Dictionary of american history - PDF Free Download (2024)

DICTIONARY OF

American History Third Edition

EDITORIAL BOARD Michael A. Bernstein University of California, San Diego Lizabeth Cohen Harvard University Hasia R. Diner New York University Graham Russell Hodges Colgate University David A. Hollinger University of California, Berkeley Frederick E. Hoxie University of Illinois Pauline Maier Massachusetts Institute of Technology Louis P. Masur City College of New York Andrew C. Rieser State University of New York, Geneseo CONSULTING EDITORS Rolf Achilles School of the Art Institute of Chicago Philip J. Pauly Rutgers University

DICTIONARY OF

American History Third Edition

Stanley I. Kutler, Editor in Chief

Volume 8 Subversion to Zuni

Dictionary of American History, Third Edition Stanley I. Kutler, Editor

䊚 2003 by Charles Scribner’s Sons Charles Scribner’s Sons is an imprint of The Gale Group, Inc., a division of Thomson Learning, Inc. Charles Scribner’s Sons姞 and Thomson Learning姠 are trademarks used herein under license.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED No part of this work covered by the copyright hereon may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means—graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, Web distribution, or information storage retrieval systems—without the written permission of the publisher.

For more information, contact Charles Scribner’s Sons An imprint of the Gale Group 300 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10010

For permission to use material from this product, submit your request via Web at http://www.gale-edit.com/permissions, or you may download our Permissions Request form and submit your request by fax or mail to: Permissions Department The Gale Group, Inc. 27500 Drake Rd. Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3535 Permissions Hotline: 248-699-8006 or 800-877-4253, ext. 8006 Fax: 248-699-8074 or 800-762-4058

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA Dictionary of American history / Stanley I. Kutler.—3rd ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-684-80533-2 (set : alk. paper) 1. United States—History—Dictionaries. I. Kutler, Stanley I. E174 .D52 2003 973⬘.03—dc21

Printed in United States of America 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

CONTENTS Volume 1 List of Maps . . . xi Preface . . . xv Aachen to Butler’s Order No. 28 Volume 2 Cabeza de Vaca Expeditions to Demography and Demographic Trends Volume 3 Denominationalism to Ginseng, American Volume 4 Girl Scouts of the United States of America to Kwanzaa

The Revolutionary War . . . 29 The Early Republic . . . 37 The War of 1812 . . . 42 The United States Expands . . . 45 Texas and the Mexican War . . . 52 Transportation . . . 56 Gold Rush in California . . . 59 The Civil War . . . 65 New York—The Development of a City . . . 70 Primary Source Documents . . . 79 The Colonial Period . . . 81 The Revolutionary War . . . 127

Volume 5 La Follette Civil Liberties Committee Hearings to Nationalism

The Early Republic . . . 153

Volume 6 Native American Church to Pyramid Schemes

Women’s Rights . . . 325

Volume 7 Quakers to Suburbanization

Expansion . . . 187 Slavery, Civil War, and Reconstruction . . . 267 Industry and Labor . . . 339 World War I . . . 363 The Great Depression . . . 375 World War II . . . 393

Volume 8 Subversion, Communist, to Zuni

The Cold War . . . 411

Volume 9 Contents . . . v

The Vietnam War . . . 455

Archival Maps . . . 1 U.S. History through Maps and Mapmaking . . . 2 Early Maps of the New World . . . 6 The Colonies . . . 12

Civil Rights . . . 445 The Late Twentieth Century . . . 481 Volume 10 Directory of Contributors Learning Guide Index

Exploration of the American Continent . . . 19 Colonial Wars . . . 25

DICTIONARY OF

American History Third Edition

S (Continued)

SUBVERSION, COMMUNIST. Deﬁning itself by its commitment to a set of ideas and not its citizens’ ancestry or blood, the United States has long harbored a fear of subversion at the hands of enemies of democracy. The ﬁrst antisubversive federal laws, the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, were intended to check revolutionary inﬂuences from France. In the 1830s the Anti-Masonic Party played on fears of a conspiracy of Freemasons; twenty years later distrust of Catholics and immigrants fueled the Know-Nothing Party. Abolitionists fretted about the slave conspiracy in the 1850s. During World War I, fears of enemy subversion led to passage of the Espionage Act, which was later used to prosecute antiwar and antidraft activists, and provided an excuse for widespread vigilantism. The Bureau of Investigation, later renamed the Federal Bureau of Investigation, organized a nationwide crackdown on suspected foreign anarchists and revolutionaries in 1919–1920, the so-called Palmer raids.

The ﬁrst signiﬁcant congressional legislation targeting peacetime subversion since 1798 was the Alien Registration Act of 1940, also known as the Smith Act, which made it a crime to advocate or teach the overthrow of the government by force or violence. Its ﬁrst victims were a group of Trotskyists, convicted in 1941, and a motley band of Nazis and fascists, whose lengthy trial during World War II ended in a mistrial. The national leadership of the CPUSA was convicted in 1948, and the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Smith Act in Dennis v. United States (1951). Six years later, in Yates v. United States, the Court effectively foreclosed further prosecutions. The Internal Security Act, passed in 1950 and usually called the McCarran Act, created the Subversive Activities Control Board, which attempted for years to compel communist and communist-front groups to register with it and reveal their members and ﬁnancing. After protracted legal battles, in 1965 a divided Supreme Court found the registration provision unconstitutional.

For much of the twentieth century the fear of communist subversion drove government ofﬁcials to investigate “un-American” activities and legislate to control them. During its revolutionary periods, the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) openly boasted about its intent to overthrow the U.S. government and replace it with a Soviet-style regime. Even in more moderate periods, the habitual secrecy of Communist Party members generated concerns and fears of inﬁltration.

Public fears about subversion were heightened by a series of espionage cases. In 1945 six people associated with a procommunist magazine, Amerasia, were arrested and charged with espionage. Two were ﬁned for minor transgressions and the others never prosecuted. The case continued to fester; in 1950, following the triumph of Chinese communism, Senator Joseph McCarthy charged that John Stewart Service, one of the original defendants, was part of a cabal of communist sympathizers in the State Department who had sold out Chiang Kai-Shek.

New York State’s Lusk Committee began an inquiry into communism even before the formation of the ﬁrst American Communist Party in 1919. The most famous and longest-lasting congressional body, the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC), was ﬁrst authorized as a special committee in 1938, following in the footsteps of earlier congressional inquiries in 1919 and 1930. One of its sponsors, Samuel Dickstein of New York (later revealed to be a source for Soviet intelligence) wanted it to focus on Nazi and fascist activities, a source of a variety of conspiracy theories and worries about domestic subversion. Under the direction of Martin Dies, however, HUAC mostly investigated communists. It became a standing committee of the House of Representatives in 1945.

After World War II, several defectors from Soviet intelligence, notably Igor Gouzenko and Elizabeth Bentley, alerted the FBI to widespread Soviet espionage. In 1948, Bentley and Whittaker Chambers testiﬁed before HUAC and named dozens of government employees as Soviet spies, most of who took the Fifth Amendment and refused to answer questions. Several of the most prominent individuals, however, denied the charges, including Alger Hiss, a former high-ranking State Department ofﬁcial; Harry Dexter White, a former assistant secretary of the Treasury; the presidential adviser Lauchlin Currie; and Duncan Lee, formerly legal counsel to the head of the Ofﬁce of Strategic Services. White died of a heart attack and the one-time chief of the Latin American division of the State Department, Laurence Duggan, com-

S U B WAY S

mitted suicide shortly after questioning. Hiss was convicted of perjury in 1950. The trial and conviction of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg for atomic espionage in 1951 further fueled fears that subversive forces had endangered U.S. national interests. Using the Hiss case and the communist victory in China, Senator McCarthy began a campaign to purge suspected communists from government positions, accusing a host of people of subversion, notably Owen Lattimore, a one-time adviser to the State Department on China policy. When he became chairman of the Senate Committee on Government Operations in 1953, McCarthy launched a series of investigations, one of which, directed at the United States Army, eventually led to his censure by the Senate in 1954. Although congressional committees such as HUAC survived into the 1970s, they were never again as consequential as they had previously been. Although McCarthy’s charges were consistently off the mark, recently released material from Russian and American archives demonstrates that communist subversion had been a serious problem in the 1940s. Decrypted Soviet cables, collected by the top-secret Venona project beginning in 1943, were ﬁnally released in 1995 and conﬁrmed that hundreds of Americans had spied for the USSR. Approximately 300 Americans worked for Soviet intelligence agencies during World War II; only about 125 were deﬁnitively identiﬁed by American counterintelligence, including virtually everyone named by Chambers and Bentley. Although these identiﬁed Soviet sources lost their government positions by the end of the 1940s, the effort to uncover the others remained a high priority of counterintelligence and of an extensive loyalty and security program. The ﬁrst executive order establishing such a program, instituted by President Harry Truman in 1947, authorized the discharge of government employees if “reasonable grounds” to doubt their loyalty existed and established a loyalty review board within the Civil Service Commission. President Dwight D. Eisenhower broadened the criteria for dismissal to encompass security risks. Critics charged that the procedures and criteria for determining loyalty and security were ﬂawed. Approximately 2,700 government employees were dismissed and some 12,000 resigned between 1947 and 1956. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Goldstein, Robert. Political Repression in Modern America from 1870 to 1976. 2d rev. ed. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2001. Haynes, John Earl, and Harvey Klehr. Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1999. Powers, Richard Gid. Not Without Honor: The History of American Anticommunism. New York: Free Press, 1995. Schrecker, Ellen. Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America. Boston: Little, Brown, 1998.

Harvey Klehr See also Anticommunism; Cold War.

SUBWAYS. See Railways, Urban, and Rapid Transit. SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME (SIDS), sometimes referred to as crib death, is a medical term for the decease of an apparently well infant. It describes a death that remains unexplained after all known and possible causes have been ruled out through autopsy, investigation of the scene, and review of the child’s medical history. SIDS was ﬁrst identiﬁed as a separate medical entity and named in 1969. SIDS causes the death of as many as 7,000 infants each year in the United States. It is the most common cause of death in children between their ﬁrst month and ﬁrst year of age. SIDS more frequently affects males than females and nonwhites than whites. It affects infants born into poverty more often than those in higher-income situations. Most at risk are infants born to women with inadequate prenatal care, infants born prematurely, and infants whose mothers smoked during pregnancy or after delivery. Deaths usually occur during sleep, are more likely during cold months, and occur more frequently in infants who sleep on their stomachs than in infants who sleep on their backs. In 1994 a “Back to Sleep” campaign encouraging parents and caretakers to put babies to sleep on their backs was initiated as a cooperative effort of the U.S. Public Health Service, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the SIDS Alliance, and the Association of SIDS and Infant Mortality Programs. The cause of SIDS is unknown. Theories include an unidentiﬁed birth defect, stress in a normal baby caused by infection or other factors, and failure to develop. Because no deﬁnitive cause can be found and because parents are totally unprepared for such a loss, the death often causes intense feelings of guilt. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Guntheroth, Warren G. Crib Death: The Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Armonk, N.Y.: Futura Publishing, 1995.

Jack Handler / f. b. See also Childhood; Maternal and Child Health Care; Smoking.

SUEZ CRISIS. In the summer of 1956, British, French, and Israeli leaders deemed the conduct of Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser as provocative. The European powers were humiliated by his nationalization of their shares in the Universal Suez Canal Company. They were concerned about Nasser’s increasing contacts with the Soviet bloc, his founding role in the nonaligned movement, and his opposition to European inﬂuence in the Arab world, especially to French colonial rule in Algeria. Israel, agitated over continuous cross-border inﬁltration from Egypt and the blockade of maritime routes in the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, found more cause for worry in Egypt’s forthcoming arms supplies from the Soviet bloc. Thus, Britain, France, and Israel joined forces in a sur-

S U F F O L K R E S O LV E S

prise attack on Egypt, triggering the Suez Crisis on 29 October 1956. On that day, Israel invaded the Sinai peninsula and the Gaza Strip. Two days later the British and the French bombed major Egyptian cities, then conquered the Suez Canal area in early November. The Americans and the Soviets collaborated to denounce and reverse what they viewed as a gross violation of Egyptian sovereignty by colonial powers. Using their military, economic, and political supremacy, they forced a cease-ﬁre, then a full withdrawal of British, French, and Israeli troops. The United States gave assurances to Israel that it would enjoy safe passage in the Gulf of Aqaba, and UN peacekeepers were deployed as a buffer between Egypt and Israel. The United States also was concerned about Soviet encroachments in the Arab world. President Dwight D. Eisenhower was personally incensed with the timing of the crisis, which occurred in the ﬁnal days of his reelection campaign and during a crisis in Hungary, where the Soviets were crushing a regime that wanted to leave the Warsaw Pact. He felt betrayed by Britain and France and viewed the assault as a challenge to his authority, but he also wanted to preserve Western inﬂuence. The proximity of interests between the United States and Egypt was temporary given Nasser’s aspirations to lead the Arabs and to display “positive neutrality” in the Cold War. Already, on 5 January 1957, the Eisenhower Doctrine, approved by the U.S. Senate two months later, promised U.S. economic assistance, military support, and even armed intervention to sustain regimes opposed to “international communism” in the Middle East. Egypt, a recipient of Soviet aid, quickly became a U.S. antagonist over inﬂuence in Syria, Iraq, and Jordan. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Holland, Matthew. America and Egypt: From Roosevelt to Eisenhower. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1996. Sneh, Itai. “Viewpoint: The Antagonism between the United States and Egypt Arose from the American View of Gamal Abdel Nasser as a Soviet Puppet.” In Benjamin Frankel, ed., History in Dispute: Political and Social Movements, Vol. 2: American Social and Political Movements, 1945–2000: Pursuit of Liberty. Detroit, Mich.: St. James Press, 2000. Woodward, Peter. Nasser. London and New York: Longman, 1992.

Itai Sneh See also Arab Nations, Relations with; Egypt, Relations with.

SUFFOLK BANKING SYSTEM was a note clearing system for New England banks established in 1826 by Boston’s Suffolk Bank. Membership required a bank to maintain a noninterest-bearing deposit with Suffolk. Deposits of notes of member banks were credited and debited at par to members’ accounts. Since clearing was on a

net basis, membership permitted banks to economize on specie. By 1838, virtually all New England banks had joined the system. Under the system, notes of New England banks circulated at par in that region. A newly formed competitor, the Bank of Mutual Redemption, drove out the system in 1858. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Rolnick, Arthur J., Bruce D. Smith, and Warren E. Weber. “Lessons from a Laissez-Faire Payments System: The Suffolk Banking System (1825–58).” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review 80, no. 3 (May/June 1998): 105–116. Whitney, D. R. The Suffolk Bank. Cambridge, Mass.: Riverside Press, 1878.

Warren E. Weber See also Banking.

SUFFOLK RESOLVES. In deﬁance of the ban on town meetings, delegates from the towns of Suffolk County, Massachusetts (including Boston), met at private homes in Dedham on 6 September 1774 and in Milton on 9 September to plan resistance against the Coercive Acts. A committee, headed by Joseph Warren, was charged with drawing up an address to Governor Thomas Gage and resolves to send to the Continental Congress. Warren, the primary author, argued that liberties guaranteed by the British constitution and the laws of nature applied equally to Britons on the home island and in the colonies, and could not be thrown aside because of the “arbitrary will of a licentious minister.” Thus, the convention recommended measures that included calling a provincial congress; withholding public funds from the treasury; nonintercourse with Britain, Ireland, and the West Indies; and raising a defensive militia. All these measures were intended to pressure Parliament into repealing the Coercive Acts. The resolves asserted the colonists’ loyalty to George III and did not mention independence. Paul Revere carried the resolves to the Continental Congress, which rallied to support Massachusetts, unanimously endorsing the resolves on 17 September. The Suffolk Resolves laid out a clear ideological justiﬁcation for resistance and a plan of action for the Continental Congress to follow. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Enlarged ed. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1991. Brown, Richard D. Revolutionary Politics in Massachusetts: The Boston Committee of Correspondence and the Towns, 1772– 1774. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970. Ford, Worthington C., et al., eds. Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789. 34 vols. Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1904– 1937. (Volume 1 contains the full text of the Suffolk Resolves and the address to Governor Gage. Available on-line

S U F F R A G E : O V E RV I E W

through the Library of Congress at http://memory.loc .gov.) Maier, Pauline. From Resistance to Revolution: Colonial Radicals and the Development of American Opposition to Britain, 1765– 1776. New York: Knopf, 1972. Morgan, Edmund S. The Birth of the Republic, 1763–1789. 3d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.

Aaron J. Palmer

SUFFRAGE This entry includes 5 subentries: Overview Exclusion from the Suffrage Colonial Suffrage African American Suffrage Woman’s Suffrage

OVERVIEW Suffrage, the right to vote on public matters, predates American history by several thousand years. Since the founding of the American colonies, deﬁnition of the breadth of suffrage has reﬂected a tension between the desire to legitimize political authority by permitting expressions of consent through public acts of voting and the desires and demands of various groups and individuals for public recognition and the opportunity to participate in the selection of political representatives and governmental policies. No clearer and more distinctly American example of this tension can be offered than the election of the ﬁrst legislative assembly in the colony of Virginia in 1619. Nine days before the scheduled election of this representative assembly, “the Polonians resident in Virginia” successfully protested their exclusion from the upcoming election until it was agreed “that they shall be enfranchised, and made as free as any inhabitant there whatsoever.” Since 1776 the political deﬁnition of the right to vote has been contested principally over the conceptual boundary dividing eligible and ineligible voters. Until the twentieth century, state governments were largely responsible for the determination of this boundary, although local election ofﬁcials participated in the enforcement and not uncommonly capricious interpretation of this legal deﬁnition. From the early national years to the Civil War, states were free to deny the right to vote with regard to a wide range of conditions, including gender, religion, race and ethnicity, citizenship, residency, tax status, wealth, literacy, mental competence, criminal conviction, and military service. States imposed and then abandoned many of these restrictions. Several states, however, never sanctioned religious or racial restrictions, and New Jersey granted women the right to vote from 1776 until 1807. Only three groups have consistently been deemed ineligible to vote: enslaved persons until 1865, and minors and nonresidents to the present.

The U.S. Constitution also has contributed to the deﬁnition of the right to vote. Article 1 requires that those deemed eligible to vote for members of a lower state legislative body are eligible to vote for members of the U.S. House of Representatives. The Seventeenth Amendment (1913) extends this requirement to U.S. Senate elections. The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) offers an incentive for states to expand their voter rolls by promising to reduce a state’s representation in the U.S. House and the Electoral College in proportion to the number of male citizens over twenty-one years whose voting rights are denied or abridged. Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court have never enforced this constitutional provision. The Fifteenth Amendment (1870) prohibits states from denying any citizen the right to vote “on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.” This provision, however, was not enforced nationally until Congress enacted the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The Nineteenth Amendment (1920) prohibits the United States or the states from denying or abridging the privilege of voting “on account of sex.” The Twenty-fourth Amendment (1964) prohibits states from collecting poll taxes from voters in presidential elections, and the Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971) lowers the minimum voting age to eighteen years. Although great advances have been made to broaden the suffrage by expanding and enforcing the concept of voter eligibility, the history of voting in the United States still is overshadowed by the history of nonvoting. Indeed, whereas less than 20 percent of the population participated in national and state elections prior to 1920, the level of voter participation has exceeded 40 percent of the U.S. population only once, in 1992. Moreover, barely over half of all eligible voters vote in presidential election years and substantially less than this vote in nonpresidential election years. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Keyssar, Alexander. The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States. New York: Basic Books, 2000. Kromkowski, Charles. Recreating the American Republic: Rules of Apportionment, Constitutional Change, and American Political Development, 1700–1870. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Charles A. Kromkowski See also Voting Rights Act of 1965.

EXCLUSION FROM THE SUFFRAGE It is generally estimated that because of state property and taxpaying qualiﬁcations, fewer than one-fourth of all white adult males were eligible to vote in 1787–1789, the time the U.S. Constitution was being ratiﬁed. The history of the suffrage in the United States since then has been one of steady expansion, partly through constitutional amendments and partly through legislation. The states largely abandoned the property qualiﬁcations for voting by 1850. The Fifteenth Amendment, ratiﬁed in 1870, for-

SUFFRAGE: EXCLUSION FROM THE SUFFRAGE

U.S. Presidential Elections: Turnout, 1788–2000 (As a Percentage of Total Population) 45.0% 41.3% 39.2%

40.0%

39.4% 38.4%

38.9% 37.5% 37.4% 37.3% 38.2% 37.5% 36.7% 36.9% 36.9%

37.8% 35.5% 34.3%

35.0%

33.1% 31.8% 30.7% 30.0% 25.8% 25.2%

25.0%

18.8%19.5% 18.4% 18.3% 18.5% 18.2% 18.4%

20.0%

15.8% 14.9% 15.4% 13.8% 14.1% 13.1% 14.4% 12.7% 12.2%

15.0%

18.4% 16.7% 16.4% 15.8%

9.7% 9.4% 9.4%

10.0%

5.0%

3.3%

0.0%

17 8 17 8 9 17 2 9 18 6 0 18 0 0 18 4 0 18 8 1 18 2 1 18 6 2 18 0 2 18 4 2 18 8 3 18 2 3 18 6 4 18 0 4 18 4 4 18 8 5 18 2 5 18 6 6 18 0 6 18 4 6 18 8 7 18 2 7 18 6 8 18 0 8 18 4 8 18 8 9 18 2 9 19 6 0 19 0 0 19 4 0 19 8 1 19 2 1 19 6 2 19 0 2 19 4 2 19 8 3 19 2 3 19 6 4 19 0 4 19 4 4 19 8 5 19 2 5 19 6 6 19 0 6 19 4 6 19 8 7 19 2 7 19 6 8 19 0 84 19 8 19 8 9 19 2 9 20 6 00

0.0%

bade denial of the right to vote “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” The Nineteenth Amendment, which was adopted in 1920, prohibited denial of the right to vote on account of sex. The poll tax was outlawed for federal elections by the Twenty-Fourth Amendment and for state elections by the Supreme Court decision in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment, ratiﬁed in 1971, lowered the age limit for all federal and state voting to eighteen. Various obstacles to African American suffrage were progressively eliminated by Supreme Court decisions—for example, the white primary in 1944 (Smith v. Allwright) and the “reasonable interpretation” of the Constitution test in 1965 (Louisiana v. United States)—and by federal legislation, notably the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which outlawed literacy, educational, “good character,” and voucher devices aimed at keeping black suffrage to a minimum. Thus, by 1972, all persons over eighteen, of whatever sex, color, or race, were legally entitled to vote. The remaining obstacles to voting were largely administrative in char-

acter and related to such matters as registration procedures and the times, places, and manner of holding elections. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Branch, Taylor. Parting the Waters: America in the King Years, 1954–63. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1988. Mann, Robert. The Walls of Jericho: Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Russell, and the Struggle for Civil Rights. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1996. Phillips, Kevin, and Paul H. Blackman. Electoral Reform and Voter Participation: Federal Registration, a False Remedy for Voter Apathy. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1975. Weisbrot, Robert. Freedom Bound: A History of America’s Civil Rights Movement. New York: Norton, 1990. Williamson, Chilton. American Suffrage: From Property to Democracy, 1760–1860. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1960.

David Fellman / t. g.

SUFFRAGE: COLONIAL SUFFRAGE

See also Ballot; Literacy Test; Massachusetts Ballot; Preferential Voting; Primary, White; Suffrage: Colonial Suffrage; Wade-Davis Bill.

COLONIAL SUFFRAGE Neither the extent nor the exercise of suffrage in colonial America can be described precisely. Voting qualiﬁcations were ﬁxed by each colony, and in many, the requirements were changed during the colonial period. The generally accepted philosophy was the English concept that only those with “a stake in society” should vote. Each colony established some property qualiﬁcation for voting for the lower house of the provincial legislature, and in each colony the upper house was almost always appointed. The deﬁnition of freeholder in the colonies varied from colony to colony. In New York, a freehold was an estate worth forty British pounds or bearing forty shillings rent; other colonies ﬁxed acreage rather than money deﬁnitions for the term “freehold”: one hundred acres in New Jersey; ﬁfty acres in the Carolinas, Georgia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Delaware. Many colonies had alternatives to landholding as a suffrage qualiﬁcation, usually the possession of other property but sometimes mere taxpaying. An added complication was the numerous separate qualiﬁcations established for dwellers in towns and boroughs, usually lower and more liberal than the general provincial franchise. Virginia town dwellers could vote by virtue of possession of a house and lot, and in North Carolina, all taxpaying tenants and homeowners in towns and boroughs were voters. New England town qualiﬁcations were bewilderingly varied, the net effect being to admit virtually all the adult male inhabitants to the franchise. Limitations of race, sex, age, and residence were more often the result of custom than of law. Generally, Jews and Roman Catholics were barred, usually by their inability to take the English test oaths with regard to the Anglican Church. Maryland and New York speciﬁcally barred Catholics by statute, and New York excluded Jews by law in 1737. These prohibitions were not always enforced. Jews appear on New York City voting lists in 1768 and 1769, and Catholics voted in Virginia in 1741 and 1751. Women were excluded by statute only in four colonies, but there is rare evidence that any ever voted anywhere. The age qualiﬁcation was almost universally twenty-one, but in Massachusetts, suffrage was conﬁned to twenty-four-year-olds in the seventeenth century and sometimes extended to nineteen-year-olds in the eighteenth century. Pennsylvania’s two-year residence requirement was the most stringent; other colonies usually demanded six months or a year. Slaves and indentured servants were invariably denied the franchise, and in the Carolinas, Georgia, and Virginia, freed blacks as well. Indians did vote at times in Massachusetts. The number of adult males who qualiﬁed as voters under these requirements can only be estimated. Probably 50 to 75 percent of the adult male population could qual-

ify as freeholders, and in some colonies up to 80 or 90 percent as freeholders or freemen. The relative ease of obtaining land in America and the high rate of wages opened the door fairly wide to those persons who sought the franchise. Suffrage limitations do not appear to have been a grievance in any of the popular protest movements that developed during the colonial period. On the other hand, this rather broadly based electorate usually voted into ofﬁce a narrowly based leadership and deferred to its judgment in running the colonies’ political affairs. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bailyn, Bernard. The Origins of American Politics. New York: Knopf, 1968. Maier, Pauline. From Resistance to Revolution: Colonial Radicals and the Development of American Opposition to Britain, 1765– 1776. New York: Knopf, 1972. Williamson, Chilton. American Suffrage: From Property to Democracy, 1760–1860. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1960. Wood, Gordon S. The Radicalism of the American Revolution. New York: Knopf. 1992.

Milton M. Klein / a. g. See also Ballot; Literacy Test; Massachusetts Ballot; Preferential Voting; Primary, White; Suffrage: Exclusion from the Suffrage.

AFRICAN AMERICAN SUFFRAGE Throughout the American colonial era, racial distinctions were not the principal legal or conventional means employed to restrict the right to vote or to hold ofﬁce. The concepts of “freeman” and “freeholder,” as well as gender, age, religion, and wealth requirements, ensured that the number of individuals eligible to vote remained small relative to the population. Among those eligible, however, adult African American male propertyholders were permitted to and did cast ballots in at least South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia. In the eighteenth century, a few colonies devised and adopted race-based restrictions, but the right to vote in other colonies remained free of similar limitations. The American Revolution did not prompt a radical redeﬁnition of the right to vote. In 1786, only two of the original thirteen states, Georgia and South Carolina, expressly restricted voting privileges to the eligible white population. The U.S. Constitution, written in 1787, recognized the authority of the states to deﬁne the right to vote. Between 1776 and 1860, about one-third of the states permitted voting by free African American adult males. Race-based voter eligibility restrictions became increasingly more common in the nineteenth century, especially among the states admitted into the Union after 1787. Among the twenty non-original states added before the American Civil War, only Vermont, Maine, and temporarily Kentucky (1792–1799) and Tennessee (1796– 1834) did not explicitly limit voting rights to “free,” “white” males.

SUFFRAGE: AFRICAN AMERICAN SUFFRAGE

African American Voter. While others wait behind him, a man takes part in the election process—after a century of actions, legal and otherwise, in some parts of the country to deprive blacks of their constitutional right. Library of Congress

Ironically, as states gradually broadened their electorates by abandoning their original property, tax payment, and religion requirements, many added explicitly racialist deﬁnitions of the right to vote into their state constitutions. The 1858 Oregon constitution, for example, expressly prescribed that “No Negro, Chinaman, or mulatto, shall have the right of suffrage.” By 1860, free African American adult males were legally able to vote in only ﬁve states. A sixth state, New York, imposed racially based registration and property restrictions in 1811 and 1821, effectively curtailing African American voting. In 1849, Wisconsin voters approved a legislature-endorsed act extending the right to vote to African American males, but a state elections board refused to recognize the new eligibility standard; as a result, this statutory grant did not become effective until after the Civil War. Although formidable, constitutional, statutory, and administrative bars against voting were not always fully enforced, especially at the local level. Indeed African Americans voted in Maryland as late as 1810, although they were denied the right in a 1783 statute and again by an amendment in 1801 to the state constitution; and John Mercer Langston, though denied voting rights by Ohio’s constitution, was elected a township clerk in 1855, thereby becoming the ﬁrst African American elected ofﬁcial in the United States.

Reconstruction Neither the Civil War nor ratiﬁcation of the Thirteenth Amendment (1865), which banned slavery, altered the racially discriminatory prewar understanding of the right to vote. In the South, this recalcitrance was not surprising; until the federal government imposed military rule over the region in 1867, these states were governed by many of the proslavery state political elites who had engineered and supported secession in 1860 and 1861. Suffrage reform, it must be noted, also was not forthcoming in many Northern states. In the immediate wake of the Civil War, legislatures and voters in nine Northern states rejected state constitutional amendments that extended voting rights to African Americans. Abolitionist activists like Frederick Douglass and members of the Republicancontrolled U.S. Congress, however, continued to push for national suffrage reform, advocating and enacting numerous Reconstruction acts and the Fourteenth Amendment (1868). The latter constitutional amendment recognized African Americans as full citizens of the United States, guaranteed all persons equal protection of the law, and provided a mechanism for reducing a state’s federal representation if it denied or abridged voting rights to any eligible male voters. Congress never used the latter mechanism, but it made ratiﬁcation of the Fourteenth Amendment a precondition for readmission of each secessionist

SUFFRAGE: AFRICAN AMERICAN SUFFRAGE

Fig. 1: Average Southern State Voter Participation Rates in Gubernatorial Elections, 1859–1919 18.0%

16.0%

14.0%

Voters Per Population

12.0%

10.0%

8.0 %

6.0 %

4.0 %

2.0 %

0.0 % 1859

1864

1869

1874

1879

1884

1889

1894

1890

1904

1909

1914

1919

Includes data from Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. Intradecennial state population based on straightline interdecennial interpolation of U.S. Census population data.

NOTE:

state into Congress. Under the leadership of the Republicans, Congress additionally enacted the Fifteenth Amendment. Ratiﬁed in 1870, this amendment barred states from denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, and it empowered Congress with the legislative authority to enforce this amendment. The federal government’s Reconstruction program and commitment to African American voting rights supported dramatic changes in the states that had been placed under military rule. By 1868, more than 800,000 African Americans had registered to vote as did approximately 660,000 eligible white voters. In addition to exercising their newly acquired right to vote, African American males also participated in political party and state constitutional conventions, and as elected and appointed state and local government ofﬁcials. Between 1869 and 1901, twenty African Americans also served as U.S. Representatives and Blanche K. Bruce and Hiram R. Revels represented Mississippi as the ﬁrst and only African American U.S. senators until Edward Brooke represented Massachusetts in the Senate from 1967 until 1979. These electoral reforms and political achievements, however, were repeatedly resisted, tempered, and eventually overcome by the organized violence, voter intimidation, and electoral fraud tactics employed by white supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan and their various political supporters. In Louisiana alone, more than 2,000 were killed or injured before the 1868 presidential elec-

tion. The same year in Georgia, white legislators gained control over the state legislature by fraudulently expelling thirty legally elected African American state legislators. Congress responded to these and similar events, compiling testimony from the individuals affected, proposing the Fifteenth Amendment, and enacting additional enforcement legislation in 1870, 1871, and the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Resistance to African American suffrage continued in the South, becoming politically acceptable and increasingly invidious with each success. The federal government’s role in the Reconstruction of the South also decreased after the contested 1876 presidential election of Republican Rutherford B. Hayes and the subsequent withdrawal of federal supervision and military protection of the right to vote. Over the next four decades, southern state legislatures, governors, judiciaries, and numerous local governments systematically enacted and supported segregationist policies and electoral devices designed to accomplish under the cover of law what the Fifteenth Amendment expressly prohibited. These devices included locally administered registration laws; literacy, understanding of the Constitution, and character tests; cumulative poll taxes; criminal disenfranchisements; white party primary elections; closed political party membership rules; racially skewed redistricting plans; and so-called grandfather clauses, which effectively exempted some white voters from state voter restrictions. As a result of these exclusionary devices and practices, the number and political weight of African American voters declined sub-

SUFFRAGE: WOMAN’S SUFFRAGE

stantially in every Southern state and the region fell under the one-party political domination of the Democratic Party. As Figure 1 reveals, the exclusion of African Americans from the electorate and the concomitant loss of party competition throughout the South depressed voter turnout from the 1870s to 1919. The Twentieth Century At the beginning of the twentieth century, civil rights activists like W. E. B. Du Bois and civil rights organizations like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), established in 1909, initiated and sustained more organized private efforts to protect and to restore African American civil rights. Many of the initial successes of these efforts were achieved in litigation that challenged the constitutionality of state voting restrictions. In Guinn and Beal v. United States (1915), for example, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Oklahoma literacy tests but found the state’s grandfather clause to be an unconstitutional attempt to evade the Fifteenth Amendment. In Nixon v. Herndon (1927) and Nixon v. Condon (1932), the Court determined that all-white primary systems were unconstitutional if they were authorized by state action. Subsequently, in U.S. v. Classic (1941) and Smith v. Allwright (1944), the Supreme Court ruled against the constitutionality of all-white primary elections. In Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960), the Court furthered the dismantling of state-supported disfranchisement schemes when it struck down a local Alabama redistricting plan that intentionally discriminated against African Americans. Many factors, including long-term emigration patterns and the immediate need to desegregate the U.S. military during World War II, renewed congressional interest in civil and voting rights reform in the 1940s. In 1942, Congress exempted U.S. soldiers from state voter poll taxes, but state senators in the South repeatedly rejected or ﬁlibustered legislative efforts to broaden civil rights guarantees over the next two decades. Despite the setbacks in Congress, civil rights and voting rights reformers pursued their goals by mobilizing and orchestrating public protests and demonstrations throughout the South. Finally, in 1957 and 1960, Congress managed to enact two new Civil Rights Acts. The legislation created the United States Civil Rights Commission and authorized litigation by the U.S. Attorney General against voting rights violations. The Commission proved especially useful because it gathered and reported statistics that detailed the extent to which African Americans remained excluded from participating in U.S. elections. In 1962, Congress responded by endorsing the Twentyfourth Amendment, which, when ratiﬁed two years later, banned state poll taxes required for voting in federal elections. Civil rights demonstrations and voter registration drives continued throughout the late 1950s and early 1960s, although they often were met with local and sometimes lethal levels of violence. In 1964, Congress enacted a more expansive and enforceable Civil Rights Act, and in the aftermath of nationally televised attacks against a

peaceful civil rights march in Selma, Alabama, President Lyndon Johnson and Congress approved the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The act banned literacy tests and other racially discriminatory devices, and it guaranteed direct federal supervision of voter registration, voting procedures, and elections in seven southern states and several nonsouthern states as well. In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act and extended the ban on poll taxes to state elections. Congress amended and extended the protections of the Voting Rights Act in 1970, 1975, and 1982. In the states and jurisdictions covered by the act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act and its amendments had immediate and lasting effects upon African American voter registration, electoral participation, and political ofﬁceholding. In Mississippi, for example, the voting age percentage of the nonwhite population registered to vote increased from 6.7 to 59.8 percent between 1965 and 1967. Today African Americans register and vote at rates approximately similar to other ethnic groups. Federal protection of African American voting rights also has supported increases in the number of African American elected ofﬁcials. In 1967, more than 200 African Americans were elected to state and local ofﬁces in southern states—twice the number elected before the act. Today, there are thirty-eight African American members of Congress, almost 600 African American state legislators, and more than 8,400 locally elected ofﬁcials. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Davidson, Chandler, and Bernard Grofman, eds. Quiet Revolution in the South: The Impact of the Voting Rights Act, 1965– 1990. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994. Goldman, Robert M. Reconstruction and Black Suffrage: Losing the Vote in Reese and Cruikshank. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2001. Keyssar, Alexander. The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States. New York: Basic Books, 2000. Kousser, J. Morgan. Colorblind Injustice: Minority Voting Rights and the Undoing of the Second Reconstruction. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999. Kromkowski, Charles. Recreating the American Republic: Rules of Apportionment, Constitutional Change, and American Political Development, 1700–1870. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Charles A. Kromkowski See also Civil Rights Act of 1957; Civil Rights Act of 1964; Civil Rights Movement; Reconstruction; Voting Rights Act of 1965; and vol. 9: An Interview with Fannie Lou Hamer.

