremacy.

Enter W.W. Goodrich, a pathological liar, criminal fraud, and prototypical carpetbagger, but still the kind of man the Constitution so eagerly desired—Caucasian.

In the following letter, Goodrich praised the newspaper’s “magnificent article” and spoke in characteristically florid terms of “the middle class” that “patronize only what is American; they absorb only what is of American origin, and their garments are of only American products and American manufacture.”

Now that both American industry and the American middle class are essentially nonexistent—sold out by American capitalists in favor of foreign sweatshops that run off forced labor and other exploited workers—his sentiments are laughably quaint.

---

He Endorses It.

Atlanta, July 11.—Editor Constitution: Your editorial on “Why Not Come South” is a magnificent article, that just enters as a wedge, separating the body artisan nee the pauper or spendthrift from the great middle class that saves and banks away for a rainy day. This middle class, so called are for and to man the welfare of the entire country, and more especially are they for the upbuilding of America and American institutions in preference to anything foreign. They patronize only what is American; they absorb only what is of American origin, and their garments are of only American products and of American manufacture. Please keep this line of thought of the editorial in today’s paper at the head of your columns, and you will do an invaluable service to our sunny south.

W.W. GOODRICH⁹

References

1. “Why Not Come South?” The Atlanta Constitution, July 11, 1892, p. 4. ↩︎
2. “Is A Body Blow At Convict Labor”. The Atlanta Journal, February 2, 1897, p. 3. ↩︎
3. “Labor Men Wage War On Convict-Made Brick”. The Atlanta Constitution, February 3, 1897, p. 1. ↩︎
4. “Industrial Commission Hears Plan Talk From Labor Men”. The Atlanta Constitution, March 21, 1900, p. 7. ↩︎
5. “Investigation Ended; Commissioners Leave”. The Atlanta Journal, March 21, 1900, p. 8. ↩︎
6. “Lack Of Facts In The Testimony Heard By Industrial Commission”. The Atlanta Constitution, March 22, 1900, p. 9. ↩︎
7. “Industrial Commission Hears Plan Talk From Labor Men”. The Atlanta Constitution, March 21, 1900, p. 7. ↩︎
8. ibid. ↩︎
9. Goodrich, W.W. “He Endorses It.” The Atlanta Constitution, July 13, 1892, p. 4. ↩︎

The Background

People have always fucked each other—married or not. That was well understood in the late 19th century, but social standards at the time were often incongruent with reality, particularly for women.

Although officially illegal, prostitution at the time was tacitly accepted as a fact of life, and every city of any size, including Atlanta, had a red-light district, with local officials turning a blind eye—likely because they were patrons.

Pornography was available but not ubiquitous, so when the “fast young men”³ of Atlanta needed to get off, they were apt to visit the “disreputable houses” on Collins Street⁴ (later Courtland Street), of which the Atlanta newspapers spoke quite openly, and generally without judgment.

Expectations for women were quite different, however. Contraception was non-existent, so if a girl slept with a man—or God forbid was raped—well, she was screwed in more ways than one.

An unmarried pregnant woman was ostracized from the community, invariably shunned by her family, and often sent to a convent or “reformatory”, usually out of state.⁵ The man, of course, was free to live his life without consequence. Such were the good ol’ days to which some modern lunatics desire a return.

Times were changing, however, and the 1890s saw a movement toward establishing local “homes” or “refuges” to rehabilitate “fallen women”, a euphemism that covered a broad range of women, including unwed mothers, rape victims, and prostitutes.

In 1891, a group of Atlanta ministers proposed a Home for Fallen Women,^{6 7} although the project was abandoned.⁸ A second attempt that year by a different group⁹ was opposed at every turn by residents who shrieked with moral outrage.^{10 11 12 13 14} The home was ultimately banned by city ordinance.¹⁵

Moral objections against the home were flimsy because Atlantans have never possessed any morals.

At least one honest resident had the balls to admit the real issue: “A home for fallen women, or any other institution which would destroy the value of our property, will have a hard road to travel if it is forced on us.”¹⁶

An anonymous “Reader” in The Atlanta Journal summed up the failure in April 1892:

“The movement failed, it seemed, only for the reason that so many opposed the location wherever it was spoken of on account of the proximity of Christian homes.

“Not a friendly word for that unfortunate class was said at the time that I remember by either of the newspapers of Atlanta or by any Christian man or woman.

“If Christ had been among us and owned a lot he would have said:

“‘Put it here.’ The spirit of the Nazarene rebukes such shabby pretense and stamps it ‘hypocrisy’”.¹⁷

In June 1892, another “Home for Fallen Women” attempted to open on Formwalt Street in southwest Atlanta. The city council balked at the idea,¹⁸ the neighbors predictably raised hell,^{19 20} and the matter was ultimately dropped.²¹

For whatever reason, W.W. Goodrich decided to wade into the matter, writing the following “suggestion”—he always had so many of them—in The Atlanta Constitution.

