Of Mountains and Molehills

When I was researching the hikes up Mt. Washington last month, I discovered that the New Hampshire legislature (who I once worked for) voted to rename Mt. Clay to Mt. Reagan. Mt. Clay is one of the smaller peaks in the Presidential Range of New Hampshire, nestled between Mt. Washington and Mt. Jefferson. Okay, first, I know most of you are going to say: Shouldn’t Adams be between Washington and Jefferson? Well, there is a Mt. Adams already in the Presidentials. As shown below, the Presidentials were named (originally) in order of height, not placement. Here is a list of the Presidential Range mountains, by elevation (in feet):

Washington 6,288
Adams 5,798
Jefferson 5,715
Quincy Adams 5,410
Monroe 5,385
Madison 5,363
Eisenhower 4,761
Pierce 4,312
Clay 5,533

There are several other peaks in the New Hampshire White Mountains named for Presidents but not in the Presidential range: Mounts Lincoln, Garfield, Cleveland, and Hayes are all named after US Presidents. There is also Mounts Carter, Jackson & Clinton, but these are not named for Presidents but other notables who happen to have the same name as a president. Also, other peaks in the Presidential range carry non-Presidential names, such as Mt. Jackson, named after a state geologist. So Mt. Clay (named for statesman Henry Clay) isn’t out of the ordinary.

And while I’m on the subject of naming mountains, I’d like to quote the Reverend Thomas Starr King, who wrote in 1860:

What a pity that the hills could not have kept the names which the Indian tribes gave them. ... Webster, Clinton, Pleasant, Franklin, Monroe, Washington, Clay, Jefferson, Adams, Madison. What a wretched jumble. These are what we have taken in exchange for such Indian words as Agiocochook, which is the baptismal title of Mt. Washington.

I couldn’t agree more, Reverend. However, I’ve started to digress. As the elevations show, the large peaks are named for the first presidents, in order of their service. The main exception is Mount John Quincy Adams, which in fact is merely a subsidiary summit of Mt. Adams, and is a nice tribute to the Father-Son Presidential tandem.

The next thing that popped out at me was the fact that Clay wasn’t a President to begin with. If we’re in the Presidential Range, shouldn’t all the mountains be named after presidents? As I previously pointed out, however, this isn’t the case. (And one more thing: What’s with giving Franklin Pierce, New Hampshire’s only president, the lowest mountain of the bunch? Obviously he’s a popular one here at home as he was in Washington.) Okay, so then this makes sense: Let’s rename Clay for a President. So we have Presidents #1-6 covered. We jump up to #14 (Pierce), but at least he’s a native son of the state. Then another 20 spots to #34 (Eisenhower – and I’m sure there’s a story behind that one). And then to #40 and Reagan. Am I to assume that no other Presidents in between aren’t more worthy of naming a mountain after?

So the New Hampshire legislature figures, “hey – everything else is being re-named for Reagan, let’s get in on it!” So they pick a mountain (that’s not really a mountain, as I talk about below) and pass a resolution to rename Mt. Clay to Mt. Reagan. Unfortunately, they didn’t take into consideration some small issues:

1) Mt. Clay is technically not a mountain. It only rises 150 feet from the connecting saddle with Mt. Washington, less than the standard 200 feet rule to be classified as a separate summit. (In fact, it wasn’t even named until the early 1700’s, so it’s obvious the earlier settlers of the region didn’t feel it was even worth naming this small protuberance.)
2) According to New Hampshire state law, no natural feature can be named after a person until they have been dead for at least 5 years. Considering the NH legislature passed this resolution a year before Reagan died, they really got the ball rolling early. Nevertheless, the earliest “Mt. Reagan” can be recognized is 2009.
3) The USGS (that’s United States Geological Survey to you flatlanders) hasn’t approved the name change. Under federal law, the USGS must be petitioned for any name that is registered with the Geographic Names Office of the USGS. So a state wanting to change the name does nothing to actually change it.
4) While they passed a resolution to change the peak’s name, they did nothing to change the names of the trails around and to the top of Mt. Clay, one of which is called “Mt. Clay Loop”. The trails in the White Mountains are maintained by the Appalachian Mountain Club, and the AMC has stated they have no desire to change any trail names.

Besides all of these technical issues, I have one other major problem with renaming a mountain after Reagan. When Reagan was president, he oversaw one of the worst environmental platforms ever to come out of the White House. (Although if you look at Bush’s environmental record since he took office, Reagan comes off like Teddy Roosevelt.) Does anyone see the irony of naming a mountain after someone whose Secretary of the Interior (James Watt) once made the comment, “We will mine more, drill more, and cut more timber”? It’s not even ironic, it’s simply idiotic. It’s almost like naming an airport after a man who fired an entire fleet of air traffic controllers. Oh….oops.

Finally, I just have to ask…when did Ronald Reagan become such a revered figure? Why are we naming airports, federal buildings, mountains and trying to put him on money? He’s only been out of office for 18 years. There is no greater arbiter of a man or woman’s accomplishments as time. Let’s take a generation off and then let history decide where his place is in the world. And leave the mountain names alone. (For further reading on this subject, please check out an article on Slate’s website concerning “St. Ronald”.)