WOMAN’S SUFFRAGE The history of woman’s suffrage in America begins with a seventeenth-century businesswoman, Margaret Brent. Brent, a Catholic immigrant to the colony of Maryland, was a property owner and the executrix and attorney of

SUFFRAGE: WOMAN’S SUFFRAGE

the estate of the Maryland governor Leonard Calvert. In 1648, Brent demanded the right to two votes in the Maryland General Assembly. The ﬁrst vote she claimed for herself, the second as the legal representative of the extensive Calvert estate. At the time, the colony faced political uncertainty caused by ﬁnancial problems and a considerable amount of religious strife, and the General Assembly denied her claim to both votes. Brent protested her exclusion and the subsequent proceedings of the assembly, and she soon moved and settled permanently in Virginia. Although Brent’s original bid for voting rights failed, women voted in several eighteenth-century colonial elections. The available evidence suggests that all of these women were widowed property owners. Voting Rights from the Revolution to Reconstruction After 1776, a larger but still comparatively small number of women voted more regularly in New Jersey elections until 1807, when the state amended its constitution to expressly prohibit woman’s suffrage. Thereafter and with few exceptions until 1869, American women were barred from voting in all federal, state, and local elections. One noteworthy local exception to this exclusionary past was Kentucky’s 1838 grant permitting voting privileges in

school board elections to all propertied widows with school-age children. Efforts to gain the right to vote for American women advanced in 1848 with the calling of a convention to meet in Seneca Falls, New York, to discuss the “social, civil and religious rights of women.” Organized by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, and others, and inspired by the abolitionist movement and the ideals of Quakerism and the Declaration of Independence, more than three hundred women and men attended. The Seneca Falls Convention included numerous speeches and Stanton and Mott’s famous “Declaration of Sentiments,” which proclaimed “that all men and women are created equal.” Participants also resolved “it is the duty of the women of this country to secure to themselves their sacred right to the elective franchise.” Similar conventions were held in the 1850s, promoting greater public awareness and a network of suffrage advocates and supporters. Still women’s suffragists had limited political success before the outbreak of the Civil War. In fact, only Michigan in 1855 and Kansas in 1861 extended school board election voting rights to women, and the Kansas Supreme Court voided the latter right in 1875. The end of the war and the concomitant need for fundamental changes in the United States and many state

Woman’s Suffrage. Five suffragists in New York City promote a march in May 1912, to take place “rain or shine”; in 1917, New York State became the ﬁrst state in the East to approve equal suffrage for women. Library of Congress

SUFFRAGE: WOMAN’S SUFFRAGE

constitutions created opportunities for many types of social, economic, and political change. Woman’s suffragists lobbied members of Congress, state legislators, Republican party leaders, and abolitionist groups with the hope of garnering support for their cause. Despite these efforts, neither Congress nor the others advocated extending voting rights to women in any of the Reconstruction amendments proposed and subsequently added to the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) explicitly recognizes the power of states to deny the right to vote to “male inhabitants,” a gender-speciﬁc description of voting rights not found in the original Constitution that must have discouraged woman’s suffragists and intensiﬁed their subsequent lobbying efforts in Congress. Interestingly, the Fifteenth Amendment (1870) employed gender-neutral language, barring state denial or abridgment of “the right of citizens of the United States to vote” based upon race, color, or previous condition of servitude—thus leaving open the possibility for future state extensions of the right to vote to women. Woman’s Suffrage Organizations Failure to achieve support in Congress for a constitutional right to vote divided woman’s suffrage activists for the next twenty years. In 1869, Elizabeth Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and others established the National Woman’s Suffrage Association (NWSA). Unsatisﬁed with the results of their initial lobbying efforts, Stanton, Anthony, and the NWSA withheld support for the ratiﬁcation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, thereby severing themselves from other suffragists as well as many of their former abolitionist and Republican allies. Under the leadership of Stanton and Anthony, the NWSA continued to work for a national constitutional amendment, focusing most of the energies and talents of the organization upon lobbying the United States Congress. These organizational investments, however, yielded both mixed and modest results. For example, between 1869 and 1888 members of Congress submitted eighteen constitutional amendments designed to extend voting rights to women, yet most of these proposals received little consideration and none won legislative approval in either the House or the Senate. Outside of Congress, the NWSA experimented with other tactics, including a reform strategy involving civil disobedience and the federal judiciary. In 1872, Anthony and others succeeded in their efforts to be arrested for attempting to vote in state elections. Their trials attracted a considerable amount of attention to the suffrage movement and, in one case, a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Minor v. Happersett (1875). In Minor, however, the Court decisively rejected the claim that the term “citizens” in the Fourteenth Amendment granted the right to vote to women. The Court’s decision was another setback for the NWSA, and it also signaled the Court’s subsequent and similarly narrow reading of the individual rights protected by the Fifteenth Amendment.

White House Protest. A suffragist in 1917 calls on President Woodrow Wilson to support woman’s suffrage; he did so in January 1918, after months of White House picketing, hunger strikes by some of the arrested women, and a visit by Wilson to militant leader Alice Paul in her Virginia jail cell. 䉷 corbis

Suffrage advocates not aligned with the NWSA pursued their reform agenda within other organizations, including the American Woman’s Suffrage Association (AWSA). Established in 1869, the AWSA directed most of its efforts toward achieving state suffrage reforms. Like the NWSA, the AWSA achieved limited success in its ﬁrst twenty years. By 1889, women could vote in schoolrelated elections in about twenty states and territorial governments; in four territorial states—Wyoming (1969), Utah (1870), Washington (1883), and Montana (1887)— women possessed equivalent voting rights with men. Uniﬁcation of the NWSA and AWSA in 1890 produced the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA), but during the next two decades the new organization achieved limited success. Although additional states extended woman’s suffrage in school, municipal, tax, or bond elections, by 1910 only ﬁve states—Wyoming (1890), Colorado (1893), Utah (1896), Idaho (1896), and Washington (1910)—guaranteed women the right to vote in all elections. Despite these limited results, the NAWSA and various state organizations persisted with their lobbying and grassroots efforts. The persistence paid greater dividends

SUGAR ACTS

in the 1910s as other social, economic, and political conditions fortuitously converged to accelerate the progress of the woman’s suffrage movement. An early indicator of this future was President William H. Taft’s decision to speak at the NAWSA 1910 annual convention. Taft declined to offer an explicit endorsement of woman’s suffrage, but his presence and speech sent a different message to both the public and NAWSA members. Another signiﬁcant indicator was the Progressive party’s public endorsement of woman’s suffrage in 1912, for although it yielded limited immediate results, the endorsement underscored the long-term electoral and partisan stakes associated with the reform’s enactment. Woman’s suffragists, to be sure, also beneﬁted greatly from the new environments created by industrialization and urbanization and from increased public interest in political reform and other social movements. By 1917, not only had the NAWSA membership increased to 2 million, twelve additional states had approved woman’s suffrage since 1910, increasing the total to seventeen states and adding both legitimacy and electoral consequences to the suffrage reform. Throughout the decade, and especially after 1915, leaders of national woman’s suffrage organizations like Carrie Chapman Catt of the NAWSA and Alice Paul and Lucy Burns of the Congressional Union, an organization established in 1913, began to focus their efforts upon winning congressional approval of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In addition to conducting a traditional lobbying campaign, the NAWSA and other organizations employed many of the tactics successfully used to achieve state constitutional reforms: authorizing and orchestrating mass marches, petition campaigns, and political candidate endorsements designed to exert electoral pressures upon the national political parties and members of Congress. In 1917, the National Women’s Party, another new and decidedly more militant woman’s suffrage organization, initiated a series of widely publicized protests and arrests at the White House. Many of the protesters chained themselves to the White House fence and some went on hunger strikes during their imprisonment. By January 1918, the combination of these various efforts with others associated with the United States involvement in World War I set the conditions within which President Woodrow Wilson issued his endorsement of a national constitutional amendment. The U.S. House of Representatives quickly followed the president, agreeing by the required two-thirds majority to send the woman’s suffrage amendment on to the states for ratiﬁcation. The Senate, however, balked initially, stalling the amendment in Congress until June 1919, when it, too, ﬁnally endorsed the Nineteenth Amendment. Slightly more than a year later the thirty-sixth state, or the three-quarters of the states required by the U.S. Constitution, ratiﬁed the Nineteenth Amendment. The amendment, in part, provides that “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

Ironically, ratiﬁcation of the Nineteenth Amendment did not produce dramatic national- or state-level changes in policies or party afﬁliation. The Nineteenth Amendment, however, did have immediate and permanent effects upon the American political landscape, bolstering its democratic characteristics and tendencies by nearly doubling the number of voters in almost every election except those occurring in southern states. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andersen, Kristi. After Suffrage: Women in Partisan and Electoral Politics before the New Deal. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1996. Dinkin, Robert J. Voting in Provincial America: A Study of Elections in the Thirteen Colonies, 1689–1776. Westport, Conn.: Westview, 1977. DuBois, Ellen Carol. Feminism and Suffrage: The Emergence of an Independent Women’s Movement in America, 1848–1869. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1978. Harvey, Anna L. Votes Without Leverage: Women in American Electoral Politics, 1920–1970. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Keyssar, Alexander. The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States. New York: Basic Books, 2000. Kromkowski, Charles. Recreating the American Republic: Rules of Apportionment, Constitutional Change and American Political Development, 1700–1870. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Charles A. Kromkowski See also vol. 9: Path Breaking; The Seneca Falls Declaration of Rights and Sentiments.

SUGAR ACTS were parliamentary measures designed to increase Great Britain’s proﬁts from the lucrative West Indian and North American sugar trade. Throughout the American colonial period the British Empire depended on the West Indies for sugar. Wealthy sugar planters who resided in England used their political inﬂuence to bring about enactment of the Molasses Act (1733), which secured their monopoly by subjecting foreign molasses imported into any British colony to a duty of six pence per gallon. This law proved ineffective, however, in the absence of systematic measures to enforce it. In 1764 George Grenville, chancellor of the Exchequer, enacted a new sugar act, which he intended to end the smuggling trade in foreign molasses and at the same time secure revenue. The act lowered the duty on foreign molasses from six to three pence a gallon, raised the duties on foreign reﬁned sugar, and increased the export bounty on British reﬁned sugar bound for the colonies. These measures gave the British sugar planters an effective monopoly of the American sugar market. Smuggling of foreign sugar became unproﬁtable, as did the old illicit trade in foreign molasses. These changes sparked violent protests at ﬁrst. Two years later, Parliament lowered the duty

S U G A R I N D U S T RY

to one penny a gallon, applied alike to foreign and British imports, and the protests on the molasses duty ended. At this lower rate, molasses yielded an average of £12,194 annually from 1767 to 1775. Other phases of the Sugar Act of 1764 were far more irritating to the colonists than was the lowered duty on molasses. One was a new duty on wine imported from Madeira, which had previously come in duty free and was the main source of proﬁt for the ﬁsh and food ships returning from the Mediterranean. This part of the Sugar Act led to few direct protests, but it did produce some spectacular attempts at evasion, such as the wine-running episode in Boston involving a ship belonging to Capt. Daniel Malcolm, in February 1768. Even more provocative were measures imposing new bonding regulations that compelled ship masters to give bond, even when they loaded their vessels with nonenumerated goods. The most controversial of these features was a provision that shipmasters had to give bond before they put any article, enumerated or nonenumerated, on board. The universal American practice, however, was to load ﬁrst and then clear and give bond, which made it difﬁcult for shipmasters to give a new bond at a customhouse before he brought every new consignment on board. Under the Sugar Act, any ship caught with any article on board before a bond covering that article had been given was subject to seizure and conﬁscation. The customs commissioners proﬁted greatly from this provision. The most notorious seizures for technical violations of the bonding provision included John Hancock’s sloop Liberty (10 June 1768) and the Ann belonging to Henry Laurens of South Carolina. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andrews, K. R., et al. The Westward Enterprise: English Activities in Ireland, the Atlantic, and America, 1480–1650. Detroit, Mich.: Wayne State University Press, 1979. McCusker, John J., and Russell R. Menard. The Economy of British America, 1607–1789. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985.

O. M. Dickerson / s. b. See also Colonial Commerce; Colonial Policy, British; Enumerated Commodities; Navigation Acts; Rum Trade; Smuggling, Colonial; Triangular Trade; West Indies, British and French.

SUGAR INDUSTRY dates back to the very founding of the New World, and has been intricately entangled with its history. Because of its role in the slave trade, sugar played an important role not only in the economy but also in how social relations developed in the New World. In the infamous “triangle trade,” English colonies in the Caribbean shipped sugar to England for reﬁning, and the products went to Africa where traders exchanged them for slaves, who were brought to the Caribbean plantations to raise more sugar. Sugar plantation work was among the

most brutal and dangerous, as workers labored in oppressive heat and swampy conditions, and with dangerous tools. Brought to the New World by Christopher Columbus, sugar cane was ﬁrst cultivated successfully in Louisiana around the middle of the eighteenth century. Although efforts to make sugar from the cane juice succeeded in Louisiana as early as 1760 and in Florida a few years later, until the 1790s cane was cultivated in small quantities, mainly for the manufacture of syrup and rum. The spectacular success of a wealthy Louisiana planter, Jean E´tienne Bore´, in making sugar on a substantial scale in 1795 was followed in the next years by a rapid shift of planters from indigo to sugarcane. When the United States took possession of Louisiana in 1803, there was already a small but thriving sugar industry in south Louisiana. Likewise, when the United States acquired Puerto Rico and Hawaii in 1898, sugar culture was already well established in both areas. Though slavery in the United States ended after the Civil War, sugar producers continued to keep sugar workers in slave-like conditions in parts of the South, supported by government programs. The need for cane sugar laborers was a key reason that seventeenth-century plantation owners in the Caribbean began importing slaves, and the labor-intensive character of sugar growing later encouraged planters in the U.S. South to hold large numbers of slaves. Climatic conditions in the southern United States were not as favorable for cane culture as those of the West Indies, because of shorter growing seasons and the danger of freezes. Nevertheless, as a result of the availability of enslaved workers, a protective tariff, the introduction of coldresistant cane varieties, the adoption of steam power for grinding cane, and advances in the processes of clariﬁcation and evaporation of cane juice, the cane sugar industry grew rapidly in the years prior to the Civil War. Major improvements were made in the manufacture of sugar, including the introduction in the 1820s of steam power for crushing cane and the invention in the 1840s by Norbert Rillieux, a Louisiana Creole, of a multiple-effect system for evaporating cane juice, which replaced the open kettle boilers and revolutionized sugar manufacture. Although cane was grown for syrup mainly on small farms in South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas, only on the large plantations in south Louisiana and Texas was a successful sugar industry established. In 1850, on plantations worked by slaves, the southern states produced almost 114,000 tons of cane sugar, approximately one-half of the sugar consumed in the United States. Prior to 1861, most Louisiana cane sugar was shipped to cities throughout the Mississippi Valley and the East Coast, and much of it was consumed in the form of raw sugar. Reﬁners in eastern cities imported raw sugar from the West Indies and, by a reﬁning process of melting the sugar, clarifying the juice in boneblack ﬁlters, and centrifugal drying, produced a dry, white sugar.

S U G A R I N D U S T RY

Beets, the other principle source for the sugar industry, have only in the twentieth century become a widespread source, though attempts at making beet sugar date centuries back. Sugar beets, which probably grew wild in Asia, were cultivated at an early time in Egypt and southern Europe. A German chemist, Andreas Marggraf, demonstrated in 1747 that sugar from beets was identical with cane sugar. Early in the nineteenth century, when France was cut off from overseas sugar supplies, Napoleon Bonaparte established the sugar beet industry. Although the industry declined with Napoleon’s downfall, it gradually revived, spreading ﬁrst to Germany and then to much of the rest of Europe. One reason that the beet sugar industry was established so slowly in the United States is the large amount of hand labor required in growing beets; because of where beets grew, their growers could not rely on enslaved labor. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the cultivation of sugar beets spread throughout the central and western states from the Great Lakes to California, and in both cane and beet processing, large expensive central mills came to dominate the manufacture of sugar. Four small beet sugar factories were constructed between 1838 and 1856, but all failed. The ﬁrst successful one was established by E. H. Dyer at Alvarado, California (twentytwo miles east of San Francisco), in 1870 and operated through 1967. The next successful plants were established in Watsonville, California (1888); Grand Island, Nebraska (1890); and Lehi, Utah (1891). During the 1870s, Maine and Delaware offered a bonus for beet sugar manufactured within their limits, and factories destined to operate only a few years were built at Portland and Wilmington, respectively. The Portland factory inaugurated the practice of contracting with farmers for a speciﬁc acreage of sugar beets that would be raised from seed furnished by the company. This plan of operation, adapted from French practices, has persisted to the present. Despite the activity in Maine and Delaware, production in the United States has tended to concentrate in irrigated areas in the West. By 1910 more beet than cane sugar was produced in the continental United States. In 1920 the output exceeded one million tons, and in 1972 it was about 3.5 million tons, which was more than one-fourth of the sugar consumed in the United States. In the 1970s, some sixty plants were producing beet sugar in eighteen states, with more than one-third of the total factory capacity located in California and Colorado. During the 1930s, studies began on the mechanization of growing and harvesting beets. Since World War II, mechanical devices have replaced much of the handcutting of cane, as machines for planting, cultivating, and harvesting beets—all requiring specialized technological changes—were developed by the beginning of World War II, and their adoption was hastened by shortages of hand labor during the war and by postwar prosperity. By the 1960s, the reﬁning branch of the sugar industry was dominated by large corporations and was con-

centrated in coastal cities, especially New York, New Orleans, Savannah, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Boston, and San Francisco. Reﬁners process raw sugar from Louisiana, Florida, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and foreign countries. Reﬁned sugar was marketed in more than one hundred varieties of grades and packaging to meet highly specialized demands. Per capita sugar consumption in the United States increased rapidly during the twentieth century and by the 1970s had been stabilized at about one hundred pounds per year. Although sugar production in Texas ended in the 1920s, a thriving modern sugar industry emerged in Florida south of Lake Okeechobee. Since 1934 the U.S. government has assisted the sugar industry, which has a powerful lobby. Until the late twentieth century, sugar growers had access to extremely lowpaid, non-unionized immigrant workers through a federal “guest worker” program for the industry. In the early twenty-ﬁrst century, the sugar industry was receiving $1.6 billion from the U.S. government. Rather than making direct payments to growers, as the Agriculture Department does in other industries, the department gives sugar processors short-term loans, and maintains high domestic prices by strictly limiting imports. Critics of this policy note that sugar consumers pay two to three times the world market price. In ﬁscal year 2000, domestic growers grew more than the government-set limit, and the government had to spend $465 million to buy their excess sugar and cover the cost of processors’ loan forfeitures. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political campaign contributions, the sugar industry contributes more than one-third of the money that crop production and food processing interests spend on political campaigns. The industry has a growing U.S. market; sugar consumption has practically doubled in the past century, from 86 pounds per U.S. citizen to nearly 160. However, the fortunes of the U.S. sugar industry may change in the wake of the North American Free Trade Agreement, as Mexican imports are likely to ﬂood the U.S. market beginning in ﬁscal 2004.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hall, Michael R. Sugar and Power in the Dominican Republic: Eisenhower, Kennedy, and the Trujillos. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 2000. Melendy, H. Brett. Hawaii, America’s Sugar Territory, 1898– 1959. Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press, 1999. Mintz, Sidney Wilfred. Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History. New York Penguin Books, 1986. Roberts, Paul. “The Sweet Hereafter.” Harper’s Magazine 299, 1794 (November 1999): 54. Rodrigue, John C. Reconstruction in the Cane Fields: From Slavery to Free Labor in Louisiana’s Sugar Parishes, 1862–1880. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2001. Sandiford, Keith Albert. The Cultural Politics of Sugar: Caribbean Slavery and Narratives of Colonialism. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

SUMMIT CONFERENCES, U.S. AND RUSSIAN

Woloson, Wendy A. Reﬁned Tastes: Sugar, Confectionery, and Consumers in Nineteenth-Century America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002.

appeasement, although the Yalta accords reﬂected the reality of the positions Allied armies had reached on the ground.

Wayne D. Rasmussen J. Carlyle Sitterson / d. b.

After Roosevelt’s death and Germany’s surrender, President Harry S. Truman traveled to Potsdam to meet Stalin and Churchill (replaced during the conference by Clement Attlee after his victory in British elections) from 17 July to 2 August 1945. They carved Germany into four occupation zones and settled on a policy of modest reparations and the rebuilding of Germany’s basic infrastructure, rather than seeking the country’s deindustrialization or dismemberment.

See also Agricultural Machinery; Agricultural Price Support; Agriculture, Department of; Diets and Dieting; Plantation System of the South; Slave Trade; Subsidies.

SUMMIT CONFERENCES, U.S. AND RUSSIAN, the occasions for heads of state or government to meet directly in what is often termed “personal diplomacy.” While summits are often depicted as the opportunity for top leaders to reach breakthroughs on difﬁcult issues their subordinates have been unable to resolve through negotiation, more often agreements signed at summit meetings are the culmination of traditional diplomatic work. Summits offer participants a chance to evaluate their counterparts in person, and allow leaders to impress domestic and international audiences with their peacemaking ability or diplomatic prowess, although the expectations they raise for dramatic progress can easily be disappointed. Every president since Franklin D. Roosevelt has met with the Soviet or Russian leadership. Although each summit meeting was marked by circumstances speciﬁc to the historical moment, one can speak roughly of four phases: wartime meetings of the Allied leaders to plan strategy during World War II; a continued multilateral approach to dealing with crucial international issues in the Dwight D. Eisenhower years; a shift to bilateral discussions of nuclear arms limitation in the 1960s through the 1980s; and the attempt to forge a new relationship in the post– Cold War era. Allied Conferences in World War II The ﬁrst wartime summit took place from 28 November to 1 December 1943, when President Roosevelt met with Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill at Tehran. Stalin pressed the AngloAmericans to begin the promised cross-channel attack on German-held Europe, and promised to enter the war against Japan once Germany was defeated. Roosevelt proposed the creation of a postwar international organization to keep the peace, dominated by the “Four Policemen” (including China). From 4 to 11 February 1945, the three met again at the Russian Black Sea resort of Yalta. Stalin consented to a four-power occupation of Germany (including a French force) and reafﬁrmed his promise to enter the war against Japan. But the central issue was the postwar fate of Eastern Europe, especially Poland. Stalin soon violated the Yalta agreement to assure representative government in Poland, made without provision for enforcement. This led Roosevelt’s detractors to charge him with “betrayal” and to link the name of Yalta, like that of Munich, to

The sharpening of the Cold War after World War II brought a ten-year halt to U.S.-Soviet summit meetings. Summits were discredited in the minds of critics who believed that an ailing Roosevelt had been manipulated by a crafty Stalin at Yalta, and that there was nothing to be gained by personal diplomacy with untrustworthy rivals. Summits on International Issues The freeze began to thaw from 18 to 23 July 1955, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower met Premier Nikolai Bulganin and Communist Party chief Nikita Khrushchev, along with Prime Minister Anthony Eden of Britain and French Prime Minister Edgar Faure at Geneva in the ﬁrst East-West summit of the Cold War. Neither Eisenhower’s proposal for an “open skies” inspection plan permitting Americans and Soviets to conduct aerial reconnaissance over one another’s territory, nor the Soviet proposal for mutual withdrawal of forces from Europe, made any headway. However, after a decade of no meetings, many welcomed the lessening of international tension associated with the “spirit of Geneva.” This was followed by the “spirit of Camp David,” when Khrushchev visited Eisenhower at the presidential retreat in Maryland from 25 to 27 September 1959 and retracted his ultimatum demanding a ﬁnal settlement of the status of Berlin. The thaw proved short-lived. Two weeks before a planned summit in Paris on 16 to 17 May 1960, an American U-2 spy plane was shot down deep inside Soviet airspace. Khrushchev used the opening of the summit to denounce American aggression and then walked out. When Khrushchev met the new President John F. Kennedy in Vienna on 3 and 4 June 1961, the two leaders eyed each other grimly. They agreed to avoid superpower confrontation over the civil war in Laos, but made no progress toward a proposed ban on nuclear weapons testing, and clashed over the fate of Berlin. The outbreak of the Six-Day War in the Middle East prompted an emergency session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, which Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin planned to attend. Kosygin and President Lyndon B. Johnson met halfway between New York and Washington at Glassboro, New Jersey, from 23 to 25 June 1967. The Soviet premier called for American withdrawal from Vietnam and Israeli withdrawal from Egypt, and Johnson focused on nuclear issues. However, Kosygin had

SUMMIT CONFERENCES, U.S. AND RUSSIAN

been given little power to negotiate by the Politburo, and no agreements were signed. De´tente and Nuclear Arms Talks President Richard M. Nixon and his National Security Adviser Henry A. Kissinger sought to use negotiations with the Soviet Union to arrange an acceptable exit from the Vietnam War in exchange for improved relations. After Nixon’s historic visit to China in 1972, Soviet leaders invited him to Moscow, where talks held from 22 to 30 May 1972, resulted in the signing of two agreements marking the beginning of “de´tente”: a treaty limiting each country to the construction of two Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) systems, and an agreement limiting long-range land-based and submarine-based ballistic missiles, later known as the SALT I (Strategic Arms Limitation Talks) treaty. Communist Party Secretary Leonid Brezhnev visited the U.S. from 18 to 25 June 1973, where he and Nixon signed a number of minor agreements regarding agriculture, transportation, and trade. A meeting in Moscow from 27 June to 3 July 1974, held in the shadow of the Watergate scandal and under pressure from conservative opponents of arms control, brought no further progress on strategic arms limitations, although the ABM treaty was amended to reduce the number of ABM systems permitted from two to one. After Nixon’s resignation, President Gerald R. Ford met Brezhnev at Vladivostok on 23 and 24 November 1974, where they agreed on the outlines for a SALT II agreement. From 30 July to 2 August 1975, the two leaders met again in Helsinki during a signing ceremony of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Cooling relations brought about by the collapse of Saigon, superpower rivalry in Angola, and trade disputes lessened the possibility of progress toward a second SALT agreement, as did the upcoming American elections, in which Ford avoided all references to “de´tente” to resist challenges from the right. The unpopularity of de´tente continued to grow during President Jimmy Carter’s term. By the time he met Brezhnev in Vienna from 15 to 18 June 1979, relations with the Soviet Union had deteriorated over trade restrictions, Third World conﬂicts, U.S. rapprochement with China, and human rights. The two leaders were able to sign a SALT II agreement but Senate conservatives opposed the treaty and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December ended any hope of ratiﬁcation. President Ronald Reagan’s ﬁrst term was marked by remilitarization and a heightening of Cold War tensions that sowed fears that the superpowers might be sliding toward nuclear war, creating a mass antiwar movement in the United States and Europe. In response, Reagan met the new, reformist Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, at a “getacquainted summit” at Geneva from 19 to 21 November 1985, where despite a lack of agreement on nuclear arms reductions, the two leaders established warm personal re-

lations. They met again in Reykjavik, Iceland, on 11 and 12 October 1986, and agreed to reduce intermediate-range nuclear missiles, but deadlocked over Reagan’s devotion to space-based missile defense. At a third meeting in Washington from 7 to 10 December 1987, the two leaders signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, requiring the elimination of all U.S. and Soviet INF missiles. A fourth meeting in Moscow from 20 May to 2 June 1988, was more notable for the media images of Reagan strolling through the heart of what he had formerly called “the Evil Empire” than for the minor arms control agreements signed, and a ﬁnal meeting in New York on 7 December was largely ceremonial. End of the Cold War The rapid pace of political change in Eastern Europe in 1989 led President George H. W. Bush to hold a shipboard meeting with Gorbachev off Malta on 2 and 3 December 1989. Although no agreements were signed, statements of goodwill indicated, as Gorbachev put it, that the era of the Cold War was ending. This was reinforced at a Washington summit from 31 May to 3 June 1990, when agreements on a range of issues including trade and chemical weapons were signed in an atmosphere of cooperation not seen since the height of de´tente. Gorbachev was invited to a Group of Seven meeting in London on 17 and 18 July 1991, where he and Bush agreed to sign a START (Strategic Arms Reduction Talks) treaty at a full summit in Moscow on 30 and 31 July. The Moscow meeting proved to be the last superpower summit, as the Soviet Union collapsed at the end of the year. Summits after the Cold War Between 1992 and 2000, Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton met more than twenty times with Russian Presidents Boris Yeltsin or Vladimir Putin at bilateral summits or individually at multilateral venues. Talks on further nuclear arms reductions and securing the former Soviet arsenal and nuclear materials were a feature of many of the summits. At a Moscow meeting on 2 and 3 January 1993, Bush and Yeltsin signed the START II Treaty, promising to reduce each country’s nuclear arsenal to between 3,000–3,500 warheads within ten years. Yeltsin used various summit meetings to argue unsuccessfully against the eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and Clinton often pressed Yeltsin and Putin to seek a peaceful resolution to Russia’s conﬂict with its secessionist province of Chechnya. Another regular feature of the discussions was the attempt by the Russian leaders to obtain better trade relations and economic aid from Western countries and institutions, and American pressure to link such concessions to structural reform of Russia’s economy. The diminished drama and increased frequency of the meetings compared with the Cold War years conﬁrmed the extent to which relations between the two countries had normalized by the end of the twentieth century.

S U M T E R , F O RT

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boyle, Peter G. American-Soviet Relations: From the Russian Revolution to the Fall of Communism. New York: Routledge, 1993. Garthoff, Raymond L. The Great Transition: American-Soviet Relations and the End of the Cold War. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1994. LaFeber, Walter. America, Russia, and the Cold War, 1945–1996. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997. Paterson, Thomas G. American Foreign Relations. 5th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifﬂin, 2000. Weihmiller, Gordon R. U.S.-Soviet Summits: An Account of EastWest Diplomacy at the Top, 1955–1985. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1986.

Max Paul Friedman See also Arms Race and Disarmament; Cold War.

SUMPTUARY LAWS AND TAXES, COLONIAL. The term “sumptuary laws” usually refers to regulations of food, clothing, morals, amusements, church attendance, and Sabbath observance. Sumptuary laws existed in all of the colonies. They included general colonial statutes, local regulations, applications of common law to local situations, and ﬁxed customs of the people in different colonies. Custom and practice were as much a part of the total laws of a community as were the formal statutes, although their enforcement was different. The blue laws of Connecticut were the best known of the sumptuary laws. They were originally compiled by the Loyalist and Anglican clergyman Samuel A. Peters and published in England in his General History of Connecticut (1781). For many years people accepted or denounced this account of the Connecticut colonial code. In 1898 Walter F. Prince published in the Report of the American Historical Association for 1898, a detailed analysis of the Peters laws based on careful research. He found that one-half did exist in New Haven and more than fourﬁfths existed in one or more of the New England colonies. Others, however, were inventions, exaggerations, misunderstandings, or the result of copying from other erroneous writers on New England history. Different kinds of sumptuary laws predominated in different times and places. Some laws prohibited wearing gold decorations, lace, hatbands, rufﬂes, silks, and similar materials when one’s station in life did not warrant such expensive clothing. These were most common during the seventeenth century and prevailed in many colonies. In 1621, for example, authorities sent directives to Virginia reserving for council members the right to wear ﬁne apparel. Massachusetts also had very detailed laws regulating dress. Many colonies enforced such laws by ﬁne, although in Massachusetts the wearer might have his assessed valuation raised to £300 in addition to a ﬁne. Laws against sexual immorality were also similar in all the colonies, although in the southern colonies they were di-

rected particularly against relations between whites and blacks. The most widespread sumptuary laws governed religious life. Laws against Sabbath breaking were common to all colonies, and most colonies mandated church attendance by law. Enforcement was probably stricter in New England than elsewhere, mainly because of the structure of government in each town, which depended upon cooperation between ecclesiastical and secular authorities to enforce both religious and civil regulations. Whereas most colonies taxed residents to support the local church and its minister, New England colonies (except Rhode Island) went even further to regulate religious life by prescribing doctrinal uniformity by law. In the seventeenth century, Massachusetts punished Quakers and drove them from the colony, and four were hanged for persistent return. Authorities also punished Baptists with beatings and imprisonment, and many alleged witches were sentenced to imprisonment or hanging in the latter half of the seventeenth century. Yet with all this reputation for harshness, there were far fewer death penalties provided by law in New England than in the English statutes of the same time. Further, after the implementation of religious toleration following the Glorious Revolution (1688), even the strictest colonists could no longer ban other religious groups from their midst. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brown, Kathleen M. Good Wives, Nasty Wenches, and Anxious Patriarchs: Gender, Race, and Power in Colonial Virginia. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996. Gildrie, Richard P. The Profane, the Civil and the Godly: The Reformation of Manners in Orthodox New England, 1679–1749. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1994. Hoffer, Peter Charles. Law and People in Colonial America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998.