Here, Goodrich describes his idea of a “retreat” for “imprudent young women,” complete with a dormitory, hospital, school, chapel, and hothouses, where the women would become “experts and adepts in the raising of fruits and flowers.”

“Consider the lilies of the field,” Goodrich quotes Christ. He then adds: “They could be paid commensurate with their dexterity.”

I believe that’s from the Atlanta translation of the Bible.

---

A Suggestion For a Home.

Editor Constitution — Apropos of the location of a retreat for “imprudent young women,” please allow this suggestion, which has been tried with perfect success, and never failed to be the main spring out of which may be built a “retreat” that will not necessitate the upturned nostril of any sycophant at its close proximity.

In the west, and in the foreign climes, a society for the benevolent reclamation of unfortunate young women has purchased a tract of land near to a city of easy access, and upon said tract has erected a dormitory, hospital, kitchen and dining rooms, a bathhouse, a schoolroom and chapel upon the grounds, were also built for the sole occupation and employment of these young women. Hothouses of different sizes and for different fruits, flowers, plants and arbor culture in general. The young women did all of the manual labor in raising, propagating and growing whatever was planted.

An unlimited sale in this Atlanta market, at retail prices, is always at command for the products of such labor.

Such a home for these helpless young women would be a noble charity; they would be self-supporting, self-sustaining and self-respecting, and they would have an occupation that they would not hesitate to embrace.

They do not want sentiment; they do not want pity.

They do want disinterested, noble, clear-cut charity, and in this enlightened age they have a right to anticipate it.

When such a home is ready a special officer could go to the various stopping places of these young women, give them free of charge tickets for transportation to the retreat, invite them in a Christian, non-sectarian, unbiased manner to accept of the generous hospitality of the retreat, and I trow not but that they all would be only too glad to accept of so kind a proposition and of so good a home.

They would become experts and adepts in the raising of fruits and flowers, and what is more enjoyable than seeing flowers grow and bloom? Consider the lilies of the field; they could be paid commensurate with their dexterity.

The outline of this thought is from observation during my travels and is respectfully submitted to the noble minds who really with unostentation have the good of these unfortunate young women at heart.

W.W. GOODRICH.²²

References

1. “Plans Are Ready”. The Atlanta Journal, December 30, 1890, p. 1. ↩︎
2. “Plans Ready”. The Atlanta Constitution, November 19, 1891, p. 2. ↩︎
3. “Work Of The Courts”. The Atlanta Constitution, December 5, 1891, p. 9. ↩︎
4. “She Was Robbed”. The Atlanta Journal, October 20, 1891, p. 1. ↩︎
5. “That House of Refuge.” The Atlanta Constitution, November 13, 1891, p. 4. ↩︎
6. “For Fallen Women”. The Atlanta Journal, April 6, 1981, p. 7. ↩︎
7. “Raising The Fallen”. The Atlanta Constitution, April 7, 1981, p. 7. ↩︎
8. “The Ministers Meet”. The Atlanta Constitution, September 8, 1891, p. 10. ↩︎
9. “For Fallen Women.” The Atlanta Constitution, September 13, 1891, p. 21. ↩︎
10. “For Fallen Women.” The Atlanta Journal, October 14, 1891, p. 6. ↩︎
11. “Don’t Want It.” The Atlanta Journal, November 4, 1891, p. 3. ↩︎
12. “Don’t Want It.” The Atlanta Constitution, November 5, 1891, p. 6. ↩︎
13. “The Fallen Women”. The Atlanta Constitution, November 7, 1891, p. 9. ↩︎
14. “That Refuge.” The Atlanta Journal, November 7, 1891, p. 3. ↩︎
15. “The Mayor’s Name.” The Atlanta Constitution, November 8, 1891, p. 24. ↩︎
16. ibid. ↩︎
17. “The Idler’s Note Book”. The Atlanta Journal, April 27, 1892, p. 4. ↩︎
18. “They Are Happy.” The Atlanta Constitution, June 7, 1892, p. 2. ↩︎
19. “The Southsiders Object”. The Atlanta Journal, June 7, 1892, p. 3. ↩︎
20. “They Will Oppose It.” The Atlanta Constitution, June 8, 1892, p. 9. ↩︎
21. “That Liquor Law”. The Atlanta Constitution, June 21, 1892, p. 10. ↩︎
22. Goodrich, W.W. “A Suggestion for a Home.” The Atlanta Constitution, June 10, 1892, p. 4. ↩︎