For a long time, I have been kicking around the idea of writing something about the history of money. Money is something seldom understood yet politicized in America. Most everybody does not understand debt, inflation, Monetary Policy, etc. but it never stops them from having an opinion. Recently, some have been beating the drum for the Gold Standard – a fool hearty idea, to say the least (more on that later).
Before I expound on these ideas, here is a fun little infographic on money. Hat tip to Kate at Ghergich & Co. for sending me this!
A History of U.S. Money
An infographic from the team at the Quicken Loans Zing Blog.
Clarence Earl Gideon – petty thief and famous Supreme Court plantiff in Gideon v. Wainwright
After the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791, the first ten amendments to the Constitution became law. Over the years, it has been the task of the federal courts (most notably the Supreme Court) to determine how to interpret the rights and protections inherent in the Bill of Rights. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees, “In criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right… to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”  What that guarantee means has evolved over the years as the Supreme Court has evaluated cases relating to this particular clause of the Sixth Amendment.
Linda Monk wrote, “The right to counsel is the most important in the Sixth Amendment, because without it the defendant is unable to assert any other rights he has. It is almost impossible for a layperson to navigate the complicated legal system alone.” The right to counsel is a commonly known right guaranteed by the first ten amendments, as this right is often referenced on television courtroom and law dramas in the reading of the Miranda Rights to suspected criminals. While the Sixth Amendment has been unchanged since 1791, our interpretation of the right to counsel has changed considerably.
Originally, the right to counsel was interpreted to mean that you had the right to pay an attorney to be present at trial, leaving those who could not afford an attorney unable to execute such privilege. Programs to help the poor accused of crimes were implemented in cities across the country, but were largely voluntary and very limited – less than three percent of the nation’s counties even had public defender programs before 1963. Even if one were lucky enough to have free or pro bono counsel, often such counsel lacked quality or a commitment to defending the accused. In 1930, the Cook County’s public defender’s office described its purpose as “to assist the court and to expedite guilty pleas.” While some indigent defendants would have the benefit of counsel in criminal cases, the quality and quantity of public defenders were certainly lacking in the early 20th Century.
An Anti-Saloon League poster promoting the cause of prohibition.
This is fifth and final post in a series recounting the history of drinking in America leading up to Prohibition. While we hear a lot about the consumption of alcohol during Prohibition, seldom discussed is the importance of alcohol (and its consumption) at earlier dates in American history. This research was very interesting and I hope you enjoy it!
Read part one here.
Read part two here.
Read part three here.
Read part four here.
Attempts to pass a prohibition amendment in the United States Congress began in 1876. In the 1880s, several states created laws restricting or outlawing liquor. With the launch of the Progressive Movement at the turn of the century, alcohol and its influences became incorporated with their goal to purify society, enfranchise women, and reform the machine politics of years past. Around the same time, a powerful political group known as the Anti-Saloon league was born. Unlike the WCTU which was a broad reform group, the Anti-Saloon League had only one purpose: the prohibition of all intoxicating liquors in America.
The WCTU had successfully educated several generations on the dangers of alcohol, while also tying the rights of women and the right to vote to prohibition. Progressives soon joined the cause of prohibition as well, under the ideology that going dry would solve both political corruption and urban poverty. As Progressives, the WCTU, Prohibition Party, and Anti-Saloon League warned of the scourge of alcohol, their message struck a chord with nativists and xenophobes who feared the impact of changing urban demographics that had begun in the latter half of the Nineteenth Century. Temperence and Prohibition advocates “were disproportionately rural white Protestants of northern European ethnic stock, and such reformers sometimes saw prohibition as a means of controlling or reforming Catholics, immigrants, African American and poor whites.” When the United States entered World War I in 1917, anti-German sentiment only furthered the cause of prohibitionists as many brewing companies were owned by German Americans. By that time, twenty-three states had prohibition laws and many others had considered similar laws. The American public was turning against alcohol. In an interesting irony, radical WCTU member Carrie Nation (who had previously lost a husband due to drink) received hundreds of supporters while she toured Kansas staging ‘hatchetation,’ which vandalized bars and smashed liquor bottles. Though she created thousands of dollars of damage to businesses, Nation was never tried of any major crimes. Continue reading
A political cartoon featuring radical prohibitionist Carrie Nation, known for smashing up saloons with her hatchet.
This is part four in a series recounting the history of drinking in America leading up to Prohibition. While we hear a lot about the consumption of alcohol during Prohibition, seldom discussed is the importance of alcohol (and its consumption) at earlier dates in American history. This research was very interesting and I hope you enjoy it!
Read part one here.
Read part two here.
Read part three here.
The Civil War and Reconstruction provided a lengthy respite for the temperance movement. In the 1870s, the temperance movement experienced a revival that lasted until the Twentieth Century prohibition era. Beginning in 1869, Russell’s National Prohibition Party became a force at both the National and State level. However, it was the formation of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) in Cleveland, Ohio that mobilized women to the temperance movement like never before.