O. M. Dickerson / s. b. See also Blue Laws; Colonial Society; Manners and Etiquette; Massachusetts Bay Colony; Religious Liberty; Virginia; Witchcraft.

SUMTER, FORT, situated on a sandbar, commands the sea approach to Charleston, South Carolina. On the night of 26 December 1860, Maj. Robert Anderson, Union commader at Charleston, removed his garrison from Fort Moultrie, on Sullivan’s Island, to a better defensive position at Fort Sumter. At 4:30 on the morning of Friday, 12 April, the Confederate batteries opened ﬁre on Fort Sumter. On 13 April, after a bombardment of thirty-four hours, Anderson surrendered; the Civil War had begun. In April 1863, Fort Sumter, then garrisoned by Confederates, repelled an attack by a Union ﬂeet. In August, the siege of Fort Sumter by Union forces began and lasted for 567 days; the Confederates never surrendered. The fort was eventually abandoned in February 1865 and later made a national monument.

S U N B E LT

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Current, Richard N. Lincoln and the First Shot. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1963. Donald, David H. Lincoln. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995. McPherson, James M. Battle Cry of Freedom. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.

DuBose Heyward / a. r. See also Charleston; Charleston Harbor, Defense of; Confederate States of America; Secession; South Carolina.

SUN BELT comprises the states of the South and the Southwest. The term was coined to describe both the warm climate of these regions and the rapid economic and population growth that have been characteristic since the 1960s. The Sun Belt stretches approximately from Virginia south to Florida and west to California but also includes western mountain states, such as Colorado and Utah, that have experienced similar economic growth. Historically, most of the nation’s population and economic power was based in the Northeast and the upper Midwest. The Southeast had a smaller population, a less robust economy, and hot, humid summers that many northerners considered uncomfortable. Much of the Southwest was settled later and remained sparsely populated well into the twentieth century because of its remote location and an inhospitable desert climate that regularly reached triple-digit temperatures in summer. With the advent of air conditioning, however, year-round comfort became possible in both regions. A shift from northeastern dominance was evident by the early 1970s. The term “New South” came into use to describe economic progress and social changes in the Southeast. California and oil-rich Texas had established themselves as thriving economies, and newer regions of prosperity had begun to emerge throughout the West. This pattern intensiﬁed in following decades as many states in the North lost industries, population, and representation in Congress. The Sun Belt attracted domestic and international businesses for many reasons, including lower energy costs and nonunion wages, state policies favorable to business, and, in the West, proximity to the increasingly important Paciﬁc Rim nations. A national emphasis on developing domestic fuel sources in the early 1970s stimulated growth in Texas, Colorado, and other states. The lifestyles and natural beauty of Sun Belt states also attraced many newcomers. As populations grew, southern and western states gained increasing political and economic power. All seven winners of U.S. presidential elections between 1964 and 2000 were from the Sun Belt, reﬂecting the increased representation in Congress of key states like Texas, Arizona, and Florida, which helped Republicans win majority representation in Congress during the 1990s. Southern culture and values became inﬂuential, such as the nationwide popularity of

country and western music. Hispanic cultures of the Southwest and Florida gained prominence. The Sun Belt also faced difﬁcult issues, including social problems that many migrants had hoped to escape. Despite areas of prosperity, the Southeast continued to have many sections of poverty. Texas and other energyoriented states experienced a steep, if temporary, economic decline in the mid-1980s because of a fall in oil prices. California suffered serious economic recession and social stresses in the late 1980s and early 1990s, which caused a signiﬁcant migration of businesses and residents to nearby states. The impacts of growth and development became matters of urgent concern as many Sun Belt communities experienced suburban sprawl, congestion, and pollution, along with an erosion of their traditional regional characteristics and identities. These trends provoked many controversies, which continued into the 1990s. Some people opposed the changes, but others saw them as positive signs of progress and prosperity. Nationally, experts predicted that the economic growth and increasing inﬂuence of the Sun Belt marked a permanent change in the demographic, economic, and political structure of the nation. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bogue, Donald J. The Population of the United States: Historical Trends and Future Projections. New York: Free Press, 1985. De Vita, Carol J. America in the 21st Century: A Demographic Overview. Washington, D.C.: Population Reference Bureau, 1989. Wilson, Charles Reagan, and William Ferris, eds. Encyclopedia of Southern Culture. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989.

John Townes / c. w. See also Air Conditioning; Climate; Demography and Demographic Trends; Energy Industry; Migration, Internal; Rust Belt.

SUN DANCE. The term “sun dance” is an anthropological invention referring to a number of ceremonies on the Great Plains that were characterized by considerable internal complexity. The Lakota sun dance, wiwanyag wachipi, may be translated as “dance looking at the sun.” By contrast, some have translated the Blackfoot Okan as “sacred sleep.” The central ritual of the Mandans, the Okipa, was not a sun dance at all but rather a complex ceremony that took place in an earth lodge on the central dance plaza of the village and focused a great deal of its energy on animal dances and animal renewal. By the middle of the nineteenth century there were approximately twenty-ﬁve rituals identiﬁed as “sun dances” spread across the Great Plains. On the Northwestern Plains, the development of these rituals was imbedded in a history of migrations that brought peoples with different cultural backgrounds into

S U N D AY S C H O O L S

multiple symbolic references that interacted with the central symbols of the ritual. Finally, the ritual enactment as a whole was believed to renew the world, the animals, the plants, and the people. Despite these similarities, when looked at from within, the rituals of the various groups were identiﬁed with symbolic boundaries that made them unique peoples. Important creator ﬁgures, such as the Sun (in the case of one Blackfoot tradition), special culture heroes, and other important predecessors were believed to have brought the sun dance to the people. From this perspective it was their special ritual pathway to powers that would sustain them and reinforce their identity in relation to others who had similar ceremonies. Because of the considerable cultural interaction on the Plains, cultural interchange became important in the development of these rituals, but traditions of origin tended to constitute them as unique to the experience of each people. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Holler, Clyde. Black Elk’s Religion: The Sun Dance and Lakota Catholicism. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1995. For Strength and Visions. Edward S. Curtis’s 1908 photograph shows an Absaroka, or Crow, Indian participating in one of the grueling Plains rituals known as the sun dance. Library of Congress

Mails, Thomas E. Sundancing: The Great Sioux Piercing Ritual. Tulsa, Okla: Council Oaks Books, 1998. Spier, Leslie. “The Sun Dance of the Plains Indians.” Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History. Vol. 16. New York: The Trustees, 1921. Yellowtail, Thomas. Yellowtail: Crow Medicine Man and Sun Dance Chief. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991.

closer proximity. These groups became the horse-mounted nomads that ﬁred the imagination of Europeans and Americans alike. Among these groups the ritual known as the sun dance became richly developed and imagined.

See also Indian Dance; Indian Religious Life; Tribes: Great Plains.

As a consequence of increased cultural interactions, mid-nineteenth-century Plains sun dances featured a number of common elements. Almost all of the rituals included a lodge constructed around a specially selected center pole. There were preparatory sweat lodge rituals that often continued through the four- to eight-day ceremony. A central altar became the focus of many of the ceremonies, and a sacred bundle or bundles was transferred from a previous sponsor to an individual or family sponsor for the year. Male dancers were pierced on both sides of their chest and tethered to the center pole by means of skewers attached to leather thongs; during some point in the ritual they also might drag buffalo skulls tethered to skewers imbedded in the ﬂesh of their backs. Participants actively sought and often experienced powerful visions that were life transforming. Animal-calling rituals and pervasive buffalo symbolism focused on ensuring that the buffalo would continue to give themselves to the people as food. Sexual intercourse sometimes took place between women who had ritually become buffalo and men who had also assumed this role, establishing a tie of kinship between the humans and the buffalo people. Dancing, body painting, and complex color symbolism created

SUNDAY SCHOOLS ﬁrst appeared in American cities in the 1790s. Following the example of British reformers, American organizers hoped to provide basic literacy training to poor children and adults on their one free day. Typical of these schools were those begun in Philadelphia in 1791 by the First Day Society, a group of clerics and merchants who paid local schoolmasters to teach “persons of each sex and of any age . . . to read and write,” using the Bible as the central text. By 1819 the last First Day school had closed, and by 1830 Sunday schools of this type had virtually disappeared from the American scene, although traces of their pattern remained visible for decades in “mission” Sunday schools found in impoverished urban neighborhoods, in rural areas lacking permanent churches, and among newly freed African Americans during Reconstruction. A new-style Sunday school arose in their place, taught by volunteer teachers (a majority of them women) and providing a speciﬁcally evangelical Protestant curriculum. By 1832, nearly 8 percent of free children were attending such schools; in Philadelphia alone, the ﬁgure was almost 30 percent.

Howard L. Harrod

SUPERCONDUCTING SUPER COLLIDER

Evangelical Sunday schools grew rapidly as Protestant clergy and lay people molded them into key elements in an institutional network designed to make the new nation Protestant. (Although some Catholic and Jewish congregations established Sunday schools, the institution itself never assumed the signiﬁcance it acquired in Protestant religious education.) New ideas about children’s needs and potential also fueled their growth, as did congregations’ embrace of Sunday schools and the development of common schools in urban areas. Indeed, during the nineteenth century, Sunday schools and public schools grew in tandem, developing a complementary relationship. Sunday school societies played important parts in the schools’ proliferation. The American Sunday School Union, a cross-denominational national organization founded in Philadelphia in 1824, was the largest of these, publishing curricular materials and children’s books and sponsoring missionaries to remote regions. Denominational agencies, such as the Methodist Episcopal Sunday School Union (1827) and the Sunday School Board of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church (1884), followed suit. After the Civil War, denominational interests came into increasing conﬂict with the American Sunday School Union, especially in the area of teacher training and lesson writing. Gradually, denominational organizations and teachers’ conventions became the organizations of choice, and the American Sunday School Union’s preeminence declined. It was at a national Sunday school teachers’ convention in 1872 that delegates and publishers adopted plans for a system of “uniform lessons,” standardizing the Biblical texts studied each week but permitting each denomination to shape the lessons’ contents. And the origins of the Chautauqua Movement idea can be traced to a Sunday school teachers’ summer institute organized by the Methodist bishop John Heyl Vincent in 1873. In the twentieth century, Sunday schools were primarily church institutions, recruiting the next generations of members. Although teaching remained volunteer labor performed mostly by women, the work of managing became professionalized, many congregations hired directors of religious education, and new agencies took on the tasks of multiplying the number of Sunday schools and shaping teachers’ preparation. By the turn of the twenty-ﬁrst century, Sunday school attendance had declined overall. Nevertheless, Sunday schools remain a signiﬁcant institutional tool for the religious training of succeeding generations, as many a child could testify.

Seymour, Jack L. From Sunday School to Church School: Continuities in Protestant Church Education in the United States, 1860– 1929. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1982.

Anne M. Boylan See also Protestantism.

SUPERCONDUCTING SUPER COLLIDER (SSC), a federally ﬁnanced project abandoned in 1993 that would have been capable of accelerating subatomic particles to energy levels forty times that previously achieved by researchers. For reasons of national prestige and international economic competitiveness, the Ronald Reagan administration in 1982 encouraged U.S. high-energy scientists to devise a challenging national accelerator project. Physicists responded with plans for the most ambitious particle accelerator ever attempted, a superconducting super collider. It was to be a proton collider far more energetic than existing ones, employing the superconducting magnetic technology recently developed at the Fermi National Laboratory in Illinois. The primary justiﬁcation for the machine was a search for particles known as Higgs bosons. The machine was to produce forty TeV protons (where one TeV, or tera-electron volt, is 1 trillion electron volts). This determined the size (a ﬁfty-fourmile-long ring) and the projected cost ($4.4 billion). Federal funding for the machine required justiﬁcation. Support from the Texas congressional delegation and the promise of $1 billion toward the project from the state of Texas led to the decision to build the accelerator in Waxahachie, Texas, rather than near Fermilab. In the autumn of 1993 the House of Representatives, faced with a more than doubled price tag, voted overwhelmingly to kill the project. By then $2 billion had been spent, the superconducting magnets had been tested, one-third of the ring had been excavated, and two teams of a thousand physicists and engineers from around the world were working out detailed designs of the two enormous particle detectors to observe and analyze proton collisions in the TeV energy range. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kevles, Daniel J. The Physicists: The History of a Scientiﬁc Community in Modern America. 2d ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995. Treﬁl, James. “Beyond the Quark: The Case for the Super Collider.” New York Times Magazine (30 April 1989): 24. Weinberg, Steven. Dreams of a Final Theory. New York: Pantheon, 1992.

a. r. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boylan, Anne M. Sunday School: The Formation of an American Institution, 1790–1880. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1988.

See also Cyclotron; Physics: Nuclear Physics.

McMillen, Sally G. To Raise Up the South: Sunday Schools in Black and White Churches, 1865–1915. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2001.

SUPERFUND, ofﬁcially the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, began as a $1.6 billion, ﬁve-year program cre-

S U P P LY- S I D E E C O N O M I C S

ated by Congress to expedite cleanup of the nation’s worst hazardous waste sites. National concern over the release of hazardous wastes buried beneath the residential community at Love Canal in western New York State prompted its passage. The term also refers to the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, which comprehensively revised the original act and added $9 billion to the fund. In response to a 1984 tragedy in Bhopal, India, in which three thousand people died and hundreds of thousands were reportedly affected by exposure to deadly methyl isocyanate gas that leaked from a Union Carbide plant, Congress included provisions in SARA requiring corporations to inform host communities of the presence of dangerous materials and to develop emergency plans for dealing with accidental releases of such materials. From the beginning Superfund met with harsh, and often justiﬁed, criticism. President Ronald Reagan’s commitment to reduce government regulation of industry undermined the effectiveness of the legislation. At the end of ﬁve years the money was gone, and only six of the eighteen hundred hazardous waste sites identiﬁed at that time had been cleaned up. Another eighteen thousand suspected sites remained to be investigated. A new provision reauthorized the program to continue until 1994. Legal disputes had mired those willing to restore sites, and in 1994 the legislation was not reauthorized. Instead, the program has continued to function with special appropriated funding while Congress negotiates how to make the program more effective and efﬁcient.

capacity of 300 and a cruising speed from 2.5 to 3 times that of sound—both better than Concorde’s. Boeing and Lockheed, two of the three major commercial jet manufacturers, produced full-sized mockups for a 1967 design competition. Boeing’s design was heavier and more complex but promised slightly better performance and a signiﬁcantly more impressive, futuristic look. It won, but engineers later abandoned its most advanced features as they struggled to build a plane light enough to operate profitably. The ﬁnal design, the 2707-300, mirrored Concorde in both appearance and performance. Opposition to the SST project emerged on multiple fronts during the late 1960s. Environmentalists warned of catastrophic damage to the ozone layer. Homeowners along ﬂight routes rebelled against the prospect of routine sonic booms. Members of Congress objected to the use of public funds for a commercial venture. Boeing ofﬁcials worried, privately, that the SST might bankrupt the company if it failed. Dismayed by rising costs, mounting opposition, and unfulﬁlled promises, Congress cancelled the SST program in 1971. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ames, Mary E. “The Case of the U.S. SST: Disenchantment with Technology.” In her Outcome Uncertain: Science and the Political Process. Washington, D.C.: Communications Press, 1978. Ties the cancellation to shifts in public opinion. Horwitch, Mel. Clipped Wings: The American SST Conﬂict. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1982. The deﬁnitive history.

A. Bowdoin Van Riper

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, Terry, ed. Political Environmentalism: Going Behind the Green Curtain. Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution Press, 2000. LaGrega, Michael D., Phillip L. Buckingham, and Jeffrey C. Evans. Hazardous Waste Management. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2001. Vaughn, Jacqueline. Environmental Politics: Domestic and Global Dimensions. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2001.

John Morelli / f. h. See also Environmental Protection Agency; Times Beach.

SUPERMARKETS AND SUPERSTORES. See Retailing Industry.

SUPERSONIC TRANSPORT. In late 1962, the governments of France and Great Britain announced their intention to jointly develop a supersonic transport (SST) named the “Concorde.” Anxious that the United States not trail the Europeans in the SST market as it had in the case of jet airliners, President John F. Kennedy, in a June 1963 speech at the Air Force Academy, called for a jointly funded government-industry program to design and build an American SST. The speciﬁcations, drawn from a government feasibility study, called for a passenger

See also Aircraft Industry; Boeing Company.

SUPPLY-SIDE ECONOMICS is based on the premise that high tax rates hurt the national economy by discouraging work, production, and innovation. President Ronald Reagan’s adoption of supply-side economics as the underlying theory for his economic policy in the 1980s represented a major shift in U.S. economic thinking. Supply-side theory was far from new, however, its basic ideas dating back to the early-nineteenth-century works of Jean-Baptiste Say and David Ricardo. It had been ignored in the United States since the New Deal, because of the demand-side theories of the British economist John Maynard Keynes, who believed in raising income and reducing unemployment by expanding demand even if the government does so through deﬁcit spending. In the 1980s, supply siders found an audience looking for an alternative to deﬁcit-oriented, demand-side policies. Arthur B. Laffer popularized the idea. He argued that cutting taxes, especially those of high income groups, would increase government revenues, because lower tax rates would produce more incentives for business and individuals to work and less reason for them to avoid taxes whether through non-productive investments in tax shelters or outright tax avoidance. Cutting taxes would result

S U P R E M E C O U RT

in more jobs, a more productive economy, and more government revenues. This theory ﬁt nicely into the conservative political agenda, because it meant less interference with the economy and, when combined with spending cuts and deﬁcit reduction, smaller government. Supply-side economics dominated the administration of President Ronald Reagan, who instituted major tax cuts in 1981 and 1986, reducing the top U.S. rate from 70 percent to roughly 33 percent. However, Congress did not reduce federal spending to compensate for the reduced revenue, with the result that deﬁcits soared to record levels. In the view of some advocates, the failure of Congress to adopt a balanced-budget amendment that would have controlled federal spending to match the tax cuts meant that supply-side theories were not really tried. Cutting taxes remained an important goal for subsequent Republican administrations, but by 2001, few argued that tax cuts would increase government revenue. Rather, tax cuts were a way to stimulate the economy, reign in government spending, and return the budget surplus to its rightful owners. The legacy of supply-side economics has been more political than economic. In the mid-1990s, Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich observed that supply-side economics has “relatively little to do with economics and a great deal to do with human nature and incentives.” It contributed to the larger debate about the respective roles of government, individuals, and incentives in U.S. society as the nation faced a global economy. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Canton, Victor A., Douglas H. Joines, and Arthur B. Laffer. Foundations of Supply-Side Economics: Theory and Evidence. New York: Academic Press, 1983. Thompson, Grahame. The Political Economy of the New Right. London: Pinter, 1990. Wilber, Charles K., and Kenneth P. Jameson. Beyond Reaganomics: A Further Inquiry Into the Poverty of Economics. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1990. Winant, Howard A. Stalemate: Political Economic Origins of SupplySide Policy. New York: Praeger, 1988.

Brent Schondelmeyer / c. p. See also Debt, Public; Economics; Keynesianism; Radical Right; Taxation.

SUPREME COURT. The Supreme Court is the ﬁnal judicial authority in the U.S. system of government. Designated in Article III of the U.S. Constitution to have jurisdiction over all cases “arising under” the Constitution, the Court has the power to hear cases on appeal from the Federal appellate courts and the highest courts of each state. The Constitution also provides that the Court may act as a trial court in a limited number of cases: “Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party.” Though

the Supreme Court is the ﬁnal judicial authority in American government, it is not necessarily the ﬁnal legal or political authority in the political system. While litigants may never appeal Supreme Court decisions to a superior court, disputes may proceed in other branches of government after a Supreme Court ruling. Congress and state legislatures may effectively alter or negate Supreme Court decisions involving statutory interpretation by amending or clarifying statutes, and may nullify constitutional decisions by amending the Constitution pursuant to Article V of the Constitution. Several factors are important to understand the Court’s role in American democracy, including: the continuing nature of the Court’s relationship to Congress, the Executive Branch, and state governments; the inﬂuence of political and economic history on the Court; the intellectual underpinnings of Supreme Court decisions; and the internal dynamics of the Court as a distinct institution. Finally, the ambiguity of many key provisions of the Constitution is a source of both limits and power, for it creates the need for an authoritative voice on the Constitution’s meaning and simultaneously makes such interpretations open to contestation. Created at the crossroads of law and politics, the Supreme Court’s history is a history of controversy. In addition to the possibility of legislative alteration of Supreme Court decisions, formal relationships the Constitution establishes between the Court and the other branches of the national government affects the Court’s power. First, the President appoints each justice to the Court, subject to Senate conﬁrmation. Second, Supreme Court justices, like all federal judges, serve for life, absent impeachment by the House of Representatives and removal by the Senate. Third, Congress controls the number of justices that serve on the Court at any given time. At various points in U.S. history, the Court has had as few as ﬁve justices and as many as ten. Since 1865, however, the number has held steady at nine, including one chief justice. Fourth, Congress controls the Court’s operational budget, though actual compensation to the justices “shall not be diminished during [the Justices] Continuance in ofﬁce.” (Article III, Section 1). Fifth, the Constitution gives Congress power over much of the Court’s appellate jurisdiction. These and other overlapping Constitutional functions of each branch of government have led scholars to proclaim that the three branches of government are “separate institutions, sharing powers.” Beyond constitutional overlap, the special institutional nature of the Supreme Court is important. For example, the Court lacks the power to decide cases unless the proper parties to a lawsuit bring the case to the Court. The Court also lacks the ability to implement its decisions of its own accord, having to rely upon the executive branch to carry out its will. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 78, the Framers ﬁrmly expected that the Supreme Court, “no inﬂuence over either the sword or the

S U P R E M E C O U RT

purse,” and would thus be “the least dangerous” branch of the three branches of government. Marshall and the Establishment of Judicial Power Though constrained, the Supreme Court has grown in stature and power since the time of the founding. This growth would have been nearly impossible without the deft political thinking and imaginative judicial mind of John Marshall, who served as Chief Justice from 1801– 1835. The Constitution is unclear about the Court’s power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional and therefore void. Marshall resolved the matter in 1803, ruling in Marbury v. Madison that the Court did indeed possess this power. The historical circumstances and reasoning of the case dramatically illustrate the complex nature of judicial power discussed above. Marbury arose during the tense transfer of power from the Federalist administration of John Adams to the Democratic-Republican administration of Thomas Jefferson in the wake of the 1800 election. Just before leaving ofﬁce, Adams appointed William Marbury as a justice of the peace in Washington, D.C.—one of several new judgeships created by the departing Federalist Congress trying to maintain a Federalist presence in government. After assuming ofﬁce, however, Jefferson and his Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver Marbury’s commission to him. Seeking the judgeship, Marbury took his claim directly to the Supreme Court. Marshall confronted a conundrum: if he and the Court ordered Jefferson to give Marbury his commission, Jefferson would surely refuse to obey, making the still ﬂedgling Court appear weak in the face of executive power. Worse, Congress could have impeached Marshall. If the Court declined to support Marbury, however, it would appear to be afraid of Jefferson. Writing for the Court, Marshall dodged having to order Jefferson to deliver the commission by holding that the Constitution did not give the Court the power to hear such cases except on appeal from a lower court. However, he went on to hold that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional because it gave the Court the power to hear the case in original jurisdiction. Thus, Marshall avoided a potentially crippling conﬂict with the President while simultaneously establishing a broad power that the Court could use in the future. It would be nearly ﬁfty years before the Court declared another act of Congress unconstitutional in the infamous Dred Scott decision. The issue of states’ power in relation to the national government was the most important issue the Court confronted before the Civil War. The Marshall Court was instrumental in increasing the power of the national government over the states. In two controversial decisions, Fletcher v. Peck (1810) and Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816), the Court declared that the Constitution gave it the power to review the constitutionality of decisions of state supreme courts and the acts of state legislatures, respectively. And in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) and

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), the Court interpreted the “necessary and proper” and commerce clauses of Article I to give Congress broad regulatory power over the economy. The Marshall Court was also committed to protecting vested economic interests through the contracts clause of Article I (see Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 1819). Under the leadership of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney (1836–1864), the Court was somewhat more deferential to the states, giving them more room to regulate commerce on their own and to impair the obligations of contracts for public policy reasons. (Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 1851; Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 1837). As race and sectional divide came to the fore by midcentury, the Taney Court found itself at the center of the gathering storm. In 1857, the Court made an infamous decision that made Civil War inevitable. Dred Scott v. Sandford held that African Americans did not constitute “citizens” and that the ﬁrst of Henry Clay’s three Great Compromises—the Missouri Compromise—was unconstitutional. The Civil War also tested the power of the president of the United States to effectively manage the country. In the Prize Cases (1863) and Ex Parte Milligan (1866), respectively, the Court found that the president could unilaterally establish a shipping blockade and seize property from “non-enemies” during a time of insurrection, but that the president could not impose martial law upon the citizens and suspend the writ of habeas corpus. The Era of Economic Rights and Limited Government The North’s victory in the Civil War had two major consequences: the end of slavery and the unleashing of corporate development in the United States—pitting the regulatory power of governments against the interests of business and the private sector. With some exceptions, the Court showed more concern for the rights of business than with the plight of African Americans. The Reconstruction Era following the Civil War allowed the Court to interpret the recently ratiﬁed Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution. In 1875, Congress passed a Civil Rights Act providing for full access to public accommodations, regardless of race. The Supreme Court, however, found that such legislation exceeded Congress’ power, which only extended to “the subject of slavery and its incidences” (Civil Rights Cases, 1883). Beyond striking down legislation passed to integrate American society on the basis of race, the Court in this period also upheld legislation designed to segregate American society on the basis of race. In 1896, the Court denied a Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection challenge to the State of Louisiana’s statute mandating racial segregation on trains (Plessy v. Ferguson). Some modern-day commentators point to these Reconstruction Era Court decisions regarding race as the nadir of the intellectual rigor of the Court.

S U P R E M E C O U RT

Lochner v. New York epitomizes another controversial area for constitutional scholars. In 1905, the Court invalidated a New York law that regulated the maximum hours for bakers, ﬁnding that the law violated the “right to contract.” Critics have pointed out that there is no textual right to contract listed in the Constitution. The Court subsequently overturned Lochner, but the case poses a perennial constitutional problem: how can the Ninth Amendment and the idea of non-enumerated rights ﬁnd legitimacy with an unelected judiciary? More simply, what nontextual rights are in the Constitution and how does anyone—including the Court—know what they are? The Supreme Court has employed two different tacks in discovering non-enumerated rights in the Constitution. During the so-called “Lochner era,” it used the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) and Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), for example, the Court found respectively that state laws limiting the ability to teach children foreign languages and restricting the teaching of children in private schools violated due process guarantees, which encompass freedom “from bodily restraint, . . . to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, [and] to worship [a deity] according to the dictates of [one’s] own conscience.” All of these aspects of liberty are “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men” and as such are protected by the Constitution under a doctrine called substantive due process. Whereas the Court used substantive due process to limit the reach of state regulatory power, it used a restrictive interpretation of the commerce clause to limit the regulatory power of Congress in the decades before the New Deal. These cases illuminate the interactive nature of the relationship between the branches of government discussed above. The Court ruled in Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) and A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935) that Congress lacked the power to pass legislation regulating child labor, and to delegate the regulation of agriculture, coal mining, and textiles to the executive branch. Because the power of Congress was critical to the success of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal programs, F.D.R. responded to these and other decisions with a radical proposal. The president proposed expanding the number of justices on the Court to ﬁfteen in the hope of garnering a majority that would permit Congress to pass New Deal legislation. Though Congress did not enact the plan, two justices on the Court abruptly changed their views on the commerce clause in a series of momentous decisions, including National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel (1937, which permitted Congress to regulate private employment practices) and Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, (1937, which held that Congress may sometimes exact taxes that have the effect of regulations). These famous changes in voting patterns came to be known as the “Switch in Time that Saved Nine.”

The Civil Rights/Civil Liberties Era After the New Deal crisis was resolved and the nation emerged victorious from World War II, the Court embarked on an extraordinary expansion of civil liberties and civil rights, especially under the leadership of Chief Justice Earl Warren (1953–1968). No case was more important in this regard than Brown v. Board of Education (1954), in which the Court overruled Plessy and declared that racial segregation in public schools violates the Equal Protection clause. Though it took several years before federal courts and the executive branch began enforcing the principles of Brown in a meaningful way, the decision was the springboard for later decisions that extended equal protection rights to women, gays and lesbians, aliens, children born out of wedlock, and other minorities. In the later 1960s and 1970s, the Court authorized massive integration plans for school districts; these decisions were controversial because they embroiled the federal courts in overseeing complicated institutions, a job that critics claimed lay beyond courts’ capacity. Controversy also arose with the emergence of the second form of substantive due process, as discussed above. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Court struck down a law criminalizing the use of contraceptive devices on the basis of a “right to privacy” in the Constitution, which it discovered not in the due process clause, but rather in the emanations of the penumbras of the text of the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments. When it proceeded to render the controversial decision in Roe v. Wade (1973), that the right to privacy protects a woman’s right to have an abortion, the Court placed the right to privacy back into the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. Recently, however, the Court has revived the “textual” discovery of rights in Saenz v. Roe (1999). The Court in Saenz found that one component of the non-enumerated right to travel is derived from the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Warren Court also accelerated the application of the Bill of Rights to the states. Originally, the Bill of Rights was intended to protect individuals only from the actions of the federal government (Barron v. Baltimore, 1833). Nevertheless, in 1925 the Court ruled that because freedom of speech is a fundamental liberty protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is enforceable against state and local governments as well (Gitlow v. New York). By the 1960s, the Court had “incorporated” other clauses of the First Amendment to apply to the states. The incorporation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments coincided with the Warren Court’s so-called “criminal rights revolution,” which generated great controversy in the context of the increasing crime rates and cultural upheavals of the sixties. Though appointed by the Republican President Eisenhower, Warren presided over what has been characterized as the most liberal period during the Court’s history. The Court’s rulings in Mapp v. Ohio (1961, holding that evidence ob-

S U P R E M E C O U RT

tained in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be excluded from trial), Gideon v. Wainwright (1963, applying the Sixth Amendment’s right to retain counsel for the indigent extends against the states) and Miranda v. Arizona (1966, requiring police to warn suspects of their rights in custodial interrogations) greatly expanded the rights of the criminally accused. With Justice William Brennan leading the way, the Warren Court also dramatically liberalized the First Amendment law of free speech and press. Before the late 1950s, speech could generally be punished if it had a “tendency” to cause violence or social harm. Building on the famous dissenting free speech decisions of Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis earlier in the century, the Warren Court provided substantially more freedom for such controversial expression as pornography, vibrant (even vicious) criticism of public ofﬁcials, hate speech, and offensive speech. Concisely, modern speech doctrine protects expression unless it constitutes hardcore pornography (“obscenity”), libel, threats, or speech that is likely to trigger imminent violence. (See, for example, New York Times v. Sullivan, 1964; Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969.)

gressional power. The Court began what is called “the new federalism” by curtailing Congress’ power to prohibit the possession of weapons near schools. (United States v. Lopez, 1995). In Printz v. United States (1997), it ruled that Congress may not force state executive ofﬁcers to enforce federal gun control legislation. In United States v. Morrison (2000), the Court struck down a federal law that provided civil remedies for victims of gendermotivated attacks. And in Board of Trustees v. Garrett (2001), the Court concluded that Congress did not have the authority to hold states liable for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This change in the Supreme Court jurisprudence was not entirely unforeseeable. With seven of the Justices on the Court being appointed by Republican presidents, the more curious issue is why the group of the ﬁve most conservative justices waited so long to construct the new federalism. The ﬁve justices that formed the majority in each of the cases mentioned above (Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, and Sandra Day O’Connor) had all served together since 1991, yet the lodestar of the Court’s more conservative decisions and the number of times in which the conservative block voted together did not begin in earnest until 1995.

Recent Trends: Consolidation, and the New Substantive Due Process and Federalism After Warren left the Court, President Nixon—who had campaigned against the liberalism of the Warren era— nominated the more conservative Warren Burger in the hope of ending the reign of judicial liberalism. But under Chief Justices Burger (1969–1986) and William Rehnquist (1986 to the present), the Court has generally consolidated the liberties of the Warren Era rather than radically reversing course. Though the Court has cut back some Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, limited the reach of afﬁrmative action (Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 1995) and limited the scope of desegregation of the schools and the equal protection clause (see, for example, Freeman v. Pitts, 1992; Washington v. Davis, 1976), it has also maintained the fundamental right to an abortion (Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1992), expanded the protection of free speech (R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 1992), and reafﬁrmed the Miranda decision (Dickerson v. United States, 2000).

These same ﬁve justices also became crucial in Bush v. Gore (2000), the case that resolved the 2000 presidential election and is already one of the most controversial cases in the Court’s history. The Court issued a stay, 5– 4, mandating that the State of Florida stop counting Presidential ballots on December 9, 2000. The ﬁve justices, along with Justices Souter and Breyer in part, ruled in the per curiam opinion that such counting absent uniform statewide standards violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that all counting efforts had to have been completed by December 12, 2000— the same day the Court issued the opinion and three days after the Court halted the counting of the ballots.

The Burger Court retreated from its effort to reinforce the states’ rights provisions of the Tenth Amendment, but the Rehnquist Court has revived the doctrine of federalism under the aegis of the commerce clause. From the time of the New Deal until near the end of the twentieth century, the Court had regularly accorded an ever-increasing amount of power to Congress. The Supreme Court has upheld Congressional power under the Commerce Clause to regulate such things as wheat production for home usage and public accommodations on the basis of race. (Wickard v. Filburn, 1942; Heart of Atlanta Motel, 1964). Since 1995, however, a seismic shift has occurred in the Court’s jurisprudence regarding Con-

Bell, Derrick A. And We Are Not Saved: The Elusive Quest For Racial Justice. New York: Basic Books, 1989.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackerman, Bruce. We the People, Volume I: Foundations. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1991. Amar, Akhil Reed. The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1998.

Bickel, Alexander. The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics. 2nd ed. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1986. Clayton, Cornell W., and Howard Gillman, eds. Supreme Court Decisionmaking: New Institutionalist Approaches. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999. Ely, John Hart. Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980. Grifﬁn, Stephen M. American Constitutionalism: From Theory to Practice. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1999.

S U P R E M E C O U RT PA C K I N G B I L L S

Horwitz, Morton J. The Transformation of American Law, 1780– 1860: The Crisis of Legal Orthodoxy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Kutler, Stanley I. Judicial Power and Reconstruction Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968. McClosky, Robert G. The American Supreme Court. 3d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Neustadt, Richard E. Presidential Power: The Politics of Leadership. New York: Wiley, 1960. O’Brien, David M. Storm Center: The Supreme Court in American Politics. New York: Norton, 2000. Rosenberg, Gerald N. The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991. Thayer, James B. “The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine of Constitutional Law.” Harvard Law Review 7 (1893): 129.

Donald A. Downs Martin J. Sweet See also Constitution of the United States; Judicial Review; Judiciary; Separation of Powers; and vol. 9: Women in Industry (Brandeis Brief ).

SUPREME COURT PACKING BILLS are congressional measures designed to alter the composition and also the direction of the Supreme Court of the United States. By changing the number of justices, the Supreme Court majority that decides cases is altered, and thus “packed” for one side or another of a case. The Constitution does not ﬁx the number of Supreme Court justices, and under Article III, Section 2, Congress has the authority to alter the number of justices on the Court. The seminal Judiciary Act of 1789 ﬁxed the number of justices at six. Since 1789, Congress has increased the number from time to time for a variety of reasons, including increasing efﬁciency and decreasing the justices’ workload. Congress has also altered the number of justices to produce desired results in Supreme Court cases. Congress changed the number of justices from six to ﬁve in 1801 during the contentious and politicized prelude to the presidential transition from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson. The Judiciary Act of 1801 was an attempt to pack the courts, including the Supreme Court, with Federalist judges after Adams’s party lost the executive and legislative branch to Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans in the 1800 election. The act, passed by the Federalistcontrolled lame duck Congress, created ﬁfty-eight new judgeships and prevented incoming Democratic President Thomas Jefferson from presidential court packing by reducing the number of Supreme Court justices from six to ﬁve. In 1802, Congress, controlled by Jefferson’s allies, repealed the Act of 1801, again bringing the number of justices back to six. During post–Civil War Reconstruction, Congress changed the number of Supreme Court justices to preserve the Reconstruction program favored by the domi-

Packing the Court. Clifford Berryman’s 1937 drawing, with the label “New Deal Plan for Enlarged Supreme Court,” mocks the proposal of a politically frustrated President Franklin D. Roosevelt (depicted here talking to Harold L. Ickes, his head of the Public Works Administration). 䉷 Library of Congress/corbis

nant Radical Republicans in Congress. In 1866, Congress reduced the number of justices from ten (which had been the number determined by Congress just three years earlier in 1863) to six to prevent President Andrew Johnson from presidential packing of the Court by appointing new justices who might overrule the congressionally approved Reconstruction program. Congress again increased the number to nine in 1869, once Johnson, who barely survived impeachment, was out of ofﬁce. Since 1869, the number of Supreme Court justices has remained constant at nine. Attempts to pack the Supreme Court, however, have come from presidents as well as from Congress. Presidential court packing is seen as part of the presidential appointment of Supreme Court justices and still occurs today. In choosing an appointee, the president will consider the potential appointee’s legal philosophy and interpretive ideology, as well as personal political party afﬁliation. The presidential packing powers, however, are limited by the opportunity to appoint a new justice during the president’s term (a function of the retirement or death of sitting justices) and senatorial advice of and consent to the president’s appointee of choice. The most recognized court-packing bill is President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s (FDR) proposal of 1937. When various aspects of Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation found their way to the Supreme Court, four conservative justices (who came to be known derisively as the “Four Horseman”) solidly opposed FDR’s attempt to expand the

SURFING

scope and power of the federal government, particularly over the depressed American economy. Two justices, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and Justice Owen J. Roberts, were swing votes and tended to vote with those who opposed the New Deal legislation. The result was that the Court struck down eight out of ten major programs proposed by FDR, many by narrow majorities. In February 1937, FDR announced his proposal to alter the composition of the judiciary, citing inefﬁciency and backlogged dockets as the reasons necessitating the change. The proposal would have impacted the American federal judicial system from top to bottom, but its primary goal was to pack the Supreme Court with justices he would appoint. His plan would have authorized the president to replace every judge or justice who had served more than ten years or had failed to retire within six months after reaching seventy years of age. At the time, the proposal would have authorized FDR to appoint as many as six new justices to the Supreme Court. The proposal, the subject of tense debates, never made it out of committee, and Congress as a whole never voted on it. FDR and congressional New Deal supporters, however, still received their desired result. With the two 1937 cases of West Coast Hotel v. Parrish and National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & McLaughlin Steel Corporation, Justice Roberts changed his voting tendencies and began voting in favor of upholding sweeping New Deal legislation. Roberts denied that his “switch” was inﬂuenced by FDR’s court packing proposal. There are many other viable explanations, but the saying “the switch in time that saved nine” emerged as the characterization of the Court packing events of 1937. The Court’s new willingness to support President Roosevelt’s favored legislation took the wind out of the sails of his court-packing plan.

Rehnquist, William H. The Supreme Court. New York: Knopf, 2001.

Jacob E. Cooke, Akiba J. Covitz, Esa Lianne Sferra, Meredith L. Stewart

SURFING. Riding a surfboard across the face of a breaking wave was once the preserve of ancient Polynesian islanders, but in the twentieth century it became something enjoyed by millions of people the world over. Modern surﬁng has spread well beyond its more recent Hawaiian, American, and Australian origins, becoming a global phenomenon of such magnitude that every minute of every day will ﬁnd somebody, somewhere, trying to catch a wave. The talented and photogenic few are paid to surf by a multibillion dollar surﬁng industry. For the rest, it is an obsessive hobby, a statement of identity, and even a spiritual pursuit. Surﬁng originated sometime between 1500 b.c. and a.d. 400 among the oceanic island cultures of Polynesia. From there, it spread to the Sandwich (Hawaiian) Islands,

Congress’s attempts to pack the court have had more effect on the Supreme Court than presidential packing. Court packing bills have been designed to result in congressional control of the Supreme Court, which provides the largest check on congressional legislation and action. Congressional control of the Supreme Court disrupts the balance of powers and the system of checks and balances revered as fundamental to the system of government in the United States. The unsuccessful attempt by FDR and his Democratic allies in Congress to pack the Supreme Court was the last major concerted attempt by a president and Congress to alter the number of justices on the Supreme Court and thus change the direction of American law and life.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abraham, Henry J. The Judiciary: The Supreme Court in the Governmental Process. 10th ed. New York: New York University Press, 1996. Leuchtenburg, William E. The Supreme Court Reborn: The Constitutional Revolution in the Age of Roosevelt. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Surfing Pioneer. Teenager Isabel Letham catches a wave, c. 1917. Duke Kahanamoku picked the locally known bodysurfer out of a crowd in 1915 to be the ﬁrst person in Australia to ride a Hawaiian-style surfboard.

SURPLUS, FEDERAL

where it was witnessed by the British explorer Captain James Cook in 1778. The missionaries that followed in Cook’s wake discouraged the practice to such an extent that it had practically vanished by the end of the nineteenth century. It was revived early in the 1900s by young Hawaiians and promoted by the local tourist industry and Alexander Hume Ford, who founded the Hawaiian Outrigger Canoe Club in 1908 in Honolulu. The Hawaiian surfers Duke Kahanamoku and George Freeth traveled to America and Australia to take part in exhibitions that helped spread surﬁng beyond Hawaii’s shores. The accessibility of the sport was limited by the athletic demands of the heavy redwood boards that were the Hawaiian norm. Only with the invention of lighter board materials in the 1940s and 1950s did surﬁng become more appealing to the general public. Surﬁng subcultures appeared in Hawaii, California, and Australia, developing a distinctive language, fashion, attitude, and lifestyle that gradually ﬁltered into mainstream popular culture. The 1960s saw the emergence of glossy surﬁng magazines, surf music, and surf clothing and equipment companies, along with the release of numerous surf-related movies, all of which led to a huge increase in the surﬁng population. New inventions such as wetsuits, leashes, and more maneuverable short boards only added to surﬁng’s worldwide popularity. Large national organizations were created to organize the sport and to hold competitions, leading eventually to a professional circuit that is funded, principally, by the surf industry and media sponsorship. The original extreme sport, surﬁng continues to push its boundaries. The development of tow-in surﬁng technology allows big-wave surfers to ride offshore waves that are more than sixty feet high. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Finney, Ben, and James Houston. Surﬁng: The History of the Ancient Hawaiian Sport. San Francisco: Pomegranate Books, 1996. Kampion, Drew. Stoked: A History of Surf Culture. Santa Monica, Calif.: General Publishing, 1997. Young, Nat. The History of Surﬁng. Angourie, Australia: Palm Beach Press, 1998.

Rick Dodgson See also Honolulu; Sports.

SURPLUS, FEDERAL. Federal budgets have varied considerably over our history. As indicated in the accompanying table, our ﬁrst and second centuries were very different in terms of budget surpluses. Through our ﬁrst 134 years, surpluses were the norm; in the last 75 years, they have been rare. A number of factors affect our budgetary history. The most pronounced are wars and economic recessions. However, philosophical and partisan values and beliefs also were critical.

TABLE 1 Years in Surplus or Deficit, 1792–2000 Years 1792–1800 1801–1825 1826–1850 1851–1875 1876–1900 1901–1925 1926–1950 1951–1975 1976–2000 SOURCE:

Years in Surplus

Years in Deficit

5 17 16 17 19 14 8 5 3

4 8 9 8 6 11 17 20 22

U.S. Dept of Commerce, 1970, pp. 1104–1105.

For example, when the Jeffersonian Democrats defeated the Federalists in 1800, their philosophy of a limited national government replaced the Federalists’ more activist role. As a result, the budget deﬁcits that Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton was willing to run to provide federal services were replaced by Thomas Jefferson’s desire to run surpluses to reduce the total public debt. His (and James Madison’s) Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin, was able to produce surpluses in ten of fourteen years from 1801 to 1824, with the exceptions coming primarily during and after the War of 1812. Because Democrats were in power for most of the period prior to the Civil War, there were thirty-three years of budget surpluses from 1801 to 1850. Since the total public debt was essentially eliminated by 1835, but both the Democrats, and especially the Whigs, believed in high protective tariffs, revenue consistently outpaced spending. The answer of what to do with the excess funds came in the form of the Deposit Act of 1836, which required the federal government to distribute any surplus over $5 million to the states in proportion to their electoral votes (hence their population). That act was short-lived because of major economic downturns commencing with the Panic of 1837. That recessionary period resulted in deﬁcit spending during six of the next seven years. Surpluses returned by 1844 and were common until the military buildup prior to and during the Civil War. The war resulted in eight years of deﬁcits and an unimaginable increase in government spending and government debt. The latter rose from $64 million in 1860 to $2.8 billion in 1866. That debt was partly paid for by issuing war bonds, authorized by Lincoln’s hard-driving Secretary of the Treasury, Samuel Chase. Tariff revenue declined substantially during the war. Thus, to help ﬁnance the war effort and to begin paying off the debt, Congress passed the ﬁrst income tax in 1862, which remained in effect until its repeal in 1872. Because of the income tax, the nation was able to return to surpluses in 1866. The ﬁscally conservative na-

S U R R O G AT E M O T H E R H O O D

ture of the post–Civil War period, for both Republicans and Democrats, led to continuous surpluses from 1866 to 1894. As in the pre–Civil War period, surpluses eventually ended due to the nation’s economic woes, which in the 1890s were much worse than anything the country had experienced before. Because of the enormity of the debt built up during the Civil War, the total debt had only been reduced to $1 billion by 1894 from the $2.8 billion that existed in 1866. Spending in the 1890s on the Spanish American War and veterans pension legislation contributed to ﬁve straight years of deﬁcits at the end of the nineteenth century. A mixed pattern of deﬁcits and surpluses marked the period beginning in 1900 and ending in 1918 with U.S. entry into World War I. The war again produced a historic level of debt that was completely beyond anything previously imagined. It stood at $24 billion by 1921. However, the income tax had been reenacted in 1913 and was expanded dramatically during the war. By the end of the war it accounted for 56 percent of federal revenues. Using that tax engine, Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon was able to produce surpluses in every year he was in power, which included three presidential administrations from 1921 to 1932. As the surpluses were acquired, Mellon would subsequently support reduction in taxes, with income tax rate reduction the primary target. Because of the strength of the economy during this period, even as tax rates were reduced, more taxes were collected and more surpluses created. Those surpluses ended with the depression, and with the willingness of Franklin Roosevelt to use the federal government to help alleviate the nation’s suffering—and to run deﬁcits while doing so. Later during his thirteen years in ofﬁce Roosevelt embraced the philosophy of John Maynard Keynes, which lent academic endorsement to the concept of deﬁcit spending in times of recession. The combination of growing expenditures for New Deal programs; the philosophical acceptance of Keynesian deﬁcit spending; and wars in Europe, Korea, and Vietnam, along with a cold war with Russia, created a phenomenal period of growth in U.S. government, and with it an omnipresent budget deﬁcit. Beginning in the 1980s both the origin of deﬁcits and the drive for budget surpluses took on a new dimension. For the ﬁrst time in budget history, deﬁcits were an unintended consequence of a major peacetime tax reduction occurring in 1981. The inﬂuence of Keynesian macroeconomic theory had waned in policy circles and for a short period was replaced by a supply-side theory in which tax reductions were viewed as the major engine of capital formation, and therefore economic growth. Some of the empirical evidence supporting the supply-side theory included the results of the surplus-generating actions of the Mellon era in the 1920s. Supply-siders argued that cutting tax rates would ultimately increase tax collections. The debate over supply-side theory continues, but the shortterm effects are not subject to debate. Deﬁcits exploded,

reaching $290 billion in 1992. The political result was a consistent effort to return the nation to surpluses. That legislative goal dominated legislative and presidential politics from 1982 to 1997. Spending restraints were imposed and peacetime tax increases were enacted for the ﬁrst time since 1931. With government having achieved the goal of returning to surpluses by the 1998 ﬁscal year, politics seemed to be returning to a prior period, as political pressures supporting tax reductions (accomplished in early 2001) and pent-up spending demands crowded the political agenda. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Studenski, Paul, and Herman E. Krooss. Financial History of the United States. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1952. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970. New York: Basic Books, 1976. Witte, John. The Politics and Development of the Federal Income Tax. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985.

John Witte See also Debt, Public; Deposit Act of 1836; Supply-Side Economics; Taxation.

SURROGATE MOTHERHOOD is the process by which a woman bears a child for another couple, typically an infertile couple. There are two kinds of surrogate motherhood. In traditional surrogacy, the mother is artiﬁcially inseminated with sperm from the father or with sperm from a donor, if the father is infertile. In gestational surrogacy, sperm is taken from the father (or from a donor) and the egg is taken from the mother, fertilization happens in vitro, and the embryos are then implanted into the surrogate mother’s uterus. Thus, the surrogate mother is not genetically related to the child. For over one hundred years artiﬁcial insemination was used as a way of managing male infertility that kept the family intact and allowed children to be born to a married couple. Artiﬁcial insemination was generally kept secret. Couples did not tell friends, family, or the children themselves that donor sperm was used, thus maintaining the ﬁction of biological paternity. Though stories of surrogate motherhood, often with familial surrogates, date back two thousand years, in 1976 the lawyer Noel Keane arranged the ﬁrst formal agreement between a couple and a surrogate mother in the United States. The marketing of “surrogacy” developed as a solution to female infertility. Brokers entered the scene, hiring women to become pregnant via artiﬁcial insemination with the sperm of the husband of the infertile woman. In 1986 surrogacy came to national attention with the case of “Baby M.” In this case, the woman hired as a surrogate, Mary Beth Whitehead, later refused to relinquish the child. After a protracted court battle, in

SURROUNDED, THE

which Whitehead’s parental rights were stripped and then replaced, the hiring couple won custody of the baby, but Whitehead remained the legal mother with visitation rights. Since the 1980s, advances in technology have increased the use of gestational surrogacy. As it has become more common, there has been an increase in the number of Latin American, Asian American, and African American surrogates. The Center for Surrogate Parenting (CSP) estimates a cost of $56,525 for traditional surrogacy, in which artiﬁcial insemination is used, and a cost of $69,325 if another woman’s egg is used. Approximately $15,000 of these fees are paid to the surrogate herself for the time and sacriﬁce of the pregnancy. When surrogacy agreements ﬁrst surfaced in the mid-1970s, there was no payment for surrogate motherhood, and it tended to involve middle-class and blue-collar couples, with friends and sisters helping each other. Once payment became the norm, the demographic changed: “the majority of the couples remain largely upper-middle-class people, whereas the majority of the surrogates are working class women” (Ragone´, Surrogate Motherhood, p. 194). In 2002, most states had no speciﬁc laws regarding surrogate motherhood. While many states do not uphold surrogacy contracts, all states recognize birth certiﬁcates and adoption certiﬁcates from other states, making surrogate services available to anyone with the money to hire them. That surrogacy has become a business has not meant that contracting couples do not value the surrogate or that the surrogate does not care about the child or the couple. Very careful screening—approximately 95 percent of potential surrogates are rejected—ensures that situations similar to that of Mary Beth Whitehead do not happen. Surrogates are chosen for their commitment. In the only ethnographic study of surrogacy, Helena Ragone´ found that couples adopted one of two strategies in dealing with their surrogate. “Egalitarians” wanted to maintain a relationship with the surrogate mother and did not see her as a means to an end. Since in all of Ragone´’s cases the children were still quite young, it is difﬁcult to know how this would play out. “Pragmatists” simply dropped the relationship with the surrogate, taking the child as theirs, and considering the payment sufﬁcient acknowledgement of the role of the surrogate. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ragone´, Helena. Surrogate Motherhood: Conception in the Heart. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1994. Rothman, Barbara Katz. Recreating Motherhood: Ideology and Technology in a Patriarchal Society. New York, Norton, 1989.

See also Adoption; Childbirth and Reproduction; Children’s Bureau; Family; Foster Care.

SURROUNDED, THE a novel by the Native American author D’Arcy McNickle, was ﬁrst published in 1936 by Dodd, Mead of New York City and republished in 1978 by the University of New Mexico Press. The economically stressed nation of the 1930s may not have been as ready to consider the tragic losses of American Indian peoples as they would be in the 1970s, despite the reforms of John Collier, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s commissioner of Indian affairs, who crafted the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, and the rave review of Oliver LaFarge, Pulitzer Prize–winning novelist. The Surrounded depicts the many ways in which law constrained American Indians: laws that established the reservation system during the nineteenth century; the law of the Catholic Church missions that took as their task educating Salish and other traditional tribal people out of their “savagery,” and laws that prohibited the practice of Native religions. In the novel, the limitations imposed on the Salish-Spanish protagonist, Archilde, and his people lead to his demise after he becomes a fugitive in an effort to protect his mother from being prosecuted for killing a game warden. In his many professional roles—Bureau of Indian Affairs ofﬁcial, scholar, anthropologist, writer, and founder of national organizations—McNickle devoted his life to drawing attention to the ways in which tribal peoples were “surrounded.” BIBLIOGRAPHY

McNickle, D’Arcy. Native American Tribalism: Indian Survivals and Renewals. New York: Oxford University Press, 1973. Parker, Dorothy R. Singing an Indian Song: A Biography of D’Arcy McNickle. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1992. Purdy, John Lloyd. Word Ways: The Novels of D’Arcy McNickle. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1990.

Kathryn W. Shanley See also Indian Policy, U.S.: 1830–1900, 1900–2000; Indian Reorganization Act; Tribes: Great Plains.

SURVEY ACT of 1824, enacted by Congress twelve years after Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin’s “Report on Roads, Canals, Harbors, and Rivers” had generated interest in national internal improvements. The act authorized the president, with the aid of army engineers, to conduct surveys of such canal and turnpike routes as would serve an important national interest. Presidents Madison and Monroe had vetoed earlier efforts to appropriate money for such purposes, because each president thought an amendment to the Constitution was necessary to authorize federal expenditures for the construction of roads or canals. But the Supreme Court’s decision in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) regarding the scope of Congressional power over interstate commerce cleared the way for President Monroe to sign this bill. Congress repealed the act in 1838.

S U RV E Y I N G

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hill, Forest G. Roads, Rails and Waterways: The Army Engineers and Early Transportation. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1977. Larson, John L. “ ‘Bind the Republic Together’: The National Union and the Struggle for a System of Internal Improvements.” Journal of American History 74 (September 1987): 363–387. Malone, Laurence J. Opening the West: Federal Internal Improvements before 1860. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1998.

L. W. Newton / c. p. See also Canals; Engineers, Corps of; River and Harbor Improvements; Roads.

SURVEYING. Using little more than a compass and a 66-foot chain, early American surveyors set out early to chart the United States of America. Surveys determine boundaries, chart coastlines and navigable streams and lakes, and provide for mapping of land surfaces. Much of this work done in the early days of the United States used rudimentary, although not necessarily inefﬁcient, equipment. For instance, surveyors set a 2,000-mile line for the transcontinental railroad in the 1860s without the beneﬁt of maps, aerial views, or precise knowledge of topographical features. A century later, when surveyors set the line for Interstate 80 using everything their predecessors had not, the route followed the railroad’s route almost exactly. The primary tool used by surveyors in North America from the 1600s through the end of the 1800s was a

“Gunter’s chain,” measuring 66 feet long, usually with 100 swiveled links. A retractable steel tape to replace the chain was patented in 1860 by W. H. Paine of Sheboygan, Wisconsin. Surveyors relied on the compass to set the direction of their chain. Goldsmith Chandlee, a notable clock and instrument maker, built a brass foundry in Winchester, Virginia, in 1783 and made the most advanced surveying compasses of his day. The biggest breakthrough in surveying technology came in England in 1773, when Jesse Ramsden invented the circular dividing engine, which allowed the manufacture of precise scientiﬁc and mathematical instruments. The ﬁrst American to develop a capability for the mechanical graduation of instruments was William J. Young. Young built the ﬁrst American transit in Philadelphia in 1831, replacing the heavier, more inconvenient theodolite, which measures horizontal and vertical angles. The transit has a telescope that can be reversed in direction on a horizontal axis. The transit built by Young differs little from the transit used in the early twenty-ﬁrst century. The increased demand for accuracy in railroad construction, civil engineering, and city surveys led to the rapid acceptance of the transit. An inﬂux of tradesmen from the Germanic states in the 1830s and 1840s provided a means of manufacturing precision instruments in volume. To help with mathematical calculations, surveyors began experimenting with a number of nonelectric calculators, including Thacher’s Calculating Instrument, patented in 1881, which was the equivalent of a 360-inchlong slide rule precise to 1:10,000. Slide rules replaced

Makeshift Facilities. Photographers accompanying surveyors in the West had to process their ﬁlm in a tent (as shown here) or wagon. Library of Congress

S U RV E Y I N G

calculating instruments, calculators replaced slide rules, and computers have replaced calculators. America’s original thirteen colonies, as well as a few states such as Texas and Kentucky, were originally surveyed by metes and bounds, which is the process of describing boundaries by a measure of their length. On 7 May 1785, Congress adopted the Governmental Land Surveys, which provided for the “rectangular system,” which measured distances and bearing from two lines at right angles and established the system of principal meridians, which run north and south, and base lines, running east and west. Under the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, Ohio served as the experimental site for the new public lands surveying system. The lessons learned culminated in the Land Ordinance of 1796, which determined the surveying and numbering scheme used to survey all remaining U.S. public lands. The ﬁrst government-sanctioned survey was the Survey of the Coast, established in 1807 to mark the navigational hazards of the Atlantic Coast. Under Superintendent Ferdinand Hassler, the survey used crude techniques, including large theodolites, astronomical instruments, plane table topography, and lead line soundings to determine hydrography. Despite these techniques, the survey achieved remarkable accuracy.

By the time the Coast Survey was assigned to map Alaska’s coast, after Alaska was acquired in 1867, technological advancements had provided new kinds of bottom samplers, deep-sea thermometers, and depth lines. A new zenith telescope determined latitude with greater accuracy, and the telegraph provided a means of determining longitudinal differences by ﬂashing time signals between points. Inland, surveys were more informal. Often under sponsorship from the Army, explorers such as Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, Zebulon Pike, and Stephen H. Long went out on reconnaissance missions, gathering geographic, geologic, and military information. After the Civil War (1861–1865), westward migration created a need for detailed information about the trans-Mississippi West. Congress authorized four surveys named after their leaders: Clarence King, F. V. Hayden, John Wesley Powell, and George M. Wheeler. In addition to topography and geography, these surveys studied botany, paleontology, and ethnology. The U.S. Geological Survey was formed in 1879 and began mapping in the 1880s, relying on the chain-andcompass method of surveying. By the early 1900s, surveyors were working with plane tables equipped with telescopic alidades with vertical-angle arcs, allowing lines of survey to be plotted directly from the ﬁeld. Leveling in-

Surveying Camp. This 1912 photograph shows a noon camp of surveyors in the southwestern part of the Jornada Range Reserve, New Mexico. National Archives and Records Administration

S WA RT H M O R E C O L L E G E

struments have been used since 1896 to set permanent elevation benchmarks. Aerial photography came into use as a survey tool following World War I (1914–1918), and photogrammetry was widely used by the 1930s. Today, satellites enable surveyors to use tools as sophisticated as the global positioning system (GPS), which can eliminate the need for a line-of-sight survey. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cazier, Lola. Surveys and Surveyors of the Public Domain, 1785– 1975. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1993. Thompson, Morris M. Maps for America: Cartographic Products of the U.S. Geological Survey and Others. Reston, Va.: U.S. Government Printing Ofﬁce, 1979. “Virtual Museum of Surveying.” Ingram-Hagen & Co.; updated June 2002. Available at http://www.surveyhistory.org

T. L. Livermore See also Geography; Geological Survey, U.S.; Geological Surveys, State; Geology; Geophysical Explorations.

SUSQUEHANNA COMPANY. See Wyoming Valley, Settlement of.

SUSSEX CASE. On 24 March 1916, a German submarine attacked the English Channel steamer Sussex. The United States, regarding this action as a violation of the pledge given by the German government in the 1915 Arabic case, responded that unless Germany stopped using submarines against passenger and freight vessels, it would sever diplomatic relations. The German government gave the necessary assurances, but with the qualiﬁcation that the United States should require Great Britain to abandon the blockade of Germany. The United States refused to accept the German qualiﬁcation. Consequently, when Germany renewed submarine warfare on 1 February 1917, the United States severed relations. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Safford, Jeffrey J. Wilsonian Maritime Diplomacy, 1913–1921. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1978. Terraine, John. The U-boat Wars, 1916–1945. New York: Putnam, 1989.

Bernadotte E. Schmitt / a. e.

Sutter’s Fort. This 1847 wood engraving shows how it looked a short time before the gold rush ruined Sutter and doomed the fort. Library of Congress

surrounded by a high wall with bastions on opposite corners to guard against attack. Built around the interior of the wall were the workshops and stores that produced all goods necessary for New Helvetia to function as a selfsupporting community. Sutter’s Fort housed a kitchen, able to serve up to two hundred workers and visitors a day; carpenter and blacksmith shops; a bakery and blanket factory; a general store and jail; and rooms that Sutter provided free to the region’s new immigrants. Sutter’s Fort is most often associated with James Marshall’s discovery of gold in 1849, but the ensuing gold rush resulted in the destruction of the fort and its resources by miners and fortune hunters, and in the ﬁnancial ruin of John Sutter. Sutter left New Helvetia in 1850, and Sutter’s Fort fell into disrepair. When restoration efforts began in 1890, the central building was all that remained. The fort has been reconstructed and restored and is now maintained and administered as a California State Park. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Gudde, Erwin G. Sutter’s Own Story: The Life of General John Augustus Sutter and the History of New Helvetia in the Sacramento Valley. New York: Putnam, 1992. The original edition was published in 1936. Lewis, Oscar. Sutter’s Fort: Gateway to the Gold Fields. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1966. Payen, Louis A. Excavations at Sutter’s Fort, 1960. Sacramento: State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, Division of Beaches and Parks, Interpretive Services, 1961. Facsimile reprint, Salinas, Calif.: Coyote Press, n.d.

Brenda Jackson See also Gold Rush, California.

See also Great Britain, Relations with; Lusitania, Sinking of the; World War I; World War I, Navy in.

SUTTER’S FORT. In 1841 John Sutter (1803–1880) established a fort in California’s Sacramento Valley as the trade and commercial center of his New Helvetia colony. It contained a central building constructed of adobe bricks,

SWARTHMORE COLLEGE, chartered by the state of Pennsylvania in 1864, was founded by the Hicksite Quakers, who split from the orthodox branch of the Society of Friends in 1827. The name derived from Swarthmoor Hall, the home of George Fox, the English founder of Quakerism. Swarthmore’s governors were required to

S W E AT S H O P

be Quakers until the college became nominally nonsectarian soon after 1900, although the Quaker inﬂuence continued. The college was coeducational from the start. Its ﬁrst graduating class in 1873 consisted of one man and ﬁve women. Early Swarthmore was shaped by a struggle between liberals, who wanted an urban location, moderate social rules, and a quality collegiate education; and traditionalists, who envisioned a rural institution, a “guarded” education to preserve Quaker traditions, and preparatory work for students not ready for college. The choice of a semirural location eleven miles southwest of Philadelphia was the ﬁrst of several compromises, but tensions continued. The eighteen-year administration of the traditionalist Edward Magill, who replaced Edward Parrish as president in 1871, was marked by debates over social rules, teacher training, and precollege work. By 1890 rules were relaxed and the departments of teacher training and preparatory work were eliminated. The curriculum, already strong in science and engineering, was enriched by the expansion of electives and the creation of endowed professorships. During the presidency of Joseph Swain, from 1902 to 1921, Swarthmore joined the collegiate mainstream, boasting nationally competitive sports teams and an array of extracurricular activities. An honors system developed by President Frank Aydelotte between 1920 and 1940 featured seminars modeled on Oxford tutorials and earned Swarthmore a national reputation for academic excellence. The turmoil of the 1960s, the proliferation of new academic ﬁelds, expanded overseas study, and increased work in the performing arts brought change to the honors program but did not alter Swarthmore’s position among the nation’s top liberal arts colleges. Swarthmore grew steadily, supported by private donations and gifts from educational foundations. When its main building, later called Parrish, was rebuilt after a disastrous ﬁre in 1881, students named the college newspaper the Phoenix to celebrate the rise of the college from the ashes. Between 1920 and 2001 an endowment of $3 million increased to $1 billion, and a student body of 500 grew to more than 1,400. In 2001 approximately one of three undergraduates was a person of color, while another 7 percent represented more than forty other countries. At the beginning of the twenty-ﬁrst century the college’s seventeen thousand living alumni included three Nobel Prize winners plus many leading scientists, academics, professionals, and social activists.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Clark, Burton R. The Distinctive College: Antioch, Reed, and Swarthmore. Chicago: Aldine, 1970. Leslie, W. Bruce. Gentlemen and Scholars: College and Community in the “Age of the University,” 1865–1917. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992.

Walton, Richard J. Swarthmore College: An Informal History. Swarthmore, Pa.: Swarthmore College, 1986.

Robert C. Bannister See also Education, Higher: Colleges and Universities.

SWEATSHOP refers to both a workplace and a labor system. Sweated work is undesirable, unhealthy, and undemocratic. Sweated labor is characterized by harsh conditions, long hours, very low wages, job insecurity, and often takes place in illegal and temporary workplaces. Sweatshops are often small, temporary garment “shops.” Historically, however, sweated workers have often toiled in their own homes, in a system called homework and frequently involving child labor. Sweated industries tend to be those with intense competition and often seasonal production, requiring little capital outlay, almost no technological innovation, and a constant supply of cheap, unskilled labor. It is an extreme example of what economists call “ﬂexible specialized production.” The three key elements are the avoidance of ﬁxed costs, a ﬁxed labor force, and ﬁxed rules. By being ﬂexible, producers can adjust supply to demand quickly, cutting the risk of long-term investment. They can expand to meet new demand and retract during downturns. Producers avoid union rules and legal regulations and restrictions that set wages, beneﬁts, and conditions by working in hidden shops and moving frequently. Sweated labor systems transfer or shift the social responsibility of production elsewhere, namely onto society. They create a secondary labor market, which often involves the most vulnerable of workers: immigrants (often illegal), young women, and the undereducated. Sweatshop labor systems are most often associated with garment and cigar manufacturing of the period 1880–1920. Sweated labor can also be seen in laundry work, green grocers, and most recently in the “day laborers,” often legal or illegal immigrants, who landscape suburban lawns. Sweatshops became visible through the public exposure given to them by reformers in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in both England and the United States. In 1889–1890, an investigation by the House of Lords Select Committee on the Sweating System brought attention in Britain. In the United States the ﬁrst public investigations came as a result of efforts to curb tobacco homework, which led to the outlawing of the production of cigars in living quarters in New York State in 1884. In an effort to eliminate these inhumane conditions, reformers focused on three principle areas: support of labor unions, a more active state that better regulated the economy, and an informed consumer (the national consumers’ movement). Until the late twentieth century, it was assumed that the federal minimum wage and maximum hours legisla-

SWEDENBORGIAN CHURCHES

Sweatshop. Puerto Rican garment workers operate sewing machines in New York City. Arte Publico Press

tion of 1938, part of larger New Deal social and economic reforms, had curtailed sweatshops in the United States. Unfortunately, America rediscovered its sweatshops. In August 1995, federal agencies raided a compound of several apartments in El Monte, California. These residences functioned as a large-scale sweatshop. There, seventy-two illegal Thai immigrants lived and worked in inhumane conditions, sewing sixteen hours a day on garments for several nationally prominent retailers. Discoveries of additional sweatshops led reformers, unionists, and student activists to revive the antisweatshop movement through organizations such as the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees (UNITE) and Students Against Sweatshops. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boris, Eileen. Home to Work: Motherhood and the Politics of Industrial Homework in the United States. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Green, Nancy L. Ready-to-Wear and Ready-to-Work. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1997. Ross, Andrew, ed. No Sweat: Fashion, Free Trade, and the Rights of Garment Workers. New York: Verso, 1997.

Storrs, Landon R. Y. Civilizing Capitalism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000.

Richard A. Greenwald See also Business, Regulation of; Homework; Piecework; Wages and Hours of Labor, Regulation of.