The WCTU was inspired by a prominent doctor’s lectures on the dangers of alcohol. After the lecture, women in New York and Ohio staged pray-ins and silent protests at various saloons in an effort to drive liquor out of their communities. As the movement spread, their actions drove liquor out of 250 communities. Later that year, the WCTU was officially formed and held a national convention with the slogan “For the God and Home and Native Land.” The WCTU’s interests were two fold – to eradicate drinking and to promote women’s rights and equality. Behind the idea of protecting the home and improving society, the WCTU quickly became the largest woman’s group in the world. At the time, women had little rights in America, even in cases of rape and spousal abuse. For the WCTU, the rights of women, protection of the family, and the evils of liquor went hand in hand. “Women and children had often been victimized by drunken men; and the saloons where men had gathered were …vicious, corrupt dens.” The WCTU linked tobacco and alcohol use to problems with prostitution, labor, and various public health issues as well. Selling women as ‘home protectors,’ the WCTU’s membership grew from 149,527 in 1890 and over 248,343 in 1910.
Lyman Beecher – American Temperance Society Co-founder
This is part three in a series recounting the history of drinking in America leading up to Prohibition. While we hear a lot about the consumption of alcohol during Prohibition, seldom discussed is the importance of alcohol (and its consumption) at earlier dates in American history. This research was very interesting and I hope you enjoy it!
Read part one here.
Read Part two here.
While social historians point to the Jacksonian age as an influence on drinking – the messages self reliance, masculinity and rugged individualism seemed tailor made for the hard drinker and distiller – drinking in America was also buoyed by European immigration and the growth of cities in pre-Civil War America. From 1830 to 1860 two million Irish immigrated to the United States, bringing with them a culture of drinking and public house frequenting. Escaping political persecution and famine, these Irish settled mostly in busy Northern urban centers. They often faced discrimination (both racial and religious due to their Catholicism), abject poverty, and dangerous factory work. In an effort to connect their communities and escape their difficult living conditions, Irish men bonded together through social gatherings and drinking Irish whiskey. “Faced with an openly hostile environment, and both unable and unwilling to Americanize, the immigrants seized upon drinking as a major symbol of ethnic loyalty. That is they drank hard to assert their Irishness.” Visiting the public house for a drinking session also served another purpose. By congregating among themselves, the Irish used the pub as a way to keep off the streets and out of trouble. This cause was supported by Irish American leaders, who could use these visits to organize politically and pass out free drinks to elicit support. While the Irish pub served its political purposes well (in cities like Boston, Chicago, and New York the Irish would wield considerable clout) )rter) it also lead to higher rates of inebriation and the pervasive stereotype of the ‘drunken Irishman’,
A “woodcut” used by the Harrison/Tyler campaign in 1840.
This is part two in a series recounting the history of drinking in America leading up to Prohibition. While we hear a lot about the consumption of alcohol during Prohibition, seldom discussed is the importance of alcohol (and its consumption) at earlier dates in American history. This research was very interesting and I hope you enjoy it! Read part one here.
Concerns about the wide spread use of alcohol in young America started taking form in religious circles. Methodists and Quakers warned parishioners of the dangers of hard liquor to social order. The Quaker Anthony Benezet, who founded the first anti-slavery society on the American Continent, called alcohol “The Great Destroyer” and warned of the medical and social problems associated with excessive drinking in a 1774 pamphlet . While many religious organizations saw nothing wrong with alcohol, stigma was attached to drinking too much. While moderate drinking was accepted, heavy drinking began to be regarded as a sin.
The most influential figure in the early temperance movement was Dr. Benjamin Rush, who served as Surgeon General of the Continental Army and was one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. In 1784, Dr. Rush published An Inquiry into the Effects of Spirituous Liquors upon the Human Body, and Their Influence upon the Happiness of Society. In his pamphlet, Rush broke new ground, becoming one of the earliest people in the medical field to suggest that liquor broke down the body and helped produce both mental and physical illness. Of equal concern, was Rush’s opinion that the continual drinking of liquor would result in the dissolution of government and the collective American spirit. Rush called for government limitations on drink asking, “Should the customs of civilized life, preserve our nation for extinction, and, even from an increase of mortality, by these liquors; they cannot prevent our country being governed by men, chosen by intemperate and corrupted voters?” Despite his condemnation of liquor, Rush did not admonish the drinking of all alcoholic beverages. Whereas Rush believed hard liquors like rum, liquor, and gin were evil and Antifederal, he supported the consumption of cider and beer as “invaluable FEDERAL liquors’ which promoted cheerfulness and political stability.”
Forty-two years ago, the 26th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified. This amendment ensures that both states and the federal government will not be allowed to raise the minimum voting age (thus guaranteeing 18 year old people the right to vote). While some people may think that the 26th Amendment was the first and final step in lowering the voting age, in actuality the story of lowering the voting age is a bit more complicated than that.