SWEDENBORGIAN CHURCHES, or the Churches of the New Jerusalem, follow the teachings of Emanuel Swedenborg, an eighteenth-century Swedish scientist and theologian. At the end of a distinguished scientiﬁc career, Swedenborg began experiencing an ability to converse with spirits and angels and turned his attention to the relation between the spiritual and material worlds. His theological beliefs included a spiritual and allegorical method of interpreting scripture, a belief that his own spiritual revelations took part in the ongoing second coming of Christ, and an understanding of the afterlife as a continuation of each individual’s freely chosen spiritual path. Swedenborg denied the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity along with original sin, vicarious atonement, and bodily resurrection. In 1783, followers of Swedenborg began meeting in London, where Swedenborg’s

S W I F T V. T Y S O N

books had been published. After reading Swedenborg’s Heaven and Hell on his voyage to Philadelphia, James Glen, a planter, introduced Swedenborg to the New World with a series of lectures in 1784. Swedenborg’s ideas then spread to Boston and New York and through the missionary work of the tree-planter and Swedenborgian “Johnny Appleseed” ( John Chapman), to parts of the Middle West. By 1817, when the General Convention of the Church of the New Jerusalem was established, the church had about 360 members in nine states. Membership grew quickly after 1850, reaching its peak of about 10,000 in 1899. During this time period, Swedenborgian thought appealed to many American intellectuals, including transcendentalists Ralph Waldo Emerson and Bronson Alcott, members of Owenite and Fourierist utopian communities, and spiritualists. The small size of the church belied its sizable cultural inﬂuence, since many prominent devotees of Swedenborg, including Henry James Sr., did not join the church. In 1890, as a result of a disagreement concerning the divine authority of Swedenborg’s writings, the General Church of the New Jerusalem broke away from the General Convention. In 1999, the General Church had about 5,600 members, and the General Convention had about 2,600 members. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Block, Marguerite Beck. The New Church in the New World: A Study of Swedenborgianism in America. New York: Henry Holt, 1932. Meyers, Mary Ann. A New World Jerusalem: The Swedenborgian Experience in Community Construction. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1983.

Molly Oshatz

SWIFT V. TYSON, 41 U.S. (16 Peters.) 1 (1842). This Supreme Court decision interpreted the Judiciary Act of 1789’s requirement that the federal courts follow the “laws” of the states. Justice Story, for the unanimous Court, held that judicial decisions regarding matters of general commercial jurisprudence were not “laws,” but only “evidence of law,” and were not binding under the 1789 act. Thus, where no statutes addressed the issue, a federal court sitting in New York could ignore the decisions of New York courts and rule in accordance with those of other states. Swift was reversed by Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938). BIBLIOGRAPHY

Freyer, Tony Allan. Harmony and Dissonance: The Swift and Erie Cases in American Federalism. New York: New York University Press, 1981.

Stephen B. Presser

SWIMMING. The origins of swimming are lost in the murk of prehistory, but humans probably developed the

skill after watching animals “dog paddle.” Swimmers appear in artwork on Egyptian tombs, in Assyrian stone carvings, in Hittite and Minoan drawings, and in Toltec murals. Ancient gladiators swam while training, and Plato believed that a man who could not swim was uneducated. Contemporaries reported that both Julius Caesar and Charlemagne were strong swimmers. The ﬁrst swimming races of which there is a record were held in Japan in 36 b.c., but England was the ﬁrst modern society to develop swimming as a competitive sport. In the nineteenth century, the British competed in the breaststroke and the sidestroke, both modiﬁcations of the “dog paddle.” They were generally more interested in endurance than speed, and viewed swimming the English Channel as the supreme test. While Europeans employed the breaststroke and sidestroke, natives of the Americas, West Africa, and some Paciﬁc Islands used variations of the crawl. Europeans got their ﬁrst glimpse of this new stroke in 1844, when a group of American Indians was invited to London to compete. Flying Gull bested Tobacco by swimming 130 feet in an unheard-of 30 seconds. One observer noted that the Indians “thrashed the water violently” and compared their arm action to the “sails of a windmill.” The British were impressed with the natives’ speed, but they considered their style uncivilized. The overhand stroke was ﬁnally introduced to Britain in the 1870s by J. Arthur Trudgen, who noticed indigenous people using the technique during a trip to South America. Upon his return, he began teaching this approach to others. As British swimmers began combining the Trudgen overhand with the breaststroke frog kick, the focus of competition began to shift from distance to speed. Trudgen had failed to notice the natives’ use of the ﬂutter kick, but this was not lost on another British swimmer, Frederick Cavill. In 1878, Cavill immigrated to Australia, where he taught swimming and built pools. During a trip to the Solomon Islands near the turn of the century, Cavill closely watched Paciﬁc Islanders swimming. Noting the way they combined the overhand stroke with kicking action, he taught this new method to his six sons and other British e´migre´s. His sons, in turn, carried the “Australian crawl” back to England and the United States. The American swimmer Charles Daniels improved on the “Australian crawl” by timing his kick to his armstroke. Using the “American crawl,” Daniels won the United States’s ﬁrst Olympic gold medal in 1904. Although the Greeks did not include swimming in the ancient Olympics, a freestyle competition was part of the ﬁrst modern games held in 1896. (Freestyle meant that any stroke was allowed.) In 1900, the backstroke was added, as well as three unusual swimming events: an obstacle course, a test of underwater swimming, and a 4,000meter event. Only the backstroke competition was retained. By 1904, the crawl was becoming the dominant

SWIMMING

The early twentieth century also saw a boom in leisure swimming. Americans had been going to the beach for seaside recreation ever since railroads made public beaches more accessible in the late nineteenth century. The ﬁrst municipal pool in the United States was built in Brookline, Massachusetts, in 1887, and by the 1920s many cities and some wealthy homeowners had installed pools. Leisure swimming had health as well as social beneﬁts; President Franklin D. Roosevelt swam regularly to strengthen legs weakened by paralysis, while President John F. Kennedy swam to strengthen his back muscles.

Swimsuit Scandal. Several women talk with a police ofﬁcer after disobeying a prohibition on what many people regarded as skimpy bathing suits in Chicago, 1922. 䉷 UPI/corbisBettmann

freestyle stroke, so the breaststroke was made a separate event. The ﬁrst American swimmer to achieve national fame was Duke Kahanamoku, a native Hawaiian who won three gold medals and two silvers in the 1912, 1920, and 1924 Olympics. Kahanamoku used six ﬂutter kicks for each cycle of his arms, a technique that is now considered the classic freestyle form. In 1924, the twenty-year-old Johnny Weissmuller beat Kahanamoku, achieving international celebrity. In a decade of racing, Weissmuller set twenty-four world swimming records, won ﬁve Olympic gold medals, and never lost a race of between 50 yards and a half-mile. Weissmuller achieved even greater fame, however, when he went on to Hollywood to play Tarzan on the silver screen. Women were excluded from Olympic swimming until 1912 because they were considered too frail to engage in competitive sports. In the 1910s, however, the newly formed Women’s Swimming Association of New York gave women an opportunity to train for competition. Gertrude Ederle, the daughter of a delicatessen owner, began setting world records in distances of between 100 and 800 meters. Wanting to win fame for her swimming club, in 1926 she became the ﬁrst woman to swim the English Channel. The nineteen-year-old’s time of 14 hours and 31 minutes broke the existing men’s record, and Ederle returned home to a ticker-tape parade. The ﬁrst American woman to win an Olympic swimming title was Ethelda Bleibtrey, who captured three gold medals in 1920.

Beginning in the 1930s, women’s swimsuits became increasingly streamlined and revealing. (Fabric rationing during World War II [1939–1945] led to the introduction of the two-piece bathing suit, and the “bikini”—named for a U.S. nuclear testing site in the South Paciﬁc—debuted in 1946.) Pin-up girls and starlets appeared in bathing attire, and in 1944 swimming champion Esther Williams made a splash in the ﬁlm Bathing Beauty. Williams’s appearance in a string of Hollywood swimming movies in the 1940s and 1950s helped popularize synchronized swimming. Hollywood was not alone in turning a camera on swimmers. In 1934, Iowa University coach Dave Armbruster ﬁrst ﬁlmed swimmers in order to study their strokes. To speed his breaststrokers, Armbruster developed a double overarm recovery known as the “butterﬂy.” An Iowa swimmer, Jack Seig, paired this with a “dolphin kick,” in which his body undulated from the hips to the toes. The butterﬂy was so exhausting that it was initially considered a novelty, but swimmers using the overhand stroke began dominating breaststroke races. In 1953, the butterﬂy was ﬁnally recognized as a separate competitive stroke. The ﬁnal years of the twentieth century were golden for American swimmers. Mark Spitz, a butterﬂy and freestyle racer, garnered seven gold medals and seven world records in the 1972 Munich Olympics, the most ever in a single Olympiad. In 1992, freestyler Matt Biondi matched Spitz’s career record of 11 Olympic medals (The only other Olympian to win 11 medals was shooter Carl Osburn). In the 1980s, Tracy Caulkins became the only American swimmer ever to hold U.S. records in every stroke; she won three gold medals at the Olympics in 1984. Competing in the 1992, 1996, and 2000 Games, Jenny Thompson won ten butterﬂy and freestyle medals, including eight golds, the most ever captured by a woman. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Gonsalves, Kamm, Herbert, ed. The Junior Illustrated Encyclopedia of Sports. Indianapolis, Ind.: Bobbs-Merrill, 1970. USA Swimming Ofﬁcial Web site. Home page at http://www .usa-swimming.org. Yee, Min S., ed. The Sports Book: An Unabashed Assemblage of Heroes, Strategies, Records, and Events. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1975.

Wendy Wall

S Y M B I O N E S E L I B E R AT I O N A R M Y

SYMBIONESE LIBERATION ARMY, a violent revolutionary group that espoused vaguely Marxist doctrines and operated in California from 1973 to 1975, undertaking a highly publicized campaign of domestic terrorism. Their 1973 assassination of the Oakland superintendent of schools, Marcus Foster, brought them to national attention. They became even more notorious the following year when they kidnapped Patricia Hearst, a wealthy newspaper heiress. In a bizarre twist, Hearst joined her captors and became an active revolutionary. A shootout with the Los Angeles police in May 1974 left six of the radicals dead, but they continued to operate throughout 1975. Subsequently, the group dissolved, as its members ended up dead, captured, or in hiding. In 1999 the SLA was once again in the headlines with the arrest of Kathleen Soliah, one of its fugitive members. She ultimately pleaded guilty to charges of aiding and abetting a plot to plant bombs in police vehicles. As of 2002, she and three other former SLA members were facing murder charges stemming from a 1975 bank robbery. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bryan, John. This Soldier Still at War. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975.

Patricia Hearst, Revolutionary. Before becoming the unlikely poster girl for the short-lived Symbionese Liberation Army, she was an heiress kidnapped by the group in 1974. AP/Wide World Photos

Hearst, Patricia. Every Secret Thing. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1982.

Daniel J. Johnson See also Kidnapping; Terrorism.

SYMPHONY ORCHESTRAS. While Americans have enjoyed music making since their earliest days, colonial cities at ﬁrst had insufﬁcient size and disposable income to support orchestras. By the 1750s, however, Boston, Philadelphia, and Charleston had orchestras. In the early national period, music making assumed roles that involved more than mere entertainment. In Lexington, Kentucky, for example, an orchestra was developed as a means of competing with rival city Louisville in the hope that stronger levels of culture would attract entrepreneurs and trade. In Boston, the Handel and Haydn Society was founded in 1815. It maintained regular concerts and quickly became a center for the city’s culture. This was the ﬁrst music organization prominently to conceive and use its inﬂuence in explicitly conservative ways: to maintain established traditions and to discourage what were seen as corrupting “modern” trends. German immigrants in the 1840s and 1850s sparked the formation of orchestras and festivals in many cities. In 1842, the New York Philharmonic Society was established. In 1878, a second orchestra, the New York Symphony, emerged. The two were rivals until they merged in 1928, although the New York music public had shown it could support two full orchestras. While there was a highbrowlowbrow dichotomy in nineteenth-century America, the popularity of symphony orchestras, and opera as well, touched many beyond the wealthy classes, especially among immigrant groups, including German and Italian Americans. Grand orchestra concerts were a rage in midnineteenth-century America. While the proceeds were good and the mainstream public was satisﬁed, some critics and serious music lovers noted the often middling (or worse) quality of the music making. In an age when corporations were eclipsing many older means of providing goods and services, the organization of the American symphony orchestra began to evolve from individual entrepreneurialism toward corporate forms. An example is the Boston Symphony, founded in 1881. The investment banker Henry L. Higginson, an ardent music lover, was impatient with the ragtag nature and substandard performances of American musical organizations. Higginson used his considerable ﬁnancial power to hire the best conductors and musicians and bind them to contracts that restricted their outside activities and demanded regular rehearsals; he simply paid everyone enough to make the arrangement irresistible. While Higginson’s corporate order restricted musicians’ freedom, musically it worked wonders. Other cities followed suit, and the United States witnessed the establishment of many of its major orchestras in the generations after Higginson founded the Boston Symphony.

SYNDICALISM

World War I interrupted not the quality but the character of American symphony orchestras. Before 1917, Austro-German traditions had utterly dominated the repertoire of orchestras. Also, conductors and personnel were largely German. The war changed this. Repertoire turned to French, Russian, and American composers, and while Austro-German music quickly reemerged in programming, it never again reached its position of prewar dominance. More starkly, personnel shifted markedly. Some German orchestra members returned home and never came back. War hysteria pressured several conductors. Frederick Stock of the Chicago Symphony had to resign his post for the war’s duration. Two conductors— Ernst Kunewald of Cincinnati and Karl Muck of Boston—were investigated by the Justice Department and arrested under suspicion of subversion and spying. Both spent the war in an internment camp and were subsequently compelled to accept deportation. Despite personnel shifts during the war, the quality of music making never ﬂagged. Orchestras’ popularity continued to grow, and in the 1920s many—especially the Boston Symphony of Serge Koussevitsky—began to champion works by American composers. This put the symphony orchestras more to the center of the major aesthetic issues among modern American artists, critics, and audiences. The heat of the debates here, combined with the increasing presence of music making among the general population with the proliferation of records and radio, made the symphony orchestras of the nation a central part of the country’s cultural life in the 1920s and 1930s. Radio was especially important in maintaining this presence during the depression, when many smaller orchestras folded. The New Deal Works Progress Administration’s music project helped too, as it sponsored many touring symphony orchestras and presented public concerts for minimal prices. Most famously, in 1937, the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) also began live radio concerts. Not content with the best orchestras in New York City or anywhere else, NBC president Robert Sarnoff hired conductor Arturo Toscanini to put together a hand-picked orchestra. The NBC orchestra concerts became a Sunday afternoon mainstay for millions of households. Many still think it was the greatest orchestra ever assembled. Walt Disney added further to the symphony’s visibility in the cultural life of the nation when he hired Leopold Stokowski and the Philadelphia Orchestra for the animated movie Fantasia (1940). After World War II, orchestras continued to ﬂourish, especially with the breakdown of barriers that had prevented Jews, African Americans, and women from playing in signiﬁcant numbers. The orchestra became a perfect neutral ground for the rise of anyone with musical talent. Indeed, to prevent bias, conductors often auditioned people from behind screens. Progress took some time, but talent won in the end. Just as radio had boosted the musical presence of the symphony among virtually all levels of the American mu-

sic public, television would do much the same in the 1950s and 1960s. Here the Columbia Broadcasting System’s production of Leonard Bernstein’s innovative Young People’s Concerts with the New York Philharmonic were pivotal in introducing new generations to the symphony. Still, it was with the television generation and with the general economic prosperity of the era that Americans began gravitating steadily toward genres of music other than the symphonic. Alternative musical forms and other entertainment in general had always been available, but a signiﬁcant line seemed to be crossed in the 1970s, as in most cities the weekend symphony concert seemed less and less to be a central event as it had once been in various communities’ cultural lives. In this regard, the life of the American symphony orchestra closed the last quarter of the twentieth century on less sure footing than it had been. The cities with the greatest symphonic traditions, like Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland, and Chicago, never felt signiﬁcantly imperiled, although even they occasionally experienced labor strife and ﬁnancial pinches. The orchestras of other cities became more seriously troubled, and in the early twenty-ﬁrst century the fate of the symphony orchestra as a mainstay in the cultural life of most American cities has ceased to be the certainty it once was. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arian, Edward. Bach, Beethoven, and Bureaucracy: The Case of the Philadelphia Orchestra. University: University of Alabama Press, 1971. Johnson, H. Earle. Symphony Hall, Boston. New York: DaCapo Press, 1979. Kupferberg, Herbert. Those Fabulous Philadelphians: The Life and Times of a Great Orchestra. New York: Scribners, 1969. Mueller, John Henry. The American Symphony Orchestra: A Social History of Musical Taste. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1951. Mussulman, Joseph A. Music in the Cultured Generation: A Social History of Music in America, 1870–1900. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 1971. Otis, Philo Adams. The Chicago Symphony Orchestra: Its Organization, Growth, and Development, 1891–1924. Freeport, N.Y.: Books for Libraries Press, 1972. Swoboda, Henry, comp. The American Symphony Orchestra. New York: Basic Books, 1967.

Alan Levy See also Music Festivals; Music Industry; Music: Classical, Early American.

SYNDICALISM, or revolutionary industrial unionism, originated in France but has been identiﬁed in the United States with the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), founded in 1905. The IWW sought strong, centralized unions, while French syndicalists preferred smaller unions. Both opposed action through existing governments.

SYNDICALISM

Syndicalists sought to establish a producers’ cooperative commonwealth, with socially owned industries managed and operated by syndicats, or labor unions. Emphasizing class struggle, they advocated direct action through sabotage and general strikes. Opponents, criticizing the movement for militant actions, opposing political government, and condoning violence, secured antisyndicalist laws in several states. The syndicalist movement waned after World War I when many former adherents joined Communist, Trotskyite, or other Socialist groups.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kimeldorf, Howard. Battling for American Labor: Wobblies, Craft Workers, and the Making of the Union Movement. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999.

Gordon S. Watkins / c. w. See also Communist Party, United States of America; Industrial Workers of the World; Labor.

T TABERNACLE, MORMON. This unique Salt Lake City auditorium, built by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints between 1864 and 1867 at a cost of about $300,000, was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1970 and a National Civil Engineering Landmark in 1971. Its interior is 150 feet wide, 250 feet long, and 80 feet high, and accommodates nearly 8,000 people. The Tabernacle’s most distinctive feature is a nine-foot-thick tortoise-like roof, designed by a bridge-builder and constructed without nails. A network of lattice arches, resting on buttresses in the outside walls but with no interior support, forms this remarkable dome. Timbers were fastened together with wooden dowels. Split timbers were bound with rawhide that, as it dried, contracted and held them tight.

supervise the adjustment of the Philippine Islands’ government from military command to civil rule. The ﬁvemember commission assumed legislative authority on 1 September 1900, less than two years after Spain ceded the Philippines to the United States following the SpanishAmerican War of 1898. On 4 July 1901, William Howard Taft, president of the commission, became the Philippines’ ﬁrst civilian governor.

The tabernacle is notable also for its outstanding acoustics and its famous organ, which by the early twentyﬁrst century contained over 11,600 pipes. In 1994 the Organ Historical Society cited it as “an instrument of exceptional merit, worthy of preservation.”

On 1 September 1901, three Filipinos were appointed to the Taft Commission, and each American member became an executive department head. However, unstable economic conditions became a catalyst for the creation of a Filipino resistance movement dedicated to achieving immediate independence. To quell growing opposition, the United States promulgated a Sedition Law on 4 November 1901, making the advocacy of independence punishable by death or long imprisonment.

The ﬁrst meeting in the Tabernacle was a general conference of the church in 1867. These semiannual gatherings were held there until 1999, after which they were transferred to the new and more spacious conference center. In the early twenty-ﬁrst century the building continued to be used for organ recitals, concerts, religious services, and various public functions. As the home of the renowned Mormon Tabernacle Choir, it also hosted regular Sunday broadcasts over the CBS radio and television networks. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, Paul L. “Tabernacle, Salt Lake City.” In Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Edited by Daniel H. Ludlow et al. New York: Macmillan, 1992. Grow, Stewart L. A Tabernacle in the Desert. Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1958.

The commission deﬁned its mission as preparing the Filipinos for eventual independence, and focused on economic development, public education, and the establishment of representative institutions. The commission went on to establish a judicial system, organize administrative services, and create a legal code that included laws regarding health, education, agriculture, and taxation.

In July 1902, a legislature was established that included a popularly elected Lower House and the Taft Commission, which was also known as the Second Philippine Commission. Five years later, the reorganization went into effect and elections for the assembly took place, but franchise was limited to owners of substantial property who were also literate in English or Spanish. After considerable Filipino lobbying and the capture of resistance leader Emilio Aguinaldo, the TydingsMcDufﬁe Act was passed. It provided for a ten-year period of “Commonwealth” status, beginning in 1935. On 4 July 1946, the United States granted the Philippines complete independence.

James B. Allen James T. Scott See also Latter-day Saints, Church of Jesus Christ of.

TAFT COMMISSION. President William McKinley appointed the Taft Commission on 16 March 1900 to

TAFT-HARTLEY ACT (1947). Passed by Congress over the veto of President Harry Truman, the TaftHartley Act enacted a number of signiﬁcant amendments

T A F T- H A RT L E Y A C T

to the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. The 1935 law, known as the Wagner Act, may have been the most radical legislation of the twentieth century, recognizing and giving federal protection to workers’ rights to organize, to form unions, to engage in strikes and other “concerted activities,” including picketing, and to bargain collectively with their employers. The Wagner Act overturned a vast body of older, judge-made laws, which had enshrined, as a right of private property, employers’ freedom to refuse to deal with unions or union workers. Now, the Wagner Act required them to bargain collectively with employees, and it forbade them to interfere with workers’ new statutory rights. No longer could employers punish or ﬁre pro-union employees or avoid independent unions by creating company-dominated unions; and no longer could they refuse to bargain in good faith with the unions that workers chose to represent them. What was more, the 1935 legislation created a new federal agency, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), to supervise union elections and bring “unfair labor practices” charges against employers who violated the Act. The enforcement tools at the Board’s disposal were never formidable; nonetheless, the spectacle of federal support behind vigorous industrial union drives both emboldened workers and enraged much of the business community and its supporters in Congress. During the dozen years since Congress passed the Wagner Act, the labor movement had quintupled in size, reaching roughly 15 million members, or 32 percent of the nonfarm labor force. A substantial majority of the workforce of such key industries as coal mining, railroads, and construction belonged to unions. Thus, by 1947 organized labor had become “Big Labor” and a mighty power in the public eye, and the complaints of business that the National Labor Relations Act was a one-sided piece of legislation began to resonate. The Act safeguarded workers’ rights and enshrined collective bargaining but provided no protection for employers or individual employees against the abuses or wrongdoing of unions. Changes after World War II The end of World War II (1939–1945) saw a massive strike wave, which helped turn public opinion against “Big Labor.” Thus, when the Republicans won both houses of Congress in the 1946 elections, new federal labor legislation was almost inevitable. Indeed, in the decade preceding 1946, well over 200 major bills setting out to amend the Wagner Act had been introduced in Congress. These bills had rehearsed the main themes of the complex and lengthy Taft-Hartley Act. The gist of TaftHartley, according to its proponents, was to right the balance of power between unions and employers. The Wagner Act, they claimed, was tilted toward unions; TaftHartley would protect employers and individual workers. For the latter, the new law contained provisions forbidding the closed shop and permitting states to outlaw any kind of union security clauses in collective agreements.

Already, several states, led by Florida and Arkansas, had adopted so-called right-to-work measures, outlawing any form of union security—not only the closed shop, but also contract provisions that required workers who declined to join the union to pay their share of expenses for bargaining and processing grievances. By sanctioning rightto-work statutes, Taft-Hartley did not injure “Big Labor” in the industrial heartland, so much as help thwart union advance in traditionally anti-union regions like the South and the prairie states. The Taft-Hartley Act Brings Changes For employers, the Act created a list of union “unfair labor practices,” where previously the Wagner Act had condemned only employer practices. Taft-Hartley also greatly expanded the ability of both employers and the Board to seek injunctions against unions, thus undermining some of the protections against “government by injunction” that labor had won in the 1932 Norris-LaGuardia Act. It gave employers the express right to wage campaigns against unions during the period when workers were deciding and voting on whether to afﬁliate with a union. Previous Board policy generally had treated these processes as ones in which workers ought to be free to deliberate and decide free from employer interference. The new law also banned secondary boycotts and strikes stemming from jurisdictional disputes among unions. These provisions chieﬂy affected the older craft unions of the American Federation of Labor, whose power often rested on the capacity for secondary and sympathetic actions on the part of fellow union workers outside the immediate “unfair” workplace. By contrast, Taft-Hartley’s anticommunist afﬁdavit requirement, like its sanction for right-to-work laws, fell most heavily on the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO). The statute required that all union ofﬁcials seeking access to NLRB facilities and services sign an afﬁdavit stating that they were not communists. The requirement rankled because it implied that unionists were uniquely suspect. The law did not require employers or their agents to swear loyalty, but it did demand that the representatives of American workers go through a demeaning ritual designed to impugn their patriotism or they would be unable to petition the Board for a representation election or to bring unfair labor practice cases before it. Finally, the Act changed the administrative structure and procedures of the NLRB, reﬂecting congressional conservatives’ hostility toward the nation’s new administrative agencies, exercising state power in ways that departed from common-law norms and courtlike procedures. Thus, the Act required that the Board’s decision making follow legal rules of evidence, and it took the Board’s legal arm, its general counsel, out of the Board’s jurisdiction and established it as a separate entity. The CIO’s general counsel, for his part, warned that by establishing a list of unfair union practices and by imposing on the NLRB courtlike fact-ﬁnding, the new law

TAILHOOK INCIDENT

would plunge labor relations into a morass of legalistic proceedings. Already under the Wagner Act, employers had found that unfair labor practice cases stemming from discrimination against union activists, ﬁrings of unionminded workers, and the like could all be strung out for years in the nation’s appellate courts, rendering the Act’s forthright endorsement of unionization a hollow one.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Since the late 1930s the NLRB itself had been retreating from its initially enthusiastic promotion of industrial unionism. Now, with Taft-Hartley, the Board or the independent legal counsel, who might be at odds with the Board, would have even more reason to maintain a studied “neutrality” toward union drives and collective versus individual employment relations, in place of Wagner’s clear mandate in behalf of unionism. The great irony, the CIO counsel went on to say, was that so-called conservatives, who had made careers out of criticizing the intrusion of government authority into private employment relations, had created a vast and rigid machinery that would “convert . . . [federal] courts into forums cluttered with matters only slightly above the level of the police court.”

See also Diplomacy, Secret; Diplomatic Missions; Japan, Relations with.

And so it was. Despite its restrictions on secondary actions and jurisdictional strikes, Taft-Hartley did little to hamper the established old craft unions, like the building trades and teamsters, whose abuses had prompted them; but it went a long way toward hampering organizing the unorganized or extending unions into hostile regions of the nation, and it helped make the nation’s labor law a dubious blessing for labor. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Millis, Harry A., and Emily C. Brown. From the Wagner Act to Taft-Hartley: A Study of National Labor Policy and Labor Relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1950. Tomlins, Christopher. The State and the Unions: Labor Relations, Law, and the Organized Labor Movement in America, 1880– 1960. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Zieger, Robert H. The CIO: 1935–1955. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995

William E. Forbath

Esthus, Raymond A. Theodore Roosevelt and Japan. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1966. Minger, Ralph E. “Taft’s Missions to Japan: A Study in Personal Diplomacy.” Paciﬁc Historical Review 30 (1961).

Samuel Flagg Bemis / a. g.

TAFT-ROOSEVELT SPLIT. When Republican President William Howard Taft took ofﬁce in 1909 he did so with the support of his reform-minded predecessor Theodore Roosevelt. Within a year, however, Progressive reformers in Congress complained that the administration had allied itself with the conservative Congressional establishment. The reformers, known as Insurgents and led by Senator Robert M. La Follette of Wisconsin, took particular exception to Taft’s controversial ﬁring of Gifford Pinchot in January 1910. Pinchot, head of the Forest Service and a leading conservationist, had been a longtime friend of Roosevelt’s and his ﬁring became a rallying point for Progressives. On his return from a year-long trip to Africa, Roosevelt consulted with Pinchot and other Progressive leaders and plotted a political comeback. In a speech in Kansas in August 1910, Roosevelt attacked Taft’s conservatism and proposed a sweeping program of reforms he called the “New Nationalism.” At the 1912 Chicago convention, Roosevelt contested for the Republican nomination, but conservative party leaders deﬁantly renominated Taft. Outraged by the conservatives’ heavyhanded tactics, Roosevelt organized the Bull Moose Progressive Party, and became its candidate for president. The split between Roosevelt and Taft allowed the Democratic candidate, Woodrow Wilson, to win the presidency with only about 42 percent of the vote. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Broderick, Francis L. Progressivism at Risk: Electing a President in 1912. New York: Greenwood, 1989. Harbaugh, William H. The Life and Times of Theodore Roosevelt. New York: Oxford University Press, 1975. Mowry, George E. Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Movement. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1946.

TAFT-KATSURA MEMORANDUM (29 July 1905), a so-called agreed memorandum exchanged between Secretary of War William Howard Taft, speaking for President Theodore Roosevelt, and Prime Minister Taro Katsura of Japan. The memorandum invoked Japanese-American cooperation “for the maintenance of peace in the Far East.” Thus ornamented, it expressed an approval by the United States of Japanese suzerainty over Korea and a disavowal by Japan of “any aggressive designs whatever on the Philippines.” Roosevelt assured Taft afterward that his “conversation with Count Katsura was absolutely correct in every respect,” thus emphatically approving the agreement, which remained secret until 1925.

Edgar Eugene Robinson / a. g. See also Bull Moose Party; Conservation; Conventions, Party Nominating; Elections, Presidential: 1912; Progressive Movement; Progressive Party, Wisconsin; Republican Party.

TAILHOOK INCIDENT. The Tailhook Association, named for the arresting gear on carrier-based aircraft, is a private group of navy and marine aviators. During the association’s 1991 annual convention in Las Vegas, eighty-three women, many of them naval ofﬁcers, alleged

TALK SHOWS, RADIO AND TELEVISION

that they had been sexually assaulted passing through a hotel hallway ﬁlled with male ofﬁcers. Secretary of the Navy H. Lawrence Garrett III and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Frank B. Kelso II attended the convention, but both said they witnessed no improper behavior. A subsequent navy investigation was indecisive, and on 18 June 1992, Secretary Garrett asked the Defense Department’s inspector general to take control of the inquiry. The next week several female victims, led by navy Lt. Paula A. Coughlin, a helicopter pilot and aide to Rear Adm. John W. Snyder, Jr., brought charges. On 26 June, Secretary Garrett resigned. Members of Congress criticized the pace of the investigation, the commitment of investigators, and the stonewalling of Tailhook members. In April 1993, the Inspector General accused 140 ofﬁcers of indecent exposure, assault, and lying under oath. About ﬁfty were ﬁned or disciplined. Accusations in more prominent cases did not lead to court-martial convictions or even demotions. In 8 February 1994, a navy judge ruled that Admiral Kelso had misrepresented his activities at the convention and had tried to manipulate the subsequent investigation. Denying these charges, Kelso decided to retire two months early with a full pension, in return for a tribute from Defense Secretary John J. Dalton that stated Kelso was a man of the “highest integrity and honor.” During that same week Coughlin announced her resignation, saying her career in the navy had been ruined because she had chosen to bring charges. She later received monetary awards from lawsuits against the Tailhook Association, the Hilton Hotels Corporation, and the Las Vegas Hilton Corporation. BIBLIOGRAPHY

McMichael, William H. The Mother of All Hooks: The Story of the U.S. Navy’s Tailhook Scandal. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction, 1997. O’Nelll, William L. “Sex Scandals in the Gender-Integrated Military.” Gender Issues 16, 1/2 (Winter/Spring 1998): 64–86. Zimmerman, Jean. Tailspin: Women at War in the Wake of Tailhook. New York: Doubleday, 1995.

Irwin N. Gertzog / c. r. p. See also Marine Corps, United States; Navy, United States; Sexual Harassment; Women in Military Service.

TALK SHOWS, RADIO AND TELEVISION. The talk show has been an important programming format for television and radio since its earliest origins. On television, the earliest such program was Meet the Press, which ﬁrst aired in 1947. The original host, Martha Rountree, was also the only woman in the program’s history to moderate discussion as politicians and other public leaders made appearances. As television’s ability to impact society grew, so did the need for expansions of the talk show format. In 1952, the Today show made its ﬁrst appearance on NBC with host Dave Garroway. Soon other networks followed with similar programs, such as the

The Dick Cavett Show. The talk show host (center) engages in conversation with heavyweight boxers Muhammad Ali (left) and Jurgen Blin, whom the once and future champion fought, and knocked out, at the end of 1971. AP/Wide World Photos

Morning Show on CBS with host Walter Cronkite. As television reached more and more homes all over the country, the talk show changed to include more entertainment and human-interest features. The Tonight Show, ﬁrst with Steve Allen in 1954 and eventually Johnny Carson, established the late-night genre that remains wildly popular today. A variety of daytime talk shows have covered a number of issues with very distinct methods of delivery. Serious, issue-oriented programs like Donahue, the Oprah Winfrey Show, and Charlie Rose have been important vehicles for the discussion of important social issues. Other television talk programs have featured hosts interjecting their personal opinions to guests while ﬁelding questions from the audience. The growth of “trash TV” began in the early 1980s with the Morton Downey, Jr. Show. These programs featured incendiary guests who would often come to blows in discussions of race, sexual preference, and inﬁdelity. Many times the hosts themselves would become involved, as when Geraldo Rivera suffered a broken nose during a fracas in one episode of his syndicated talk program. The Jerry Springer Show became a national force in the 1990s and found itself at the center of controversy about the violence and lack of moral content on television in America. These various forms of talk shows continued to dominate afternoon television programming at the turn of the twenty-ﬁrst century. Radio talk programs evolved over the years as the daily commute to and from work became a high-ratings time slot for that medium. Talk radio programs have become an important political force. Various liberal and conservative hosts voice their views in daily programs. Rush Limbaugh became one of the most well known and well paid of these political hosts, specializing in espousing conservative views and deriding then President Bill Clinton. National Public Radio, founded in 1970, serves over ﬁfteen million listeners and provides two popular talknews programs, All Things Considered and Morning Edition.

TAMMANY HALL

These programs are among the most respected in radio. Many morning radio programs are known for their comic antics and, at times, offensive humor. The Howard Stern Show became one of the ﬁrst programs to shock listeners and test the limits of what could and could not be aired. This willingness to push boundaries has resulted in a large and loyal audience. Sports talk shows have become an important element of regional radio programming. These call-in talk shows allow fans of various local teams to voice concerns, ideas, and opinions about their favorite clubs. Radio talk can be on the eccentric side as well, such as the paranormal and conspiratorial discussions led by Art Bell on late-night radio.

overpowered a Texas mountain lion, mounted him, and rode away quirting him with a rattlesnake.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hirsch, Alan. Talking Heads: Political Talk Shows and Their Star Pundits. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1991.

Unless they were deliberately imposing on the gullibility of the tenderfoot, tall liars did not expect their audience to believe them. Sometimes they lied as a defense against assumptions of superiority. Sometimes they lied through modesty. Sometimes, ﬁnding that their listeners did not believe the truth, they lied to regain their reputations for veracity. Sometimes they lied with satiric intent. Mostly, however, they lied because they were storytellers of imagination and resource and knew how to make the time pass pleasantly. In lying, they gave the United States some of its most characteristic folklore.

Brown, Carolyn S. The Tall Tale in American Folklore and Literature. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1987.

Levin, Murray B. Talk Radio and the American Dream. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1987.

Dorson, Richard Mercer. Man and Beast in American Comic Legend. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982.

Parish, James Robert. Let’s Talk!: America’s Favorite Talk Show Hosts. Las Vegas, Nev.: Pioneer Books, 1993.

Wonham, Henry B. Mark Twain and the Art of the Tall Tale. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Jay Parrent

Mody C. Boatright / a. e.

See also Television Programming and Influence.

In 1900 machine-made cigarettes still accounted for only 3 to 4 percent of U.S. tobacco leaf production. Their greatest growth lay ahead: by 1940 the ﬁgure had risen to 50 percent (or 189 billion cigarettes) and by 1970 to 80 percent (or 562 billion cigarettes). In 1913 the newly independent R.J. Reynolds launched Camels, the “ﬁrst modern cigarette.” An innovative blend of burley and Turkish tobacco backed by a massive publicity campaign, Camels were quickly imitated by American’s Lucky Strike and Liggett and Myers’ revamped Chesterﬁeld cigarettes (in 1926 Lorillard jumped in with its Old Gold brand). All three brands stressed their mildness and catered their appeal to men and women alike. Between them the three brands enjoyed 65 to 80 percent market share through the 1940s. The 1920s saw the “conversion” of many tobacco consumers to the cigarette in the Unites States, United Kingdom, Europe, China, and Japan. Between 1920 and 1930, U.S. cigarette consumption doubled to 1,370 cigarettes per capita. Smoking and Health As in the previous century, war was to prove a boon to U.S. tobacco, especially cigarettes. The rations of American soldiers and sailors included tobacco. With each world war, U.S. consumption of tobacco jumped and that of cigarettes soared, leaping 57 percent between 1916 and 1918 and 75 percent between 1940 and 1945. Per capita consumption in the United States reached almost 3,500 per year by 1945, a rate matched only by the United Kingdom and Canada. It would be twenty years before nations in continental Europe and East Asia would achieve similar rates. By 1955 in the United States, 57 percent of men and 28 percent of women smoked. A veritable culture of cigarette smoking had arisen. It was a culture of glamour, style, and modern individualism featured and promoted in fashion magazines and Hollywood ﬁlms It would appear that the widespread movement by women to adopt cigarettes began prior to advertising campaigns actively directed at them and coincided with the culmination of the suffragette movement’s drive to obtain the right to vote. Commentators openly associated cigarettes with women’s emancipation. Estimates vary, but by 1929 around 16 percent of women smoked cigarettes, a ﬁgure that rose to 25 to 35 percent in the late 1940s and peaked at around 30 to 35 percent in the early 1960s. Ever since King James I’s denunciation of tobacco in the seventeenth century as detrimental to one’s health and character, tobacco had been the object of recriminations by politicians, religious leaders, heads of industry, and social commentators. At the very moment cigarettes took off as a popular consumer product in the 1880s and 1890s, antismoking crusaders were waging successful campaigns banning the sale or consumption of tobacco in seventeen states, but their success was short-lived: World War I undid most of the legislation. Prior to World War II, cases of lung cancer were relatively rare in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada, the heaviest-smoking countries, but rates in men were rising fast, prompting

135

T O B A C C O I N D U S T RY

Processing Tobacco. African American men process tobacco at the T. B. Williams Tobacco Company in Richmond, Va., c. 1899. Library of Congress

medical researchers to initiate the ﬁrst statistical studies of the disease. Results of early studies in the United States and the United Kingdom appeared in 1950 just as the Federal Trade Commission was castigating the tobacco industry for making false health claims for their products. Reports of other studies followed over the next two years resulting in a health scare that precipitated a temporary 10 percent drop in consumption. The industry responded in two ways: by promoting ﬁltered-tipped cigarettes (42 percent of all cigarettes by 1956 through 1960) and mentholated brands, which they claimed to be less harsh and harmful; and by questioning the validity of the studies, a tactic it would pursue with each unfavorable new scientiﬁc ﬁnding up through the 1990s, especially through its Council for Tobacco Research and the industry’s lobbying arm, the Tobacco Institute. Meanwhile, tobacco in the United States, as in many countries, because of its economic importance, the substantial tax revenues it contributed to federal and state coffers ($3 billion in 1964 and $13.4 billion in 1998), and its campaign contributions, beneﬁted from its special status as neither a food nor a drug and thus escaped formal government regulation as to its effects. Under pressure from health organizations, the government published in 1964 a landmark report of the Surgeon General warning the American public of the dangers of smoking. It was the ﬁrst in a long series of Surgeon General reports that reviewed existing studies on tobacco-

136

related diseases and, beginning in the 1980s, on women and smoking, nicotine addiction, modiﬁed cigarettes, cessation, secondhand smoke, youth initiation, and smoking among racial and ethnic minority groups. The political and economic picture of the domestic market for the tobacco industry had changed. In 1965, the industry had to work vigorously to keep the new cigarette warning labels watered down, and in 1970 the industry withdrew all radio and television ads voluntarily in order to eliminate free broadcast time awarded by the Federal Trade Commission starting in 1967 for antismoking public service announcements. Segregation of smokers in airplanes and other forms of public transportation began in 1972 and was extended to public buildings in Arizona (1974) and Minnesota (1975). New studies on the dangers of secondhand smoke in the 1980s and 1990s galvanized the antismoking movement to pressure federal, state, and local governments to ban smoking completely in public buildings, public transportation, stores, theaters, and schools, establish smoking sections in workplaces and restaurants, and, in the case of California, ban smoking in all indoor public areas including workplaces, restaurants, and bars. U.S. cigarette consumption began to decline. Men’s and women’s rates had already dropped from 52 and 34 percent, respectively, in 1965 to 44 and 32 percent in 1970 and to 38 and 29 percent by 1980, respectively. By 1990, the rates had dropped precipitously to 28 and 23, respec-

TOCQUEVILLE

tively, and by 1999 to 26 and 22 percent. Per capita cigarette consumption peaked in the early 1970s at around 4,000 and steadily dropped from 1980 (3,850) to 1999 (2,000). Meanwhile, tobacco-related diseases (lung cancer, emphysema, coronary heart disease, stroke) became the leading preventable causes of death—over 400,000 deaths in 1990. For women, the number of deaths due to lung cancer surpassed those due to breast cancer in 1987.

and Zimbabwe in the export of tobacco leaf while remaining ahead of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands in cigarette exports. U.S. tobacco leaf production, exports, and employment are expected to continue to fall as domestic consumption declines and as productivity, competition from cheaper foreign leaf, and the growth in off-shore manufacturing by U.S. companies increase.

Industry adjusted by offering low-tar and nicotine cigarettes (a 40 percent drop in yields between 1967 and 1981), cheaper brands, and promotion gimmicks such as coupons and giveaways and by opposing systematically growing legal challenges. In a changing market, one company that rose to preeminence was Philip Morris, thanks to its innovative marketing. Its market share surpassed that of previous leader R.J. Reynolds in 1983, and it also took the lead in industry sponsorship of cultural institutions, concerts, and national sporting events. To cover declining U.S. sales, it exploited a traditional outlet for U.S. cigarettes somewhat neglected since World War II: overseas markets. With the help of the U.S. Trade Representative and North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms in 1986, Philip Morris, along with R.J. Reynolds, forced open East Asian markets previously dominated by state monopolies, and in the 1990s snapped up privatized state-run companies in former communist countries in Eastern Europe. By the end of the century, Philip Morris held 50 percent of the U.S. cigarette market followed by R.J. Reynolds (23 percent), Brown & Williamson (12 percent), and Lorillard (10 percent).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Although faced with a changing market, leading U.S. cigarette manufacturers remained among the nation’s most proﬁtable companies. In the 1980s and 1990s they repositioned themselves by diversifying into the beverage and food industry (Nabisco, Kraft Foods), blurring their corporate identities. In 2002 Philip Morris executives proposed renaming the parent company from Philip Morris Companies, Inc., to Altria Group, Inc. The threat of successful lawsuits resulted in the Master Settlement Agreement signed on 23 November 1998 with forty-six states attorneys general. This agreement stipulated payment of $206 billion to states over twenty-ﬁve years, reigned in industry promotion practices, especially those targeting youth, and provided $5.5 billion over ten years in aid to vulnerable tobacco growers. To cover the settlement’s costs the industry increased prices forty-ﬁve cents per pack and Philip Morris announced a 16 percent cut in its U.S. workforce. Down from a high of 75,000 in 1955, in 1990 cigarette manufacturing in the United States directly employed 41,000 people; the number dropped to 26,000 by 1999. In 1999 through 2000, debt-ridden RJR Nabisco sold off its overseas tobacco operations to Japan Tobacco and its food products company to Philip Morris, and spun off its domestic tobacco operations as R.J. Reynolds Tobacco. Finally, at decade’s end India had moved ahead of the United States in total leaf and cigarette production (behind China), and the United States fell behind Brazil

Brandt, Allan M. “The Cigarette, Risk, and American Culture.” Daedalus 119 (1990): 155–177. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tobacco Information and Prevention Source. Available at http://www.cdc .gov/tobacco. On-line access to U.S. data including Surgeon General reports. Cox, Howard. The Global Cigarette. Origins and Evolution of British American Tobacco 1880–1945. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Glantz, Stanton A., John Slade, Lisa A. Bero, Peter Hanauer, and Deborah E. Barnes. The Cigarette Papers. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. Goodman, Jordan. Tobacco in History: The Cultures of Dependence. New York: Routledge, 1993. Most complete international history. Jacobstein, Meyer. The Tobacco Industry in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press, 1907. Reprint, New York, AMS, 1968. Important early statistics. Klein, Richard. Cigarettes Are Sublime. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1993. The signiﬁcance of cigarettes in modern culture. Kluger, Richard. Ashes to Ashes: America’s Hundred-Year Cigarette War, the Public Health, and the Unabashed Triumph of Philip Morris. New York: Knopf, 1996. Prize-winning history of U.S. industry’s marketing and political strategies. Parker-Pope, Tara. Cigarettes: Anatomy of an Industry from Seed to Smoke. New York: New Press, 2001. Lively short account. Rabin, Robert L., and Stephen D. Sugarman, eds. Regulating Tobacco. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Recent U.S. developments including the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement. Robert, Joseph C. The Story of Tobacco in America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1967. Schudson, Michael. “Symbols and Smokers: Advertising, Health Messages, and Public Policy.” In Smoking Policy: Law, Politics, and Culture. Edited by Robert L. Rabin and Stephen D. Sugarman. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Tobacco Control Archives. Available at http://www.library .ucsf.edu/tobacco. Important review of secret industry documents.

Roddey Reid See also American Tobacco Case; Tobacco and American Indians; Tobacco as Money.

TOCQUEVILLE. See Democracy in America.

137

TODAY

for a few years of comic relief, a chimpanzee named J. Fred Muggs. In 1961, the news department at NBC took over production of the show, and the lead host position went successively to John Chancellor (1961–1962), Hugh Downs (1962–1971), and Frank McGee (1971–1974). Barbara Walters became the ﬁrst woman to co-host the show, which she did from 1974 to 1976. Walters was paired with a series of co-hosts until Jim Hartz got the permanent job. In 1976, Walters and Hartz were replaced by Tom Brokaw (1976–1981) and Jane Pauley (1976– 1989). Subsequent hosts included Bryant Gumbel (1982– 1997), Deborah Norville (1989–1991), Katie Couric (1991– ), and Matt Lauer (1997– ). BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kessler, Judy. Inside Today: The Battle for the Morning. New York: Villard, 1992. Metz, Robert. The Today Show: An Inside Look at Twenty-ﬁve Tumultuous Years. Chicago: Playboy Press, 1977.

Robert Thompson The Today Show. Before 1952, network television programming did not start until 10:00 a.m. That changed when NBC president Sylvester Weaver created a two-hour show called the Today show that ran from 7:00 until 9:00 a.m. each day. Fifty years later, in 2002, the show was still successful and had spawned copycat shows on each of the other major networks. Bryant Gumbel, here interviewing former President Richard Nixon in 1990, was one of the show’s most popular hosts; he ended a ﬁfteen-year stint as host of Today in 1997. 䉷 AP/Wide World Photos

TODAY. In 1952, no network television programming was scheduled earlier than 10:00 a.m. (EST). NBC president Sylvester “Pat” Weaver created Today with the idea that people might watch TV early in the morning before going to work and sending their children off to school. The two-hour show, running from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. (EST), was designed to unfold in small modular segments, with the expectation that few viewers would watch from beginning to end. News, interviews, feature stories, and weather were combined in an informal style by friendly hosts. Today went on the air on 14 January 1952 and has remained there with relatively minor changes ever since. It was not until 1954 that another network, CBS, scheduled a program, The Morning Show, in the same time slot, and it was not until the 1970s, when Good Morning, America was introduced on ABC, that any program challenged the ratings dominance of Today. Fifty years after the beginning of Today, all early morning network shows were essentially copies of it. Today replaced the daily newspaper as a ﬁrst source of information for millions of Americans at the start of each day, providing news and weather reports as well as discussions of books, trends, and other cultural and domestic topics. From 1952 to 1961, the Today team included Dave Garroway, Betsy Palmer, Jack Lescoulie, Frank Blair, and

138

See also Television: Programming and Influence.

TOHONO O’ODHAM. See Akimel O’odham and Tohono O’odham.

TOLEDO, the fourth largest city in Ohio in the early twenty-ﬁrst century, began in 1680 as a French trading post. Ceded to the British in 1763, it became part of the U.S. Northwest Territory in 1787. Canals and railroads helped establish Toledo as a major inland port and center of industry. During the Progressive Era, Toledo won national recognition for urban reform. Historically, Toledo has been a major producer of glass and automotive products, but these industries declined, and from 1970 to 2000 employment in the Toledo metropolitan area decreased markedly. During this same period, population declined from 383,062 to 313,619, although city leaders question the accuracy of the 2000 federal census. Toledo has experienced other problems. A 1967 race riot caused extensive property damage, injuries, and arrests. Public schools were closed for several weeks in 1976 and 1978 because of teacher strikes. In July 1979 a bitter dispute between the city government and police and ﬁremen led to a twoday general strike and costly arson ﬁres. In the 1980s and 1990s, Toledo sought to emphasize its strong medical, cultural, and higher educational institutions. New downtown buildings and the Portside festival marketplace along the Maumee River were indicative of business leaders’ commitment to the city. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Jones, Marnie. Holy Toledo: Religion and Politics in the Life of “Golden Rule” Jones. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1998.

TOLL BRIDGES AND ROADS

Korth, Philip A., and Margaret R. Beegle. I Remember Like Today: The Auto-Lite Strike of 1934. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1988. McGucken, William. Lake Erie Rehabilitated: Controlling Cultural Eutrophication, 1960s–1990s. Akron, Ohio: University of Akron Press, 2000.

John B. Weaver / a. e. See also Boundary Disputes Between States; Canals; Great Lakes; Labor; Michigan, Upper Peninsula of; Northwest Territory; Ohio; Railroads.

TOLERATION ACTS provided for varying degrees of religious liberty in the American colonies. In New England, where the Congregational Church enjoyed legal establishment, the law required taxpayers to support the Puritan churches. Strong dissent in Massachusetts and Connecticut during the early eighteenth century resulted in legal exemptions for Quakers, Baptists, and Episcopalians. Rhode Island was the exception in New England, granting full freedom of worship. The middle colonies offered broad religious liberty. William Penn’s Charter of 1682 provided for freedom of conscience to all Pennsylvanians who believed in God. Later, however, royal pressure forced the legislature to restrict liberties for Jews and Catholics. The New Jersey proprietors offered religious liberty in order to attract settlers. In New York, although the Anglican Church enjoyed ofﬁcial establishment, the realities of religious diversity and local control resulted in de facto religious liberty for most denominations.

Hall, Timothy L. Separating Church and State: Roger Williams and Religious Liberty. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1998. Isaac, Rhys. The Transformation of Virginia, 1740–1790. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1982.

Shelby Balik Winfred T. Root See also Dissenters; First Amendment; Maryland; Massachusetts Bay Colony; Religion and Religious Affiliation; Religious Liberty; Virginia.

TOLL BRIDGES AND ROADS, a system that developed as a means of transportation improvement in the face of limited public funding. Local, colonial, and state governments, burdened by debt, chartered private turnpike and bridge companies with the authority to build, improve, and charge tolls. While toll bridges appeared in New England by 1704, the ﬁrst toll roads of the turnpike era were in Virginia, which authorized tolls on an existing public road in 1785, and Pennsylvania, which chartered the sixty-two-mile Philadelphia and Lancaster Turnpike in 1792.

The Anglican Church was stronger in the southern colonies and often encroached on dissenters’ religious practice, particularly in Virginia and Maryland. Virginian evangelicals met with resistance, as did Maryland Catholics, although the latter enjoyed protection under the Toleration Act of 1649. Georgia’s royal charter (1732) conﬁrmed religious liberty for all except Catholics. In North Carolina, Anglicans maintained tenuous power. The American Revolution reinforced the doctrine of individual liberty, including religious freedom. Most state constitutions framed in this era sanctioned freedom of conscience to some extent. Local religious establishment continued in many states (until Massachusetts separated church and state in 1833). The Northwest Ordinance (1787) extended religious liberty to the Northwest Territory. The First Amendment of the federal Constitution forbade Congress to abridge the free exercise of religion. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bonomi, Patricia U. Under the Cope of Heaven: Religion, Society, and Politics in Colonial America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. Curry, Thomas J. The First Freedoms: Church and State in America to the Passage of the First Amendment. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.

Toll Rates. Photographed in 1941 by Jack Delano, this sign on the New Hampshire side of a bridge across the Connecticut River near Springﬁeld, Vt., lists rates ranging from “foot passengers” and bicyclists to automobiles and motorcycles, as well as vehicles drawn by various numbers of “horses or beasts.” Library of Congress

139

TOLLS EXEMPTION ACT

From 1790 to 1850, private toll roads were the nation’s primary land-based venue of transportation. More than four hundred turnpikes, many paved to the French engineer Pierre-Marie Tresaguet’s speciﬁcations, facilitated trade and communication with and movement to western areas. By the 1830s, toll canals, toll bridges over such major rivers as the Connecticut, and between 10,000 and 20,000 miles of private toll roads composed the heart of the national transportation network. However, lack of proﬁtability and competition from railroads, which hauled heavy freight at relatively low costs and high speeds, led most turnpike and bridge authorities to dissolve by 1850, leaving their roads and bridges to public ownership. A second wave of toll bridges and roads began in the 1920s and 1930s. In 1927, Congress ruled that federal highway aid could be used for toll bridges built, owned, and operated by the states. Bridge authorities in New York, California, and elsewhere thereafter sold revenue bonds amortized by tolls to ﬁnance new bridges, including the George Washington, Triborough, and San Francisco–Oakland Bay. But restrictions on using federal aid for toll road construction, coupled with heavy trafﬁc on existing roads and cash-strapped treasuries, led states to create special authorities that designed and built new toll roads, which like the bridges were ﬁnanced through revenue bonds. These limited-access, high-speed roads included New York City–area parkways (beginning in 1926), Connecticut’s Merritt Parkway (1937), the Pennsylvania Turnpike (1940, ﬁrst to accommodate trucks), and the Maine Turnpike (1947, the ﬁrst postwar toll road). The 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act, authorizing the interstate highway system, allowed toll bridges, roads, and tunnels to join the system if they met interstate standards and contributed to an integrated network. However, tolls were prohibited on all interstates beyond the 2,447 miles of toll expressways operating or under construction in 1956; additionally, federal highway aid could not be used for new toll facilities except for high-cost bridges and tunnels and extensions to existing toll roads. These policies discouraged new toll road construction, until 1987 and 1991 legislation made federal highway aid available for noninterstate public and private toll roads, and allowed the imposition of tolls on federally funded noninterstate highways. Toll roads constructed thereafter included the private Dulles Greenway in Virginia and the public E-470 beltway near Denver. In the 1990s, Houston, San Diego, and Orange County, California, introduced high-occupancy toll, or HOT, lanes on otherwise free highways, permitting solo drivers to access carpool lanes by paying a toll; critics charged that this trafﬁc management strategy created a road system stratiﬁed by class. In 2000, the Federal Highway Administration listed 4,927 miles of toll roads and 302 miles of toll bridges and tunnels nationwide. BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Public Works Association. History of Public Works in the United States, 1776–1976. Chicago: American Public Works Association, 1976.

140

Go´mez-Iba´n˜ez, Jose´ A., and John R. Meyer. Going Private: The International Experience with Transport Privatization. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1993. Klein, Daniel B. “The Voluntary Provision of Public Goods? The Turnpike Companies of Early America.” Economic Inquiry 28 (October 1990): 788–812.

Jeremy L. Korr See also Interstate Highway System; Transportation and Travel.

TOLLS EXEMPTION ACT, an act of Congress, 24 August 1912, exempting American vessels in coast-wise trafﬁc from the payment of tolls on the Panama Canal. The Hay-Pauncefote Treaty of 1901 had provided that the canal should be free and open to the ships of all nations without discrimination, so the act raised a serious moral and legal question. President Woodrow Wilson, on 5 March 1914, eloquently requested repeal as a matter of sound diplomacy and international good faith. Prominent Republicans seconded his efforts, and the act was repealed a few weeks later. Congress, however, expressly denied any relinquishment of the right to grant exemptions to coastwise shipping. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Collin, Richard H. Theodore Roosevelt’s Caribbean: The Panama Canal, the Monroe Doctrine, and the Latin American Context. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1990.

W. A. Robinson / c. w. See also Hay-Pauncefote Treaties; Panama Canal; Panama Canal Treaty.

TOMAHAWK appears to derive from the Algonquian tamahawk, or cutting utensil. The earliest English reference to the word came from John Smith, who indicated that it could mean “axe” or “war club.” Over time the term came to denote metal trade hatchets rather than other forms. Tomahawks were among the most popular items Europeans brought to the fur trade. Innumerable varieties developed, from simple hand-forged tomahawks to those elaborately inlaid with precious metals; some featured a spike or hammer head opposite the blade. Spontoon tomahawks had a spearlike blade, suitable for war, not woodcutting. One of the most popular types was the pipe tomahawk, featuring a pipe bowl opposite the blade and a handle drilled through to allow for smoking. Metal trade tomahawks became much prized throughout North America, and were widespread in eastern North America by 1700. Their spread coincided with growth in the fur and hide trade. Tomahawks coexisted with older forms of clubs and hybrid weapons well into the nineteenth century. While very popular with both Indians and white settlers, tomahawks and other hand weapons were increasingly reduced to a ceremonial role in Native Amer-

TOMBSTONE

O.K. Corral, Tombstone. The site of the most famous shootout in the history of the West: Wyatt Earp, his brothers Virgil and Morgan, and John “Doc” Holliday against Ike and Billy Clanton, Frank and Tom McLaury, and Billy Clairborne, 26 October 1881. 䉷 corbis

ican life by the advent of repeating ﬁrearms in the midnineteenth century. Symbolically, tomahawks remain synonymous with North American Indian warriors and warfare. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hartzler, Daniel D., and James A. Knowles. Indian Tomahawks and Frontiersman Belt Axes. Baltimore: Windcrest, 1995. Peterson, Harold L. American Indian Tomahawks. Rev. ed. New York: Heye Foundation, 1971.

Robert M. Owens See also Indian Trade and Traders.

TOMBSTONE. A former silver boomtown located east of the San Pedro River valley in southeastern Arizona, Tombstone is some twenty-ﬁve miles north of the Mexican border. Prospector Ed Schieffelin, who discovered silver nearby in 1877, named the site as he did because of remarks by soldiers at Camp Huachuca that the only thing he would ﬁnd was his tombstone. Large-scale silver production began in 1880. The district yielded about $30 million over the next thirty years and about $8 million thereafter. Politics, feuds, greed, and conﬂicting town lot claims produced violence that culminated in the 26 October 1881 shootout near the O.K. Corral between the Earp brothers and Doc Holliday on one side and the

Clantons and McLaurys on the other. Labor strife and ﬂooding curtailed mining operations in the mid-1880s. Despite extensive efforts to pump water out of the underground shafts, nearly all the mines were abandoned by 1911. Tombstone’s population declined from 5,300 in 1882 to 849 in 1930. In 1929 the Cochise County seat was moved from Tombstone to Bisbee. With the publication of Walter Noble Burns’s Tombstone, an Iliad of the Southwest (1927) and Stuart Lake’s Wyatt Earp, Frontier Marshal (1931), along with the institution of the town’s ﬁrst Helldorado Days celebration in 1929, Tombstone capitalized on its notoriety as The Town Too Tough to Die. Subsequent books, motion pictures, and television shows have enhanced its reputation as a place where legends of the Old West were played out. The town became a national historic landmark in 1962, and is a major tourist attraction. Its population was 1,504 in 2000. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Marks, Paula Mitchell. And Die in the West: The Story of the O.K. Corral Gunﬁght. New York: Morrow, 1989. Shillingberg, William B. Tombstone, A.T.: A History of Early Mining, Milling, and Mayhem. Spokane, Wash.: Arthur H. Clark, 1999.

Bruce J. Dinges Rufus Kay Wyllys See also Mining Towns; Silver Prospecting and Mining.

141

TONIGHT

ence, would be copied by nearly all of the late-night talk shows that followed. Carson retired in 1992 and NBC awarded the vacated position to Jay Leno, who had been a frequent guest host since 1987, and re-titled it The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. David Letterman, angry that he had been passed up for the job, left his NBC program and moved to CBS to compete with Leno. Since the Jack Paar era, the program has enjoyed an important place in American culture. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Carter, Bill. The Late Shift: Letterman, Leno, and the National Battle for the Night. New York: Hyperion, 1994. Metz, Robert. The Tonight Show. Chicago: Playboy Press, 1980. Heeeree’s Johnny! Beginning in 1954, NBC tried to create a latenight talk show that would keep viewers up after the local news. For ten years a number of hosts tried to make the show work, with only Jack Paar (1957–1962) achieving any real success. All this changed in October 1962 when Johnny Carson became the host of The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. For thirty years Carson ruled late-night television with his comfortable comedic style that featured a nightly monologue, topical humor and sketches, and guests from the entertainment industry. Carson is shown here behind his familiar desk interviewing Frank Sinatra in 1976. 䉷 AP/Wide World Photos

TONIGHT. “The Tonight Show,” the generic title used to describe the many iterations of NBC TV’s latenight comedy-talk show, was originally developed by Sylvester “Pat” Weaver, the president of NBC in the early 1950s. Tonight! was the initial title. It ran from 1954 through 1956, hosted by Steve Allen. In its ﬁnal year, Allen shared hosting duties with the comedian Ernie Kovacs. In 1957, the title was changed to Tonight! America After Dark, with Jack Lescoulie as host. Unlike Allen’s show, which emphasized comic sketches and music, Tonight! America After Dark concentrated on news, interviews, and live remote broadcasts, much like the Today program. After six months, Al Collins replaced Lescoulie and a month later the format was overhauled once again. The Jack Paar Show debuted in July 1957 in a format that emphasized interviews and “desk comedy.” Paar also conducted political crusades on the air, supporting Fidel Castro’s revolution in Cuba, broadcasting from the Berlin Wall, and including presidential candidates John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon among his guests in 1960. When Paar left the show in March 1962, guest hosts ﬁlled in on the re-titled The Tonight Show until October of that year. From October 1962 through May 1992, Johnny Carson established and sustained The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson as an American institution. The format of his show, an opening comic monologue—often about news events—followed by interviews, occasional comic pieces, musical performances, and chats with the audi-

142

Robert Thompson See also Television: Programming and Influence.

TONKIN GULF RESOLUTION. On 2 August 1964, the USS Maddox, engaged in an electronic spying operation in the Tonkin Gulf, was involved in a ﬁreﬁght with North Vietnamese PT boats. On 4 August, the Maddox was apparently attacked again in international waters. Although that second attack was never conﬁrmed, President Lyndon B. Johnson informed the American people that he was retaliating against North Vietnam’s aggression by ordering air attacks on its military installations and that he was also asking Congress for its support in the form of a congressional resolution. Drafted weeks earlier by the executive, this resolution was designed to grant the president the authority he desired to protect and defend American interests in Southeast Asia. Managing the Senate ﬂoor debate on behalf of the administration was Senator J. William Fulbright of Arkansas, a respected member of that body who also was a good friend of the president. He sought to quell existing doubts about the seemingly open-ended nature of the resolution by informing several skeptical colleagues that the president sought no wider war in Southeast Asia. According to Fulbright, that was the president’s intent and the nature of his policy. Thus, given the strong public support for the president’s action and congressional unwillingness to challenge his authority, Congress passed the resolution on 7 August 1964 with only two dissenting votes in the Senate. The resolution charged that North Vietnam had attacked American ships lawfully present in international waters, which was part of a systematic campaign of aggression it has been waging against its neighbors. Congress approved and supported “the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression.” In addition, it also authorized the president “to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist

TORNADOES

any [SEATO] member or protocol state . . . requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.”

Rawley, James A. Race and Politics: “Bleeding Kansas” and the Coming of the Civil War. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1969.

President Johnson believed passage of the resolution had given him the necessary legal authority to take whatever action he deemed appropriate in Vietnam. But as disillusionment with the war widened and deepened, and as more information surfaced about provocative American actions in the gulf prior to the alleged incident involving the Maddox, Congress grew increasingly unhappy with how it had been deceived by the president in August 1964. Consequently, it repealed the resolution, which became invalid in 1971. President Richard M. Nixon, disregarding Congress’s action, continued to wage war in Vietnam while acting in his capacity as commander in chief.

Wendell H. Stephenson / h. s.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hess, Gary. Presidential Decisions for War: Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001. Mirsky, Jonathan. “The Never Ending War.” New York Review of Books (25 May 2000).

William C. Berman

TOPEKA CONSTITUTION. The movement for statehood launched by free-state Kansans in opposition to the proslavery territorial government was inaugurated in the late summer of 1855, when a “people’s” assembly at Topeka called an election for members of a constitutional convention. Thirteen of the delegates were natives of southern states, ten of New York and Pennsylvania, eight of the Old Northwest, four of New England, and two of foreign countries. They chose James H. Lane, a popular sovereignty Democrat as president. The constitution contained standard provisions for the forms and functions of government. The bill of rights prohibited slavery and declared invalid indentures of blacks executed in other states. The service of free blacks in the militia was prohibited, but the fundamental question of admitting them to Kansas was referred to the voters along with the constitution and a general banking law. After the Constitution was ratiﬁed, Lane went to Washington, D.C., to petition Congress for Kansas statehood. On 4 March 1856, the legislature assembled at Topeka and elected U.S. senators. The House of Representatives passed a bill 3 July 1856, to admit Kansas under the Topeka Constitution, although ﬁve days later the Senate substituted its own measure authorizing a constitutional convention. The Senate’s actions terminated the ambitions laid out in the Topeka Constitution. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Fehrenbacher, Don E. Sectional Crisis and Southern Constitutionalism. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1995.

See also Border Ruffians; Kansas; Kansas-Nebraska Act; Sectionalism.

TORIES. See Loyalists.

TORNADOES. A product of an unusually powerful thunderstorm, a tornado is a naturally occurring atmospheric vortex of air spiraling at a very high speed, usually about 250 miles per hour or more, forming a funnel, and extending from the ground to the base of a convective cloud. The shape of the funnel depends on air pressure, temperature, moisture, dust, rate of airﬂow in the vortex, and whether the air in the tornado’s core is moving upward or downward. A tornado can also have multiple vortices. Double vortices are often produced when the upper vortex turns in the direction opposite to the circular motion of the lower vortex. Because of all these factors, very few tornadoes look like true funnels. Tornadoes cause one-ﬁfth of natural-disaster losses each year in the United States. The most intense tornadoes can toss a car a halfmile or shatter a house. However, about 80 percent of tornadoes are weak and cause no more damage than severe winds. A tornado can last fewer than 10 seconds or more than two hours. Tornadoes can occur singly or in swarms. There is no agreement among experts on any single theory of tornado formation. The typical tornado has ground contact for about six miles, marking a path up to 500 feet wide. Tornadoes travel as fast as 35 to 60 miles per hour. The average number of tornadoes in the United States ranges between 700 and 800 per year, exceeding 1,000 in some years, most notably 1973, 1982, 1990, and 1992. Tornadoes occur most frequently in Texas, followed by Oklahoma and Kansas. Most tornado fatalities happen in the deep South and generally total fewer than 100 per year, although 350 people died in the 1974 tornado that swept through Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Oklahoma on 3 and 4 April. Although tornadoes have been reported in every state, most occur in the Gulf States and in the Midwest. The west-to-east airﬂow across the United States is interrupted by the Rocky Mountains, which push the air currents upward; they fall suddenly as they reach the Great Plains. If moisture-laden air is pulled in from the Gulf of Mexico and meets the high dry air over the plains, that conﬂuence creates the conditions for a tornado. Tornado season begins in early spring in the deep South and progresses northward, with two-thirds of tornadoes occurring from March to June. Tornadoes are most likely to form in late afternoon, but they can occur at any time of day on any day of the year.

143

T O R P E D O WA R FA R E

The National Severe Storms Forecast Center in Kansas City, Missouri, is responsible for issuing warnings of approaching tornadoes. Tornado predictions are based on meteorological conditions in combination with unusual patterns on the weather radar. Although the approach of a tornado can be forecast only 50 percent of the time, warnings have become important in reducing the death toll. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Eagleman, Joe R. Severe and Unusual Weather. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1983. Grazulis, Thomas P. The Tornado: Nature’s Ultimate Windstorm. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2001.

Mary Anne Hansen See also Disasters; Great Plains; Meteorology; Midwest.