When the Constitution was ratified in 1787, qualifications and voting eligibility rules were absent and reserved to the states. In the early years of the Republic, most states had stringent voting requirements which excluded the majority of the populace from voting. The early electorate was small and limited to adult white male landowners. Throughout American history, voting rights have been expanded by both state and federal action, including prominent amendments to the Constitution. “Of the 17 constitutional amendments passed since the Bill of Rights, five have focused on the expansion of the electorate.” The Jacksonian Revolution eliminated property requirements for white males, and subsequent amendments gave African-American males, women, and residents of the District of Colombia the right to vote. In 1964, poll taxes were eliminated via the Twenty-fourth amendment, thereby ensuring impoverished Americans had an equal right to vote.
The Twenty-sixth Amendment (which is also the last amendment related to voting rights) was ratified four months after its 1971 proposal. The Twenty-sixth Amendment ensured, “The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State.” While such rapid ratification is unusual, recent historical events provide a clear explanation as to why such a sweeping change in both states rights and voting rights was approved with relative ease.
Boxing Heavyweight Champion Jack Johnson, whose victory on July 4, 1910 would lead to race riots, resulting in 26 deaths.
I would like to take the time out to thank all of you who have taken the time to read my articles and wish you all a fantastic holiday. While most of you know that today was the day the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence on 1776, I would like to share some interesting tidbits about July 4th.
1776 – Despite the fact that American Independence is celebrated on July 4th, John Adams thought that future generations would celebrate on July 2nd – the date the Continental Congress voted to sever its ties with Great Britain. In a letter to his wife, Abigal, he wrote: “The Second Day of July 1776 will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America.” Continue reading
The first page of the Voting Rights Act (1965).
On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in the case Shelby County v. Holder that had broad implications involving The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (referred to as the VRA). The VRA was enacted by the United States Congress due to discriminatory acts that were conducted throughout the South including literacy tests. These tests (as well as poll taxes and grandfather clauses) were designed in order to prohibit African Americans from voting and existed in the South since the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1870.
These roadblocks were extraordinarily effective in the South. Prior to the passage of this bill, for example, only seven percent of African Americans had been registered to vote in Mississippi by 1965. The VRA and its subsequent enforcement enabled the federal government the ability to inhibit discriminatory practices. Not only did the bill prohibit racial discrimination, but it also required districts with a history of discrimination to seek clearance from the federal government if they sought to make any changes that affected voting procedure. The bill had been renewed twice, most recently in 2006 (for a span of 25 years). Continue reading
This is part three of an examination of the limits of freedom of expression established by key Supreme Court decisions. Please read the first part here and the second part here.
Richard Nixon, who tried (in vain) to prevent the publishing of the Pentagon Papers by the New York Times.
Seven years after the Sullivan case, the New York Times found itself in another landmark case related to freedom of the press. In 1971, the New York Times received classified intelligence that detailed American involvement and decision making in Vietnam from 1945-1967. On June 13th of the same year, the New York Times published selections of the document in their Sunday edition. Days later, the New York Times received a district court order to stop further publishing of the Pentagon Papers (similar requests were also made to the Washington Post, who also began publishing articles related to the papers). The Nixon Administration felt that publishing the papers would interfere with national security interests. Despite the fact that many justices felt it would be against the nation’s best interest to allow publishing the papers, they ruled 6-3 in favor of the New York Times, allowing them to continue to publish the Pentagon Papers. While the justices felt the articles could be damaging, they followed the precedent regarding prior restraint set in the Near case. In writing his concurring opinion, Justice Potter stated that prior restraint of publications should be used only when it will “result in direct, immediate, and irreparable damage to our Nation or its people.” Since there was no proof that anything of that nature would result, freedom of the press as guaranteed by the First Amendment trumped the Administration’s security concerns.
The Supreme Court has had several cases that have had to deal with obscenity and pornography. While the court has been careful to not permit outright censorship, it has placed limits on the distribution of materials that have been deemed obscene. The courts first case involving pornography was Roth v. United States (1957). The previous year, Samuel Roth was accused of mailing out obscene images as advertising for his book store. While he was found guilty of a federal obscenity statue, Roth appealed his decision believing that it was a violation of his freedom of expression. When his case was appealed to the Supreme Court, its ruling was combined with Alberts v. California (1957), a case where a book seller was arrested for selling obscene books. The court ruled 6-3 in favor of the United States and California in both decisions. In the majority opinion, Justice Brennan wrote that it was the opinion of the court that pornographic images and obscene material were not protected by either the freedom of speech nor press. Reiterating that the First Amendment had limitations, he stated lewd material is utterly without redeeming social importance” and wrote the definition of obscenity as “whether to the average person applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material is taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest.” Therefore, the decision of what was made obscene was declared as something that most people would find objectionable. Sixteen years later, the U.S. Supreme Court would modify the definition of obscenity, but they would still keep the “contemporary community standards’ test to define what is or is not protected speech.