TORPEDO WARFARE. Robert Whitehead’s selfpropelled torpedo—a cigar-shaped weapon with an ex-

plosive charge and powered by a small engine—became standard in all major navies by the 1870s. Torpedoes increased rapidly in speed, range, and explosive power. By the eve of World War I, torpedoes effectively ranged near 7,000 yards with top speeds over 40 knots. The largest torpedoes had bursting charges of 700 pounds of explosive. Until about 1900 torpedo boats—small, very fast vessels designed for torpedo attacks—were the principle torpedo carriers. As protection against such vessels large warships acquired batteries of quick-ﬁring guns, and in the 1890s began to rely on a new type of warship, the torpedo boat destroyer, for protection. By the outbreak of World War I, the destroyer, grown to about 1,000 tons, had largely usurped the torpedo boat. Submarines, however, have made the greatest use of torpedoes. During World War I, German submarines sank more than 11 million tons of British shipping, forced the British ﬂeet to operate with extraordinary precaution, and nearly won the war for the Central Powers.

Tornado. This is the oldest known photograph of a tornado, taken 28 August 1884, twenty-two miles southwest of Howard, S.D. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Department of Commerce

144

TOURISM

Between the wars, airplanes added a new dimension to torpedo warfare. In World War II a small force of British “swordﬁsh” torpedo planes put half the Italian battle ﬂeet out of action at Taranto harbor in 1940, and in 1941 Japanese torpedo planes helped cripple the American ﬂeet at Pearl Harbor. In World War II, German U-boats sank millions of tons of Allied shipping before the Allies ﬁnally won the long Battle of the Atlantic. In the Paciﬁc, American submarines devastated the Japanese merchant marine, accounting for 28 percent of all Japanese naval shipping sunk during the war. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Gannon, Robert. Hellions of the Deep: The Development of American Torpedoes in World War II. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996. Gray, Edwyn. The Devil’s Device: Robert Whitehead and the History of the Torpedo. Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press, 1991.

Ronald Spector / c. w. See also Munitions; Ordnance; Submarines.

TOURISM. From sunbathers at Myrtle Beach to Civil War buffs at Gettysburg, Americans travel to many different destinations for a variety of reasons. Today, tourism plays an integral role in American economy, society, and culture. The Travel Industry Association of America reported that in 2001 tourism generated 7.8 million American jobs and revenues in excess of $545 billion. Yet tourism is relatively new. In less than two hundred years, touring has changed from the activity of a small elite to a mass phenomenon spurred by a thriving economy, improved transportation, national pride, and an increased desire to escape the pressures of modern life. Before the 1820s, Americans rarely traveled for pleasure. In the next two decades, however, the fruits of industrialization created the necessary environment for tourism, as more Americans possessed the time, money, and opportunity for recreational travel. With the invention of the steamboat and increased use of railroads after 1830, Americans could travel faster, more inexpensively, and in relative comfort. For most of the nineteenth century, Americans traveled in pursuit of improved health, sublime scenery, and social opportunities. Large spas sprang up in upstate New York and the Valley of Virginia, where the elite could “take” the waters. Americans also traveled the country searching for picturesque wonders. Popularized by the British, the “picturesque” tourist sought sublime scenes that astonished by their grandeur, beautiful vistas that soothed through pastoral serenity, and landscapes that intrigued by their quaintness. Favorite destinations included the White Mountains of New Hampshire, the villages along the Hudson River, and most of all, Niagara Falls. The historian John Sears has shown that such journeys

Yosemite National Park. In this 1922 photograph, naturalist A. F. Hall shows visitors a giant sequoia knocked down by a storm in 1919, when it was 996 years old; the labels on tree rings indicate when historic events took place during the life of the California tree. 䉷 Bettmann/Corbis

became sacred pilgrimages as tourists found spiritual renewal gazing on the power and beauty of the divine in nature. A popular itinerary, the “fashionable tour,” combined health and the picturesque as visitors steamed up the Hudson River to Albany, traveled west along the Erie Canal stopping at the Ballston or Saratoga Springs, and ended up at Niagara Falls. Popular guidebooks such as Theodore Dwight’s The Northern Traveller (1825) showed tourists where to visit, how to get there, and what to experience. In turn, trips became a sign of status for the individuals and of cultural identity for their new nation. After the Civil War, attention focused on Florida and the West. Northerners gathered to winter in Jacksonville, a semitropical Eden according to a multitude of guidebooks from the 1870s and 1880s. Popular excursions included a cruise down the St. John’s River and a visit to America’s oldest city, St. Augustine. Even more people ﬂocked to the state after the oil tycoon Henry M. Flagler constructed a railroad along Florida’s eastern coast and built a string of luxury hotels including the lavish 1,150room Royal Poinciana Hotel in Palm Beach, completed in 1894 and at the time the largest wooden structure in

145

TOURISM

the world. Henry B. Plant used similar methods to lure tourists to the state’s Gulf Coast. The West, however, attracted visitors more out of curiosity than climate. The completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869 and luxurious Pullman Palace cars enticed visitors to California. Visitors to the West marveled at the wonders of Yosemite and Pike’s Peak and stayed in luxury resorts such as the Hotel Del Monte in Monterey. Americans increasingly viewed the West as a mythic, golden land. Railroads busily promoted this image in guidebooks and pamphlets while travel agents, such as the Raymond and Whitcomb Company, helped smooth the journey westward. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, preservation groups worked on several popular sites. In 1860, the Mount Vernon Ladies Association purchased and restored George Washington’s Virginia home

and in the process spurred similar efforts that rescued such sites as the Hermitage and Jamestown Island. Cities and states created chambers of commerce and tourism boards that urged patriotic citizens to “see America ﬁrst.” The federal government responded to pressures for preservation and conservation by establishing Yellowstone as a national park in 1872. Later, the National Parks Act of 1916 established the National Park Service (NPS), whose mission was to conserve the scenery, natural and historic objects, and wildlife of America for future generations. In the decades after World War I, the automobile spurred a great expansion of tourism. By 1930, 23 million Americans owned cars, and middle-class Americans traveled the country staying at hotels, motels, and campgrounds. Federal legislation earmarked large sums for roads, highways, and turnpikes, including the scenic Blue Ridge Parkway. During the Great Depression close to $4 billion was spent by the Works Progress Administration (WPA) to build, repair, or improve 651,087 miles of highway and 124,031 bridges. The WPA also issued guidebooks for several states and key cities through the Federal Writers Program. After 1945, America tourism experienced phenomenal growth. Most Americans enjoyed a two-week vacation that had been denied them during the years of depression and war. As Americans’ disposable income rose, so did the promotion of tourism. Major destinations included cities, ski resorts, and national parks. Several cities revitalized their downtown areas to attract tourists. San Antonio’s Riverwalk and Baltimore’s Inner Harbor are but two examples. And beginning with the 1955 opening of Disneyland in Anaheim, California, there has been phenomenal growth in theme parks with attendance totaling more than 163 million in 1998. After the attacks of 11 September 2001, air travel plummeted and domestic tourism suffered, though by spring 2002 the World Trade Organization had announced that recovery was well underway. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aron, Cindy S. Working at Play: A History of Vacations in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Brown, Dona. Inventing New England: Regional Tourism in the Nineteenth Century. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1995. Cocks, Catherine. Doing the Town: The Rise of Urban Tourism in the United States, 1850–1915. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001.

Nantucket. A poster created by Ben Nason, c. 1938, for the New Haven Railroad (one of a series of seven he made, which the railroad distributed into the 1950s), advertising the popular island vacation spot south of Cape Cod, Mass.; passengers changed from the train to the ferry at Woods Hole. 䉷 Swim Ink/Corbis

146

Sears, John F. Sacred Places: American Tourist Attractions in the Nineteenth Century. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. Shaffer, Marguerite. See America First: Tourism and National Identity, 1880–1940. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 2001.

Rebecca C. McIntyre

T O W B O AT S A N D B A R G E S

Barge. African American refugees transport their household belongings along a canal in Richmond, Va., at the end of the Civil War. Library of Congress

See also Amusement Parks; National Park System; Recreation; Transportation and Travel.

TOWBOATS AND BARGES. The deﬁciencies of railroad transportation during World War I led to the Transportation Act of 1920, which created the Inland Waterways Corporation (1924) and its Federal Barge Line. The completion of the nine-foot channel of the Ohio River in 1929 was followed by similar improvements on the Mississippi and its tributaries and the Gulf IntraCoastal Canals. Each improvement marked a giant step by the U.S. Army Engineers (Corps of Engineers) in promoting inland waterways development. Private capital followed these improvements with heavy investments in towboats and barges. In the years before World War II, towboat power soared steadily from 600 to 1,200 to 2,400. The shift from steam to diesel engines cut crews from twenty or more on steam towboats to an average of eleven to thirteen on diesels. By 1945 fully 50 percent of the towboats were diesel; by 1955, the ﬁgure was 97 percent. Meanwhile the paddlewheel had given way to the propeller, the single propeller to the still-popular twin propeller; the triple propeller became fairly common during the 1960s. In 1974 the Valley Line added the 10,500-horsepower triplescrew W. J. Barta to its ﬂeet of twenty-one towboats and 750 barges. Capable of handling forty barges with a capacity of 50,000 tons, the W. J. Barta transported twentytwo times the record-breaking 9,266 cotton bales carried

by the Henry Frank in 1881. By the end of the twentieth century, 10,500-horsepower towboats were common on the Mississippi. The pilothouse is the key to modern towboat expansion. Electronics are everywhere: main control panels, radar, computers, communication systems, and circuit television scanners that monitor the entire boat for the pilot, who can communicate with pilots of approaching boats. The pilot is in telephone communication with the numerous marine services that have sprung up to cut out barges from a tow while it is under way, thus saving time and money. Some towboats have thrusters (like the bowboats of rafting days) that aid the pilots in passing other large tows, negotiating sharp bends, passing bridges, or entering locks. Trafﬁc on the Mississippi system climbed from 211 million short tons to more than 330 million between 1963 and 1974. The growth in river shipping did not abate in the ﬁnal quarter of the century. Trafﬁc along the Upper Mississippi rose from 54 million tons in 1970 to 112 million tons in 2000. The change from riveted to welded barges, the creation of integrated barges, and the innovation of double-skinned barges have led to improved economy, speed, and safety. Shipping on Mississippi barges became substantially less expensive than railroad transport, but at a cost to taxpayers. Barge trafﬁc is the most heavily subsidized form of transport in the United States. A report in 1999 revealed that fuel taxes cover only 10 percent of the annual $674 million that the U.S. Army

147

TOWER COMMISSION

Corps of Engineers spends building and operating the locks and dams of the Mississippi River. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Clay, Floyd M. History of Navigation on the Lower Mississippi. Washington, D.C., 1983. Petersen, William J. Towboating on the Mississippi. Washington, D.C.: National Waterways Study, U.S. Water Engineer Water Resource Support Center, Insitute for Water Resources, 1983.

Willliam J. Petersen / a. r. See also Bargemen; Engineers, Corps of; Inland Lock Navigation; Inland Waterways Commission; Lakes-to-Gulf Deep Waterway; Mississippi River; River Navigation; Waterways, Inland.

TOWER COMMISSION. Appointed by President Ronald Regan in November 1986, the Tower Commission investigated allegations that the administration sold arms to Iran in exchange for U.S. hostages in Lebanon and then diverted money from the arms sales to the Nicaraguan contras, which violated congressional legislation. Headed by former Senator John Tower, the commission also was charged with proposing changes in the National Security Council (NSC) to prevent any such action in the future. Its 1987 report concluded that members of the NSC staff were responsible for the secret diversion of funds and that President Reagan was out of touch with the actions of his own government in the White House. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Koh, Harold Hongju. The National Security Constitution: Sharing Power After the Iran-Contra Affair. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1990. United States. President’s Special Review Board. The Tower Commission Report: The Full Text of the President’s Special Review Board. New York: Times Books, 1987.

Katy J. Harriger / a. g. See also Iran-Contra Affair; Political Scandals; Special Prosecutors.

TOWN GOVERNMENT or township government is the lowest level of general-purpose local government in the northeastern and midwestern states. Generally the jurisdiction of towns or townships extends only to areas outside of incorporated cities. Towns were the principal units of local government in colonial New England, providing schools, poor relief, roads, and other necessary services. The town meeting, an assembly of all enfranchised townspeople, was the primary decision-making body, but over the course of the colonial period the elected selectmen seemed to grow increasingly important in determining town policy. Towns or townships also existed in New

148

York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, though in these middle colonies counties played a greater role in local government than in New England. The southern colonies did not develop townships. This basic geographic pattern persisted throughout the following centuries. In the northernmost states towns were most signiﬁcant. In the middle swath of states they existed but were less important, and they were foreign to the southern half of the nation. During the nineteenth century the trans-Appalachian states stretching from Ohio to the Dakotas adopted township government. In each of these states township ofﬁcials were responsible for roads, cemeteries, and poor relief. Moreover they ensured that farmers maintained their fences and impounded stray livestock. States could assign other tasks to townships as well. In Ohio township clerks were authorized to record livestock brands, and Kansas lawmakers empowered townships to eliminate prairie dogs. In New York, New Jersey, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Nebraska the chief township ofﬁcer was the supervisor, and the country governing boards were composed of the supervisors from each township. The township supervisor was therefore both a township and a county ofﬁcial. By the ﬁrst half of the twentieth century many observers believed the town or township was obsolete. In New England the town meeting seemed ill suited to the larger towns with thousands of voters. Many indifferent townspeople failed to exercise their right to participate, abdicating decision making to the random few hundred people who attended the meetings. In 1915, in response to this situation, Brookline, Massachusetts, adopted the representative town meeting. All town voters could attend these meetings and express their views, but only elected representatives could vote on the issues. By the last decade of the twentieth century forty-two Massachusetts towns, seven Connecticut towns, and one Vermont community had adopted the representative town meeting. To preserve a semblance of broad-based democracy, these assemblies usually included over two hundred voting representatives. Another alternative to the town meeting was the town council. This was a small legislative body comparable to a city council, and it often hired a town manager with duties corresponding to those of a city manager. In other words, under the town council plan a town was governed like a city but retained the title of town. In 1945 Bloomﬁeld became the ﬁrst Connecticut community to opt for this plan, and in 1971 Agawam was the ﬁrst Massachusetts town to embrace council rule. By the 1990s twenty-nine Massachusetts towns operated under the council plan. In a majority of New England towns the traditional town meeting survived, though only a minority of voters attended. Lauded as bastions of direct democracy, town meetings actually appeared to be prime examples of democratic apathy. Meanwhile, most students of local government were growing increasingly critical of township rule outside of New England. They condemned the townships as obso-

TOWNSEND PLAN

lete remnants of a horse-and-buggy era and urged abolition of these unnecessary units. Responding to this academic assault, township ofﬁcials mobilized, organizing state associations that promoted townships as paragons of grassroots democracy. In some states lawmakers reduced the authority of townships. In 1929 Iowa’s legislature deprived townships of their responsibility for local roads, and in the early 1930s Indiana shifted all authority over local roads and drainage ditches to its counties. Most of the midwestern states, however, authorized new responsibilities, such as zoning and ﬁre protection. By the close of the twentieth century towns or townships in a number of states could exercise virtually the full range of powers of an incorporated city. Despite pronouncements that town or township governments were outmoded in an increasingly metropolitan world, they proved especially important in states with large suburban populations. In both New York and Michigan, for example, the town was the chief unit of local government for a rapidly rising number of suburbanites. Whereas in 1960 only 36 percent of New Yorkers lived in towns, by 1990 this ﬁgure was up to 47 percent. In Michigan the share of the state’s population living in townships and dependent on their services as opposed to those of cities rose from 42 percent in 1990 to 48 percent in 2000. Rather than passing from the scene or surviving as obsolete relics, the New England town and townships elsewhere in the Northeast and Midwest adapted to the political realities of the twentieth century and remained vital elements of local government. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hendrickson, J. P. “Grass-roots Government: South Dakota’s Enduring Townships.” South Dakota History 24, no. 1 (1994): 19–42. Sly, John Fairﬁeld. Town Government in Massachusetts (1620– 1930). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1930. Zimmerman, Joseph F. The Massachusetts Town Meeting: A Tenacious Institution. Albany: State University of New York at Albany, 1967.

Jon C. Teaford See also County Government; Local Government.

TOWNSEND PLAN, a plan for an Old-Age Revolving Pension, prompted one of the most astonishing social movements of the New Deal period. Combining the American traditions of pressure politics, reform by monetary manipulation, and evangelical utopianism, the Townsend Plan was one of the most popular of several such movements produced by the social distress and insecurity following the panic of 1929. Dr. Francis E. Townsend, the plan’s originator, announced it on 1 January 1934, and speedily enrolled millions of supporters. As embodied in a bill endorsed by Townsend, the plan entitled all people sixty years of age or over who had been U.S. citizens for at least ﬁve years, to an annuity of up to

Pension Plan. In the turmoil following the stock market crash of 1929, Frances E. Townsend (shown here) developed the Old Age Revolving Pension that would have paid U.S. citizens age sixty and older $200 per month. The plan, which would have been funded with national 2 percent sales tax, was never enacted, although it caused a stir and gained some support. Library of Congress

$200 a month, provided they did not earn any money, and spent all of each month’s annuity, within the United States, by the ﬁfth day of the following month. To ﬁnance the plan, advocates sought to raise $20 billion annually through a general sales tax of two percent. The plan’s authors regarded it as no mere old-age pension but rather, a solution to virtually all U.S. economic ills, including budget deﬁcits. Appealing largely to the lower middle class during a period of great social unrest, the leaders defended the proﬁt system as central to progress and denounced tendencies toward collectivism. Its disciplined voters were instrumental in electing to Congress several outspoken opponents of the New Deal. However, Congress repeatedly rejected bills putting forth the Townsend Plan, mainly because critics, including economists, charged that such a high sales tax would cause wholesale inﬂation. The Townsend Plan movement died out during the beginnings of economic recovery in the late 1930s. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bennett, David H. “The Year of the Old Folks’ Revolt.” American Heritage 16, no. 1 (1964).

149

TOWNSHEND ACTS

Dorman, Morgan J. Age before Booty; an Explanation of the Townsend Plan. New York: Putnam, 1936. Mitchell, Daniel J. B. “Townsend and Roosevelt: Lessons from the Struggle for Elderly Income Support.” Labor History 42, no. 3 (2001).

C. Vann Woodward / m. b. See also New Deal; Old Age; Pension Plans; Share-theWealth Movements; Social Security.

TOWNSHEND ACTS, four Parliamentary acts imposed on the American colonists (1767). They take their name from Charles Townshend, chancellor of the Exchequer and head of the British government at the time they were enacted. The ﬁrst law, the Suspending Act, suspended the New York assembly until it complied with the provisions of the Quartering Act of 1765, which required colonies to supply British troops with shelter and supplies. This law resulted from General Thomas Gage’s decision to concentrate troops in central reserves in New York City, from which they might be dispatched as needed. This decision imposed an unforeseen ﬁnancial burden on that colony, and the New York assembly refused to appropriate funds for additional quarters in New York City because they thought there was still ample room in the barracks at Albany. The second act was the Revenue Act, which levied import duties on lead, paper, glass, and tea—all of which colonists could import legally only from Great Britain. This revenue was earmarked to support royal ofﬁcials in the colonies, including judges and governors, who had relied previously on local assemblies for their salaries. Many colonists feared that this system would put these ofﬁcials beyond all local control while increasing their dependence upon the British ministry for their positions and pay. Resistance to the Revenue Act took the form of agitation, nonimportation agreements, open evasion of the duties, and the promotion of American manufactures. This act marked the second time that the British government had regulated colonial commerce to raise revenue (the ﬁrst was the Sugar Act of 1764). All other commercial laws had been intended to protect some industry within the empire. British leaders like Sir William Pitt and Edmund Burke assailed the Revenue Act as anticommercial. Instead of encouraging British industry, they argued that it discouraged English manufactures and encouraged competing industries in the colonies. A board of customs commissioners, established by the third Townshend Act, assumed responsibility for collecting the new taxes. The board was stationed at Boston and retained complete control over all American customs. It was empowered to reorganize customs, regulate or close ports of entry, appoint customs ofﬁcers, hire coastguard vessels and provide them with search warrants, and take other measures necessary to enforce the revenue

150

laws. Townshend revenues and seizures of goods would pay for this new system. Enforcement ofﬁcers met with resistance from many colonists, including those who seized the Liberty and burned the Gaspe´e. Such actions led the customs commissioners to ask for troops, so forces headed in September 1768 from New York to Boston, where they were quartered in the city. Friction between civilians and the soldiers resulted, and all but two regiments were withdrawn in 1769. One of these was involved in the Boston Massacre (1770), after which all troops were withdrawn. Finally, the fourth Townshend Act repealed the inland duties on tea in England and permitted it to be exported to the colonies free of all British taxes. The uproar over the Townshend Acts subsided after Parliament repealed all duties except that on tea in 1770. The controversy reemerged a few years later, however, when protests over the Tea Act led to the Boston Tea Party in 1773. BIBLIOGRAPHY

McCusker, John J., and Kenneth Morgan, eds. The Early Modern Atlantic Economy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Middlekauff, Robert. The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763–1789. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982. Nash, Gary B. The Urban Crucible: The Northern Seaports and the Origins of the American Revolution. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1986.

Shelby Balik O. M. Dickerson See also Billeting; Boston Tea Party; Colonial Assemblies; Colonial Policy, British; Gaspe´e, Burning of the; Navigation Acts; Parliament, British; Quartering Act; and vol. 9: The Pennsylvania Farmer’s Remedy; Townshend Revenue Act.

TOXIC SHOCK SYNDROME (TSS), a rare, sometimes fatal disease that caused widespread panic among women during the early 1980s when the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and other public health organizations linked the growing number of cases of TSS with the increasing popularity of high-absorbency tampons. The earliest reported cases of TSS occurred among seven children in 1978 and were linked with the presence of Staphylococcus aureus. Symptoms of the disease include vomiting, diarrhea, high fever, and sunburnlike rash. Fatalities among early TSS patients were around 8 percent. In 1980, 890 cases were reported to the CDC, 812 of which were among women whose illness coincided with the start of their menstrual periods. When the Utah Department of Health collected information suggesting that women with TSS had used a particular tampon brand, Rely, the CDC devised a study to examine tampon brand use. The study found that 71 percent of a test group of women with TSS had used Rely tampons. On 22 September 1980, Procter and Gamble recalled all Rely tampons on the market and all tampon manufacturers subsequently

TOYS AND GAMES

lowered the absorbency of their tampons. The Food and Drug Administration began requiring that all tampon packages carry information on TSS, advising women to use tampons with the minimum absorbency needed and to change tampons frequently. Though the scare associated menstruating women with TSS, the disease has been reported in men, children, and older women and in conjunction with surgery, inﬂuenza, sinusitis, childbirth, intravenous drug use, cuts, boils, abscesses, insect bites, and the use of contraceptive sponges, cervical caps, and diaphragms. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Donawa, Maria E. et al. “Toxic Shock Syndrome: Chronology of State and Federal Epidemiologic Studies and Regulatory Decision-Making.” Public Health Reports 99 (1984). Etheridge, Elizabeth W. Sentinel for Health: A History of the Centers for Disease Control. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992. Sapolsky, Harvey M., ed. Consuming Fears: ThePolitics of Product Risks. New York: Basic Books, 1986.

Suzanne White Junod / f. b. See also Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Epidemics and Public Health; Microbiology; Women’s Health.

TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL ACT (TSCA), signed by President Gerald Ford on 11 October 1976, gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the power to track industrial chemicals produced in the United States. The act grew out of federal legislation originally proposed in 1971 by the President’s Council on Environmental Quality. The council’s report, “Toxic Substances,” identiﬁed a need for legislation to identify and control chemicals whose manufacture, processing, distribution, or disposal was potentially dangerous and yet was not adequately regulated under other environmental statutes. Both houses of Congress passed legislation in the Ninety-second and Ninety-third sessions, but the controversy over the scope of chemical screening stalled ﬁnal passage of legislation until 1976. Under the act the EPA screens industrial chemicals and can require the reporting or testing of those chemicals which may pose an environmental or human health hazard. The act also grants the EPA the authority to ban the manufacturing or import of industrial chemicals which pose an unreasonable risk. The EPA is further responsible for tracking the thousands of new industrial chemicals that are developed each year with either unknown or dangerous characteristics and for controlling them as necessary to protect human health and the environment. Manufacturers and processors of chemicals may be required under the act to conduct and report the results of tests to determine the effects of potentially dangerous chemicals on living things.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bergeson, Lynn L. “TSCA: The Toxic Substances Control Act” Chicago: Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources, American Bar Association. Davies, J. Clarence “Determining Unreasonable Risk Under the Toxic Substances Control Act” Washington, D.C.: Conservation Foundation, 1979. Druley, Ray M., and Girard L. Ordway. The Toxic Substances Control Act. Rev. ed. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs, 1981.

Shira M. Diner See also Consumer Protection; Environmental Protection Agency; Food and Drug Administration.

TOYS AND GAMES have always reﬂected the attitudes, humor, and imagination of the culture and times that created them. Toys have a unique cross-generational appeal that can capture the fancy of not only children, but adults as well. More than a few grown-ups have complex model railroads, proudly displayed action ﬁgure collections, or a coveted doll saved from their childhood. As toy historians Athelstan and Kathleen Spilhaus write, “A toy’s appeal lies in the form and shape, the beauty of line, the color and detail, the charm of miniaturization, and the humor of caricature. Some toys amuse use with their jerky antics; others add beauty to our lives with their grace and rhythm. Many do things we can’t do in real life, thereby keeping us in touch with fantasy.” Toys and Games through History While some toys, such as mechanical, lithographed tin, or electronic toys, obviously could not have been introduced without simultaneous technological or production advances, once introduced a toy or game is not necessarily limited to its era of origin. Evidence shows that ancient Egyptian children played with simple, wooden dolls; Roman children played with marbles; stuffed dolls and animals date to antiquity and remain popular; chess seems to date from ancient Chinese and Egyptian dynasties; and little boys can still buy a bag of classic green soldiers just as their daddies did decades ago. Colonial American children played with games and toys like marbles, dice (often carved from bone or antlers on the frontier), and stuffed dolls. Mothers, again especially on the frontier, made many stuffed dolls out of an old stocking or worn pant leg. The child of a more wellto-do urban merchant might play with a doll depicting a peddler, replete with items for sale. Such accessorized dolls foreshadowed by 150 years such modern dolls as Barbie and G.I. Joe. Paper dolls and paper cut-outs have long been popular. In the eighteenth century, dolls—hand painted with watercolor—typically reﬂected women at household chores. In the United States, that corresponded with republican ideals of womanly virtue. Late in the nineteenth century, Jules Verne’s books had popularized science ﬁction, boys could cut out lithographed paper

151

TOYS AND GAMES

shapes that they glued together to make fanciful vessels. Punch-out paper dolls with attachable, tabbed clothing have remained a favorite with children. Eighteenth-century adults fancied thought-provoking, strategic games like chess or checkers. Enlightenment thought encouraged exercising the brain for logical reasoning in any way possible.The eighteenth century also saw the production of many moving ﬁgures called “automata.” These complex, often life-size models were the work of imaginative and skilled toy makers. However, because of their complexity and the limitations of preindustrial production, automata were never produced in sufﬁcient numbers to classify as toys. Nevertheless, they captured the imagination of the age. One particularly fascinating automata was a Parisian monkey who deftly painted a portrait of Benjamin Franklin, then sat back to admire his work. The eighteenth century, which spawned Frederick the Great, the Royal British Army, and the American and French Revolutions, not surprisingly also generated great interest in lead or “tin” soldiers. Johann Gottfried Hilpert, a Prussian, standardized soldier production and had a team of women to paint them. Children and adult collectors could amass whole armies of tin soldiers, complete with infantrymen, grenadiers, lancers, cavalrymen, artillerists, and commanders on horseback. Industrialized production methods, including assembly-line processes, plus improved transportation in the mid-nineteenth century revolutionized toy making and toy consumption. Now manufacturers could quickly make toys and distribute them to a wide customer base. The automata of the eighteenth century gave way to the mechanical toys of the nineteenth. Popular mechanical toys included monkeys painting pictures, ﬁgures that walked, and horse-drawn wagons that rolled as the horse’s legs moved back and forth. A post–Civil War toy of Robert E. Lee depicted him on horseback; another more creative one depicted Union General Ulysses S. Grant raising a cigar to his lips, then pufﬁng out real smoke! While some earlier toys had moved by means of ﬂowing water or sand, the new mechanicals reﬂected the industrialization of the time. Most were made of tin, detailed with colorful lithographs that accurately depicted rivets in a ship’s hull or stripes on a tiger’s back. Manufacturers ﬁtted the molded tin around metal armatures, articulated with movable joints. Inside the armatures were energy storage devices. Most used springs that, when wound tight, stored kinetic energy. When a key or switch allowed the spring to relax, the released energy moved the toy. Others used clockworks—gears and springs wound by a key. The late nineteenth century was also the era of the cast-iron bank. The most popular banks also moved via the same type of mechanism as toys. Some depicted animals jumping through hoops, or, again, drinking from bottles or mugs. Placement of a coin in a bank character’s

152

hand or mouth usually activated the bank. Any motion always ended with the deposit of the coin. American toys have always exhibited an air of nationalism. Banks and toys began depicting American heroes, especially from the Revolution, around the nation’s centennial in 1876. Post–Civil War toys, whether wooden pull toys, tin mechanical toys, or paper doll cutouts, often depicted Civil War soldiers from both the North and the South. As the United States Navy modernized into steampowered, steel-clad ﬂeets with rotating gun turrets, toys reﬂected the change; wind-up, rolling destroyers with smokestacks and ramming prows became popular. In 1916, as the United States prepared to enter World War I (1914–1918), a mechanical toy showed Uncle Sam kicking Kaiser Wilhelm II in the seat of the pants. American toys also depicted open racism and prejudice. One mechanical toy was an African American dancing on a platform, which was not overtly marked but latently resembled a slave auction block. Other black toys, often named “Uncle Tom,” shufﬂed, danced, or played instruments. The Twentieth Century The early twentieth century saw toy makers introduce the names that would become classic. In 1902, after seeing a cartoon that depicted the immensely popular Theodore Roosevelt with a bear cub he had found on a hunting trip, Morris Michtom of Brooklyn’s Ideal Toy Company introduced the stuffed “teddy bear.” Picked up by a variety of other companies, teddy bears have been in production ever since. Another enduring stuffed toy hit the markets in 1915 when Johnny Gruelle introduced Raggedy Ann. Gruelle followed her up with Raggedy Andy for boys, and a series of illustrated books to keep them before the public. Americans’ fascination with industry and building translated to toys. In 1913, A. C. Gilbert introduced the Erector Set. The next year Charles Pajeau followed suit with Tinker Toys. And in 1916, John Lloyd Wright— famed architect Frank Lloyd Wright’s son—introduced Lincoln Logs, which one of his father’s creations helped inspire. As of 2002, all were still on the market. The age of movie/toy tie-ins arrived in 1928 when Walt Disney created the animated Mickey Mouse in a cartoon short. Soon, stuffed Mickeys were on the market, accompanied by his animated sidekicks Donald Duck, Goofy, and the rest. Most large malls boast a Disney Store with toys and merchandise from all of Disney’s movies. The Great Depression of the 1930s saw families seeking durable games they could play together. In 1936, Parker Brothers introduced perhaps one of the most enduring games of all time, Monopoly. The game ﬁt the mood of the country exactly. People had little money, but by playing Monopoly they could be rich with play money. They could buy lucrative Atlantic City properties and monopolize utilities and railroads. If they made a misstep,

TOYS AND GAMES

they could get tossed in jail—just as they wished would happen to many of the “captains of industry” whom many Americans blamed for the depression. Two other phenomena once again revolutionized the toy industry after World War II (1939–1945). They were the introduction of a suitable plastic for toys, and the baby boom. The plastic known as polystyrene actually ﬁrst appeared in 1927. But World War II perfected the use of plastics in industry. That, coupled with a postwar prosperity and the largest new generation in American history, set the stage for a toy boom. The classics of the age were born. In 1952, the Hassenfeld Brothers—Hasbro—of Providence, Rhode Island, introduced an unlikely toy: plastic eyes, noses, ears, and lips that kids could stick into potatoes and other vegetables or fruits. Hasbro called the odd toy Mr. Potato Head, and it quickly caught on. In the 1960s, Hasbro marketed Mr. Potato Head with plastic potatoes, and even plastic carrots, green peppers, and french fries. A Mrs. Potato Head appeared, but the spuds lost their appeal by the 1970s. In 1995, however, Pixar’s movie Toy Story repopularized Mr. Potato Head. Television and movie tie-ins created new toy markets in the 1950s. Disney’s Mickey Mouse Club spurred a demand for mouse-ear hats, as did Disney’s Davy Crockett series a demand for coonskin caps. Disney’s Zorro encouraged little boys to ask for black plastic swords tipped with chalk so they could slash a “Z” on sidewalks, trees, and buildings. In 1959, Mattel introduced Barbie, the most popular plastic doll of all time. Mattel engineered a marketing coup with Barbie, by offering not only the doll but a range of accessories as well. Changes of clothes, purses, gloves, shoes—no Barbie was complete without a decent wardrobe, and a Barbie box to carry it in. Soon Barbie had a boyfriend, Ken, and a sister, Skipper. Barbie was born into the suburban housewife era and has lived through the hippie age of the 1960s, the do-your-own-thing era of the 1970s, and the ﬂamboyant 1980s. While feminists have decried that Barbie, with her exaggerated hourglass ﬁgure, is sexist, foisting upon young girls an image of womanhood that is hard to achieve, she has nevertheless endured. In 1965, Hasbro took the social risk of introducing a doll for boys—G.I. Joe. At almost a foot tall, Joe was loosely based on a new television series called The Lieutenant. In reality, Joe arrived in a year when the United States was celebrating the twentieth anniversary of its victory in World War II. Joe represented a time before the Cold War when Americans were victorious on the battleﬁeld. Not that six-year-old boys cared, but Joe won the favor of their parents, and that was half the battle. Joe also followed Barbie’s marketing scheme, by offering accessories like M-1 Riﬂes, hand-grenades, dress blues, and jungle camouﬂage. Boys could even outﬁt Joe in enemy uniforms; but they were enemies from the “good ol’

days”—Germans and Japanese—not the North Vietnamese or Vietcong of the 1960s. Indeed, Joe would suffer, as would all Americans, from United States involvement in Vietnam. As victory eluded the United States there and things military faded from fashion in the wake of war protests, Joe changed from a soldier to an adventurer. In 1970, Hasbro began marketing Joes as the “Adventure Team.” Bewhiskered Joes drove All-Terrain Vehicles instead of Jeeps, and hunted for stolen mummies and white tigers. Joe became anemic as the United States began to doubt itself on the battleﬁeld. By the mid-1970s, Joe had faded away. He returned, however, as a smaller action ﬁgure in the early 1980s to battle an elite group of terrorists known as Cobra. In the late 1990s, Hasbro returned the original G.I. Joe to the markets. The target audience was grown-up baby boomers who once played with the original. Toy cars had long been around. Jack Odell introduced ﬁnely crafted miniatures he called Matchbox Cars in 1952, and in 1957 Tonka trucks and cars hit the market. Larger-scale, metal vehicles with free-rolling wheels, Tonkas were virtually indestructible. Mattel revolutionized the market once again in 1966 with the introduction of Hot Wheels. The cars had low-friction wheels and used gravity to speed them down strips of yellow track that boys could attach to tabletops then run down to the ﬂoor. The cars depicted stock autos, like Mustangs and Camaros, and fanciful show and concept cars. The release of George Lucas’s Star Wars in 1977 brought new interest in miniature play ﬁgures, popularly called “action ﬁgures.” In the early twenty-ﬁrst century, toy buyers can expect tie-in toys to hit the shelves a month or more before their associate movie, but Star Wars arrived in the summer of 1977 with no afﬁliated toys. Not until the next year did ﬁgures of Luke Skywalker, Darth Vader, and the rest appear. Compared with later action ﬁgures, the original Kenner Star Wars ﬁgures are simple, yet toy collectors highly prize them. In the 1980s, virtually every kid-oriented movie from E.T. to Beetlejuice had action ﬁgure/toy tie-ins. The 1980s also saw reverse tie-ins, when toy manufacturers contracted animation studios to produce cheap half-hour cartoons to support toys. He-Man, She-Ra, G.I. Joe, and Teenage-Mutant Ninja Turtles capitalized on such marketing strategy. Electronics have also made their mark on toys. In 1972, Magnavox introduced Odyssey, the ﬁrst video game that could be hooked into a television. Atari followed in 1976 with Pong. While home video games boomed brieﬂy, they faded quickly in the early 1980s as large, coin-fed games in arcades attracted players. In 1983, Nintendo pried the home video game market back open with games like Super Mario Brothers. Now video games are a staple for both televisions and computers.

153

TRACK AND FIELD

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The History of Toys and Games. Available at http://www .historychannel.com/exhibits.toys. Ketchum, William C., Jr. Toys and Games. Washington, D.C.: Cooper-Hewitt Museum of the Smithsonian Institution, 1981. Miller, G. Wayne. Toy Wars: The Epic Struggle between G.I. Joe, Barbie, and the Companies that Make Them. New York: Times Books, 1998. Spilhaus, Athelstan, and Kathleen Spilhaus. Mechanical Toys: How Old Toys Work. New York: Crown Publishers, 1989.

R. Steven Jones See also G.I. Joe; Barbie Doll; Middlebrow Culture; “Monopoly”; “Scrabble”; Vacation and Leisure.

TRACK AND FIELD athletics in the United States had multiple origins in the early- to mid-nineteenth century. British models were most inﬂuential. Scottish immigrants formed Caledonian Clubs in many American cities, and through these the tradition of Highland Games (also called Caledonian Games) brought track and ﬁeld competition to the East Coast through the mid-1870s. Boston, for example, held its ﬁrst Highland Games in 1842. In 1849 English long-distance runners demonstrated their sport to large American crowds. Another important thread, older and harder to trace, is the Native American running and games traditions. One of the ﬁrst American runners to compel English athletes’ notice was Louis “Deerfoot” Bennett, a Seneca Indian who ran in England in 1862, dressed for effect in wolfskin and a feathered headband. Yet another venue for organized competition was county and state fairs. As in England, social class distinguished the structures that contained and sponsored track and running events. Caledonian Club events tended to invite all comers, no matter what race or ethnicity. Other British imports, such as the races called “pedestrians,” were often largely working-class events. One of the ﬁrst American pedestrians was held in 1835 at the Union racetrack in New York. Runners competed to cover ten miles in less than an hour. (One out of nine entrants achieved this goal.) Another type of pedestrian was the “six day go as you please” staged in several cities in the mid-nineteenth century. These were endurance events characterized by betting and by the rough informality of that era’s urban spectacles. One race in Boston in the mid-1880s was run indoors by contestants from a wide variety of social backgrounds who had coaches and stood to win some money. A ﬁnal category was the women’s walking contest, quite popular in the 1870s. Often lucrative for the winners, these marathon contests, involving thousands of quartermile track circuits per meet, disappeared in the 1880s and are barely remembered today. By the late-nineteenth century the other pedestrians had also shriveled because of

154

widespread corruption and the increasing attraction of more elitist and “legitimate” competitions. Collegiate and club track and running competitions eventually overwhelmed more populist events. For these athletes, amateur status was a badge of honor. In the 1880s and 1890s, the athletic club model caught on among American elites. These clubs varied from social clubs with ﬁne athletic facilities to clubs primarily for amateur athletes, but in America’s gilded age, most clubs developed membership policies deﬁned by income and social prestige. The New York Athletic Club (NYAC) was founded in 1868, and the Boston Athletic Association in 1887. By the late nineteenth century, most American cities had amateur athletic clubs, and the international aspirations of the American clubs were captured in the ﬁrst AmericanBritish meet held at Travers Island, New York, in June 1895, in which the NYAC hosted its London counterpart. On the collegiate scene, perhaps due to their relative age and their links to elite preparatory schools with track programs and to the city athletic clubs, northeastern universities nurtured many outstanding amateur track and ﬁeld athletes at the turn of the century. The growth of organized collegiate sports partly reﬂected middle-class concerns about the fate of rugged manliness in an urban, electriﬁed world. The Intercollegiate Association of Amateur Athletics was founded in 1876. By the 1880s, track and ﬁeld events encompassed the 100- and 220-yard sprints, the quarter-, half-, and mile runs, hurdles, the broad jump, long jump, pole vault, shot put, 56-pound throw, and hammer throw, and sometimes the half-mile walk. (The marathon would be an Olympic addition.) In 1896 a fourteen-man team sponsored by the Boston Athletic Association traveled to Athens for the ﬁrst modern Olympic Games. The young Americans won nine of the twelve track and ﬁeld events. By the 1912 games, United States track athletes had put the Olympics on their calendars and continued their impressive record of victories. The remarkable Carlisle Indian School graduate, Jim Thorpe, won both the pentathlon and decathlon. The 1912 team also included several African American members, as had the 1908 team. The development of American track and ﬁeld has reﬂected the evolution of various groups’ access to social competition in general. Into the early twentieth century, American white men dominated the track and ﬁeld events sponsored and fostered by the white athletic clubs and the white-dominated colleges. Yet African Americans competed in track and ﬁeld from its American beginnings, largely through venues that paralleled those of white male athletes. Most black track athletes, as in baseball and other sports, functioned in segregated settings. The “colored” YMCAs nurtured athletic skills and organizational knowledge. American blacks also founded urban athletic clubs to foster recreation and competition; in fact, like whites of various ethnic and class groupings, African Americans fully participated in the club movement of the late nineteenth century. Limited community resources hampered these

TRACK AND FIELD

clubs, and members usually had to use public facilities for their activities. Black colleges, founded after the Civil War, offered a crucial staging ground for black athletes. After initial hesitation to commit their scarce resources to athletics, by the 1890s college administrators were backing a varsity movement. More public resources might have come their way through the Second Morrill Act of 1890, except that southern white state legislators diverted funds intended for black land-grant colleges to white uses. Even in those years, the outstanding competitive skills of individual black men occasionally emerged. A few black athletes were able to participate in white-controlled events like the Highland Games. A few black students attended white colleges and universities, sometimes only after being required to graduate from a black college. These included outstanding athletes like Amherst’s W. T. S. Jackson, the University of Pennsylvania’s J. B. Taylor, Howard Smith, and Dewey Rogers, and Harvard’s N. B. Marshall and Ted Cable (a graduate of Andover Academy). Other venues for blacks to compete against whites included the military, where black units could ﬁeld competitors against white units’ teams. American meets and teams contained increasing numbers of black American world-class athletes, including of course Jesse Owens, whose winning performance offered an ironic commentary on the Third Reich’s racial philosophy in the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games. In the mid-1890s college women began testing their skill in track and ﬁeld events. Vassar College held the ﬁrst of forty-two consecutive women’s ﬁeld days in 1895. For thirty years, women track athletes strove against the physical educators’ received wisdom, which echoed cultural repression of women’s physical exertion on the grounds that women were incapable of extended exercise. In the early 1920s, track and ﬁeld boomed as a sport for college women, then fell victim by the 1930s to social fears of the “mannish” and unnatural (read: “lesbian”) female types who might thrive in sports so dependent on “masculine” strength and speed (rather than the grace and agility one could read into gymnastics, skating, and even tennis and golf, which had their own social cachet). Colleges were not the only breeding ground for women (or men) track athletes. Though access to good tracks, coaches, and practice time made a difference in results, one could compete for relatively little money in events sponsored by the Amateur Athletic Union and thus qualify for distinction. While the blight on female track athletics hit colleges ﬁrst, non-collegiate athletes continued to compete and draw audiences into the 1930s. There was room in public regard for Mildred “Babe” Didrikson, who gained celebrity in the 1931 nationals by breaking the world’s record for the 80-meter hurdles and achieved Olympic distinction in 1932. (In the longer run, her blunt speech and avoidance of dresses seemed to conﬁrm stereotypes of women athletes.) Didrikson and many other non-collegiate women athletes were sponsored by indus-

Jesse Owens. The track and ﬁeld phenomenon, in midair during a broad jump in 1936, the year he won four gold medals and broke world records at the Olympic Games in Berlin. AP/Wide World Photos

trial leagues, part of the “welfare capitalism” movement of the 1920s. As female participation in track and ﬁeld became culturally complicated, black women emerged as the individuals able to withstand the stigma of speed, endurance, and strength to compete in national and international meets. Alice Coachman was the ﬁrst black woman to win an Olympic gold medal in the high jump, in London in 1948. Wilma Rudolph won Americans’ hearts with her Olympic performance in 1960, when she won three gold medals; and she was only one member of an Olympic women’s squad dominated by black collegiate athletes. (The entire relay team was from Tennessee State University.) Since the 1960s a host of black American women athletes have starred on the world stage of Olympic competition, including Evelyn Ashford, Valerie Brisco-Hooks, Gail Devers, Florence Grifﬁth Joyner, Jackie JoynerKersee, Marion Jones, and Wyomia Tyus. Black men have matched black women’s track and ﬁeld brilliance in the last ﬁfty years. Again, a partial list includes Bob Beamon, Leroy Burrell, Milt Campbell, Lee Evans, Carl Lewis, Michael Johnson, Edwin Moses, and

155

TRADE AGREEMENTS

Mike Powell. The bitter side of African American success is the continuing social and “scientiﬁc” conversation about whether there are physiological causes of black athletic domination. Besides linking to a long Euro-American history of slandering black Africans and their descendants as more animalistic and primitive than whites, this debate implies that blacks may have to work less hard and thus deserve less credit for their athletic achievements. As with other sports, track and ﬁeld’s twentieth century has been characterized by both technical and technological developments contributing to progressively faster, longer, higher results. Technological improvements encompass the materials used in equipment, including shoes and clothing, as well as timing, starting, and measurement methods. There have also been illegitimate technological developments, notably the use of drugs, particularly anabolic steroids, to enhance physical development and performance. Technical improvements include training regimes, nutritional knowledge, and research toward systematizing and enhancing the psychosocial aspects of training and competition. The ﬁnal major development has been the erosion of distinctions between amateur and professional athletic status. Endorsements and sponsorships from corporations and other organizations allow outstanding track athletes to enhance and extend their careers. Many other professional athletes may earn far more, but professionalization has contributed to the visibility and democratization of track and ﬁeld. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ashe, Arthur R., Jr. A Hard Road to Glory: A History of the AfricanAmerican Athlete 1619–1918. Volume I. New York: Amistad, 1993. Cahn, Susan K. Coming On Strong: Gender and Sexuality in Twentieth-Century Women’s Sport. New York: Free Press, 1994. Chalk, Ocania. Black College Sport. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1976. Guttmann, Allen. Women’s Sports: A History. New York: Columbia University Press, 1991. McNab, Tom. The Complete Book of Track and Field. New York: Exeter Books, 1980. Rader, Benjamin G. American Sports: From the Age of Folk Games to the Age of Televised Sports. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1996. Riess, Steven A. City Games: The Evolution of American Urban Society and the Rise of Sports. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1989. Tricard, Louise Mead. American Women’s Track and Field: A History, 1895 through 1980. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 1996.

Mina Carson See also Olympic Games, American Participation in; Sports.

156

TRADE AGREEMENTS. When two or more nations wish to establish or modify economic relations and set tariffs on international commerce they enter into a trade agreement. Any authorized government ofﬁcial may negotiate such an agreement, but all participating governments must formally ratify the proposed treaty before it becomes effective. As a result, domestic political forces and interest groups exert considerable inﬂuence over the provisions of any trade agreement. The United States negotiated few trade agreements in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Domestic political pressures determined how high or low import taxes (tariffs) would be. From the earliest debates in the First Congress, some political leaders favored low tariffs designed to raise revenue while others favored much higher rates to protect domestic producers from foreign competition. Lower rates generally prevailed through the 1850s, but protectionist tariffs were sponsored by the dominant Republican party during and after the Civil War. To encourage particular types of trade within the forbiddingly high post–Civil War tariff structure some leaders favored bilateral trade agreements in which each nation agreed to reduce rates in return for reciprocal reductions. In the 1870s the United States signed a reciprocal trade agreement with the then-independent Hawaiian government that gave Hawaiian sugar exporters tariff-free access to the U.S. market. In the early 1890s Secretary of State James G. Blaine negotiated reciprocal trade agreements that softened the effect of the highly protectionist McKinley Tariff Act of 1890, but the 1894 WilsonGorman Tariff Act made such agreements impossible. With the exception of the Underwood Act, which passed in 1913 but never went into effect because of World War I, protectionist rates remained until the Great Depression, when it appeared that the nation’s high import duties were not only detrimental to world trade but also might be harmful to the domestic economy. In the election of 1932 the Democrats came to power on a program involving “a competitive tariff ” for revenue and “reciprocal trade agreements with other nations.” Cordell Hull, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s secretary of state, was the driving force behind congressional action in getting the Trade Agreements Act made law on 12 June 1934. The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 permitted reduction of trade barriers by as much as half in return for reductions by another nation. Moreover, the new act, in form an amendment to the 1930 Tariff Act, delegated to the president the power to make foreigntrade agreements with other nations on the basis of a mutual reduction of duties, without any speciﬁc congressional approval of such reductions. The act limited reduction to 50 percent of the rates of duty existing then and stipulated that commodities could not be transferred between the dutiable and free lists. The power to negotiate was to run for three years, but this power was renewed for either two or three years periodically until replaced by the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. In the late

TRADE AGREEMENTS

1930s and 1940s U.S. negotiators arranged a great number of bilateral trade agreements. In fact, between 1934 and 1947 the United States made separate trade agreements with twenty-nine foreign countries. The Tariff Commission found that when it used dutiable imports in 1939 as its basis for comparison, U.S. tariffs were reduced from an average of 48 percent to an average of 25 percent during the thirteen-year period, the imports on which the duties were reduced having been valued at over $700 million in 1939. Although Congress gave the State Department the primary responsibility for negotiating with other nations, it instructed the Tariff Commission and other government agencies to participate in developing a list of concessions that could be made to foreign countries or demanded from them in return. Each trade agreement was to incorporate the principle of “unconditional mostfavored-nation treatment.” This requirement was necessary to avoid a great multiplicity of rates. During World War II the State Department and other government agencies worked on plans for the reconstruction of world trade and payments. They discovered important defects in the trade agreements program, and they concluded that they could make better headway through simultaneous multilateral negotiations. American authorities in 1945 made some far-reaching proposals for the expansion of world trade and employment. Twentythree separate countries then conducted tariff negotiations bilaterally on a product-by-product basis, with each country negotiating its concessions on each import commodity with the principal supplier of that commodity. The various bilateral understandings were combined to form the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), referred to as the Geneva Agreement, which was signed in Geneva on 30 October 1947. This agreement did not have to be submitted to the U.S. Senate for approval because the president was already speciﬁcally empowered to reduce tariffs under the authority conferred by the Trade Agreements Extension Act of 1945. After 1945 Congress increased the power of the president by authorizing him to reduce tariffs by 50 percent of the rate in effect on 1 January 1945, instead of 1934, as the original act provided. Thus, duties that had been reduced by 50 percent prior to 1945 could be reduced by another 50 percent, or 75 percent below the rates that were in effect in 1934. But in 1955 further duty reductions were limited to 15 percent, at the rate of 5 percent a year over a three-year period, and in 1958 to 20 percent, effective over a four-year period, with a maximum of 10 percent in any one year. In negotiating agreements under the Trade Agreements Act, the United States usually proceeded by making direct concessions only to so-called chief suppliers— namely, countries that were, or probably would become, the main source, or a major source, of supply of the commodity under discussion. This approach seemed favorable to the United States, since no concessions were ex-

tended to minor supplying countries that would beneﬁt the chief supplying countries (through unconditional most-favored-nation treatment) without the latter countries ﬁrst having granted a concession. The United States used its bargaining power by granting concessions in return for openings to foreign markets for American exports. Concessions to one nation through bilateral negotiations were often extended to all others through the mostfavored-nation principle. Many international agreements included a clause stating that the parties would treat each other in the same way they did the nation their trade policies favored the most. If in bilateral negotiations the United States agreed to reduce its import duties on a particular commodity, that same reduction was automatically granted to imports from any nation with which the United States had a most-favored-nation arrangement. The high tariff walls surrounding the United States were gradually chipped away through bilateral agreements that established much lower rates for all its major trading partners. From the original membership of twenty-three countries, GATT had expanded by the mid-1970s to include more than seventy countries, a membership responsible for about four-ﬁfths of all the world trade. During the numerous tariff negotiations carried on under the auspices of GATT, concessions covering over 60,000 items had been agreed on. These constituted more than two-thirds of the total import trade of the participating countries and more than one-half the total number of commodities involved in world trade. With the expiration on 30 July 1962, of the eleventh renewal of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, the United States was faced with a major decision on its future foreign trade policy: to choose between continuing the program as it had evolved over the previous twenty-eight years or to replace it with a new and expanded program. The second alternative was chosen by President John F. Kennedy when, on 25 January 1962, he asked Congress for unprecedented authority to negotiate with the European Common Market for reciprocal trade agreements. The European Common Market had been established in 1957 to eliminate all trade barriers in six key countries of Western Europe: France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. Their economic strength, the increasing pressure on American balance of payments, and the threat of a Communist aid and trade offensive led Congress to pass the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. This act granted the president far greater authority to lower or eliminate American import duties than had ever been granted before, and it replaced the negative policy of preventing dislocation by the positive one of promoting and facilitating adjustment to the domestic dislocation caused by foreign competition. The president was authorized, through trade agreements with foreign countries, to reduce any duty by 50 percent of the rate in effect on 1 July 1962. Whereas the United States had negotiated in the past on an item-by-item, rate-by-

157

TRADE DOLLAR

rate basis, in the future the president could decide to cut tariffs on an industry, or across-the-board, basis for all products, in exchange for similar reductions by the other countries. In order to deal with the tariff problems created by the European Common Market, the president was empowered to reduce tariffs on industrial products by more than 50 percent, or to eliminate them completely when the United States and the Common Market together accounted for 80 percent or more of the world export value. The president could also reduce the duty by more than 50 percent or eliminate it on an agricultural commodity, if he decided such action would help to maintain or expand American agricultural exports. After Kennedy’s death, President Lyndon B. Johnson pushed through a new round of tariff bargaining that culminated in a multilateral trade negotiation known as the Kennedy Round. The agreement, reached on 30 June 1967, reduced tariff duties an average of about 35 percent on some 60,000 items representing an estimated $40 billion in world trade, based on 1964 ﬁgures, the base year for the negotiations. As a result of the tariff-reduction installments of the Kennedy Round, by 1973 the average height of tariffs in the major industrial countries, it is estimated, had come down to about 8 or 9 percent. Although both Johnson and President Richard M. Nixon exerted pressure on Congress to carry some of the trade expansion movements of the Kennedy Round further, Congress resisted all proposals. Since 1934 U.S. trade negotiations have been an executive responsibility, but Congress has maintained a strong interest in both procedures and outcomes. In the 1960s and 1970s it called upon the U.S. Tariff Commission to identify “peril points,” where reduction of speciﬁc duties might cause serious damage to U.S. producers or suppliers. Other federal legislation provided for relief measures if increased imports cause injury to a domestic industrial sector. The crisis in foreign trade that developed in 1971–1972 was the result of stagnation as well as of an unprecedented deﬁcit in the U.S. balance of payments. Some pressure groups from both industry and labor tried to revive the protectionism that had ﬂourished before 1934, but they had had small success except on petroleum imports by the mid-1970s. The world’s acceptance of more liberal trade agreements has had different effects on U.S. producers. Most likely to beneﬁt are those engaged in the nation’s traditionally export-oriented agricultural sector. Production costs are relatively low in the U.S. heartland, so a freer market tends to beneﬁt domestic agricultural exporters. At the same time, labor-intensive industries, such as textiles, electronics, and automobiles, have suffered from the gradual reduction of import restrictions. U.S. wage rates range far higher than comparable rates in certain countries that have built very efﬁcient textile mills and fabrication plants for electronic devices and appliances. The recovery of the U.S. auto industry in the 1990s, however, demonstrated that increasing the use of industrial robot-

158

ics and automated assembly lines can help undermine the cost advantage of foreign manufacturers. As more liberal trade agreements promote competition among producers, each nation is likely to develop stronger and weaker economic sectors that complement those of its global trading partners. The ultimate trade agreement is one in which all national barriers disappear. The European Union (formerly the European Economic Community) represents an approximation of that goal, as does the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) among the United States, Canada, and Mexico. NAFTA cancels all major barriers to exchange of goods and services among the participants, leaving the GATT structure in control of imports and exports outside the free-trade area. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Grinspun, Ricardo, and Maxwell A. Cameron, eds. The Political Economy of North American Free Trade. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993. McCormick, Thomas J. America’s Half Century: United States Foreign Policy in the Cold War and After. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995. McKinney, Joseph A., and M. Rebecca Sharpless, eds. Implications of a North American Free Trade Region: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives. Waco, Texas: Baylor University, 1992.

John M. Dobson Sidney Ratner / a. g. See also European Union; General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; North American Free Trade Agreement; Reciprocal Trade Agreements; Trade, Foreign.

TRADE DOLLAR. The currency law of 1873 created a special silver dollar, weighing 420 grains instead of the standard 412.5 grains, ostensibly to encourage trade with China, but more probably to provide a market for domestic silver producers (see Crime of 1873). The bulk of the 36 million pieces coined went to China, but at least 6 million were forced into circulation in the United States, despite the fact that after 1887 they were no longer legal tender. Many were bought at a discount and paid out at par to immigrant laborers who were forced to take the loss. Hoping to force the government to buy new silver, the silver interests delayed government redemption of the coins until 1887. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Carothers, Neil. Fractional Money: A History of the Small Coins and Fractional Paper Currency of the United States. New York: Wiley, 1930. Schwarz, Ted. A History of United States Coinage. San Diego, Calif.: Barnes, 1980.

Neil Carothers / a. r. See also China Trade; Currency and Coinage; Free Silver; Money; Silver Prospecting and Mining.

TRADE, DOMESTIC

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOMESTIC TRADE, 1492–2002 1492–1607, The New World Evolves

1914–1928, World War I and the Jazz Age

The Old World (Europe) and the New World begin to blend together as the pioneers bring livestock andother necessities for survival. Fishing starts a dominant industry in the North.

The Eighteenth Amendment was ratified, prohibiting the manufacture of alcoholic beverages for sale. Illegal industries evolved in active trade in wines and liquor. America enjoyed prosperity, along with demanding more goods and services.

1607–1783, The Colonial Era Native Americans taught the colonists to raise new crops, including corn, squash, potatoes, and tobacco. Ships were sent from Europe full of luxuries to trade. The first permanent trading post was established.

1784–1860, A New Nation The Constitution was adopted. A national currency and a banking system were developed.

1861–1865, The Civil War The North was thriving economically as a result of war expenditures. The South was just barely surviving. Its agricultural lands had been turned into battlefields, and what little was produced was not being marketed because the North blockaded the Southern ports.

1865–1889, Reconstruction The development of the railroads connecting the Middle West and the South to the West made trading much faster and more profitable. Also, the Great Lakes became a hub of commerce between the East and the Middle West.

1890–1913, The Progressive Era The creation of the Federal Trade Commission brought control and regulation to interstate trade. For the first time, more people were employed by industry than working on farms.

TRADE, DOMESTIC. Trade can be deﬁned as engaging in an exchange for goods and services. For trade to take place, there must be at least two parties with different wants and needs. These people may not be able to produce the goods or services alone and seek others who can do so. People need the basics to survive such as food, clothing, and shelter. They may want large houses, fashion clothing, and exotic food. Specialization is extremely important to trade. Each worker or company focuses on producing a type of service or product, creating interdependency. Whether they are consumers, workers, producers, or the government itself, everyone beneﬁts from trade in various ways.

1929–1939, The Great Depression The stock market crashed in October 1929. A domino effect occurred in the nation’s economy, and consumer spending collapsed. Trade was nearly at a standstill.

1941–1945, World War II Demand for goods and services was once again placed on need only, although government spending on the war effort helped bring the country out of the Great Depression. Production for consumer goods declined, and production for war necessities increased.

1945–Present, The Modern Era Since World War II, goods increasingly have been mass-produced to meet the needs and wants of consumers. Companies seek lower production costs and less time in the production process. America has seen a shift from domestic production to foreign production. Some American companies have bought land in foreign countries, built factories there, and used their labor because it is cheaper. America is helping the underdeveloped countries to develop as a result of trade. The technological revolution beginning in the mid1980s has brought even faster production methods and a new set of industries. Consumer spending is at an all-time high. Trade is evolving on a worldwide basis.

Workers beneﬁt from securing jobs with companies that are expanding and desire labor. A producer or company can grow as a result of the demand for its product or service. Consumers are able to make better choices because they create the demand for products and services and indirectly create competition among producers. The government beneﬁts because of the taxes on producers, workers, and consumers. Since colonial times, trade has contributed greatly to the standard of living of the United States, which is among the highest in the world. Early Trade, 1492–1783 The people who came to America did so to seek freedom of religion, freedom of political views, and economic op-

159

TRADE, DOMESTIC

portunity. Great Britain still had control over the colonies. As the American colonies were being settled, trade became a means of survival. The Native Americans assisted the colonists in growing food. They introduced them to potatoes, corn, and tobacco, which the colonists in turn traded for goods from Europe. Indigenous people had their settlements either near waterways or near trails they had created. The colonists used both the waterways and the trails as transportation routes to conduct trade. As America was being explored, trade was evolving. To make trade easier, trading posts were set up in towns. A popular one, called the Aptucxet Trading Post, was founded by the Pilgrims in 1627. It has often been referred to as “the cradle of American commerce.” Fur, lumber, luxury goods, and food were just a few things that were traded. The Native Americans as well as the Pilgrims used the trading post, exchanging beaver skins for blankets, guns, hatchets, and rum. As the colonial trade grew, hostilities developed with Britain and also among the colonists themselves over trade issues. As the colonists were prospering, Britain was losing money as a result of its war with France over territories in North America. Britain’s unsuccessful efforts to tax the colonists helped spark the Revolution. During the war, little trade took place outside the colonies. People became more self-sufﬁcient and interdependent, or they just did without things that they were used to having. By 1762 merchants had been complaining that there was no central bank in the colonies. A central bank was starting to evolve by the end of the Revolution. The signing of the Constitution in 1787 created a strong government that supported Americans who were trying very hard to maintain an economy based on domestic trade, with an emphasis on agriculture. A New Nation, 1783–1860 In the late 1700s, the newly discovered Ohio Valley waterways made inland trade easier for New England and the middle and southern colonies. The steamboat made a successful appearance in the Ohio Valley in 1811. It was mainly used to get crops to market areas. The “river cities,” including Cincinnati, Louisville, Saint Louis, and New Orleans, became trading hubs as manufacturing developed along the waterways. By the 1820s there was a central bank and a national currency. In almost every large town and new cities, banks were being built. The opening of the Erie Canal in 1825, connecting Lake Erie to the Hudson River, also furnished a new outlet for the Northwest trafﬁc. New York City wasn’t just a market anymore but also a commercial center for trade. Waterways continue to be important, but the landlocked towns began to prosper from trade as a result of the railroads. They spread quickly from Baltimore to Wisconsin. Most of the northern Atlantic Coast turned to manufacturing as the railroad continued to grow.

160

Civil War, 1861–1865 At the time of the Civil War, the South was producing mostly agricultural products, with an emphasis on cotton and tobacco as major commodities for trade. The North cut off the South’s markets when the war started, and its trade was almost at a standstill. Also, with so many men in the army, it was impossible for the women left behind to operate the transportation systems to get the products to markets. The South was mostly self-sufﬁcient and poor once again. By 1863, the North was seeking proﬁts on goods related to the war, such as the high demand for army uniforms. The North was thriving economically and making quick money. Reconstruction, 1865–1889 The two decades from 1870 to 1890 marked the development of railroads connecting the Middle West and the South to the West. People migrated to the West in search of a proﬁtable economic future. New settlements sprang up quickly along with the manufacturing and agricultural trade. With the development of a more sophisticated transportation system came a demand for material possessions. The Great Lakes were transformed to provide the needs and wants of commerce between the East and the Middle West. The Progressive Era, 1890–1914 The Progressive Movement started in about 1890 as a protest against the excesses of the preceding century and the corruption in government at the time. One result of this movement was more effective regulation on business and trade. Journalists (some of whom became known as muckrakers) exposed the sins of corporate giants like Standard Oil Corporation to the socially conscious public. The turn of the century saw the establishment of large corporations and trusts, which attempted to control both supply and demand of their product category and to exercise authority over newly organized labor unions. These new corporations controlled vast amounts of money and resources, which they used for expansion, competition with foreign business, political inﬂuence, control of large blocks of stock, and the pooling of patents. The creation of the Federal Trade Commission under President Woodrow Wilson brought control and regulation to interstate trade. Cities were growing explosively because of their role as centers for great industrial corporations. Cities had the money and the employment, and to them came the vast armies of workers, the expanding railway systems, and the crowded and often unhealthy factories. Department stores ﬂourished and became centers of shopping, enabled by improvements in transportation, such as tramways and motorcars. For the ﬁrst time in United States history, there were more people employed by industry than working on farms.

TRADE, DOMESTIC

In spite of the move to the cities, agricultural trade also grew. The shift on the farm from manual labor to machines allowed for the expansion in commercial farming. The expanding population in the cities provided a large market for the farmers’ products, but there was still enough left to sell to foreign countries. The number of farms in the United States tripled between 1860 and 1910, from 2 million to 6 million. At the turn of the century, America was a land of abundance. Supplies of many natural resources surpassed those of the rest of the world. By this time, there was a well-established trade both domestically and internationally in iron, steel, coal, cotton, corn, and wheat. World War I and The Jazz Age, 1914–1928 In 1917 the United States entered World War I, and from that experience ﬁrst became a major world power. During the brief period that the country was involved in the war, the shortage of men at home meant that there were plenty of jobs available and full employment. Lucrative government contracts meant a full workload. Immediately following the war, there was a glut of returning veterans seeking work. The end of wartime contracts meant fewer jobs, business owners attempted to

drive down wages and to break unions in an effort to maintain proﬁts, and the unions began to revolt. Scarcity of available money stalled the shift to a consumer goods economy. In 1919 the Eighteenth Amendment was ratiﬁed, prohibiting the manufacture of alcoholic beverages for sale. It spawned an illegal cottage industry that resulted in an active trade in wines and liquors. In addition, the period gave rise to a new industry: the underworld. Trading in alcohol and the demand for union busters gave illegal activity new strongholds. During the 1920s, America enjoyed an era of prosperity, and big business regained control. New wealth brought more leisure time and the growth of the entertainment business: organized sports, silent ﬁlms, radio, mass-oriented magazines, and recorded music. Corporations issued stock publicly on a wide scale, and millions of Americans were able to buy stock in these giant companies. The Great Depression, 1929–1939 All of this afﬂuence came to a crashing end when the stock market collapsed in October 1929. Just prior to the crash in 1929, the Gross National Product was $87 billion; four

161

TRADE, DOMESTIC

years later, it had shrunk to $41 billion. Every day, factories closed and banks and businesses failed. In 1930 the jobless numbered 7 million; by 1932 the number had risen to 15 million out of a total workforce of 45 million. Farmers were also hurt, as thousands lost their land and homes through foreclosure. In the South, the collapse of the export market for cotton and tobacco and problems with overproduction led to looting and riots in 1931. American businessmen found that the overseas markets for their goods were drying up because the depression was becoming global. In 1933 President Franklin Delano Roosevelt led Congress to enact a wide variety of emergency economic and social legislation called the New Deal, which brought some relief to the ailing country. The Securities and Exchange Commission was created in 1934. Its purpose was to police corporations that were issuing new securities. The National Recovery Administration was created in 1933 to establish codes for fair competition and to guarantee workers the right to form unions. Minimum wages and maximum work hours were established, and the Social Security system was created to provide relief to the elderly and inﬁrm. During this decade, Hollywood became the movie capital of the world. With the sensational boom in “talk-

162

ing” movies, an industry was born that would supply entertainment to the country and abroad. Isolationism was the U.S. foreign policy in Roosevelt’s ﬁrst term in ofﬁce, a policy in opposition to America’s efforts to regulate international currency and trade. World War II, 1941–1945 All of this changed on 7 December 1941 when Japan bombed American ships in Pearl Harbor and America entered World War II. Some say that this marked the end of the depression. World War II saw the beginning of what came to be called the military industrial complex. This alliance between government and big business led to unprecedented production records; manufacturing production in 1943 doubled over the year before, as thousands of previously civilian businesses shifted into manufacturing items for war. With so many men in the armed forces, there were new job opportunities for women. Farmers were also affected, as the increasing mechanization of equipment led to a 35 percent rise in output in those years—enough food for civilians, American armed forces, and allies like England and the Soviet Union. At home, Americans moved to cities to ﬁnd work and to consolidate families whose men had gone to war. Manufacturing plants in the north brought African Amer-

TRADE, FOREIGN

icans from the south to work. Job opportunities existed for this group of workers but the results were crowded working conditions, inadequate housing and transportation, and urban blight. Volatile racial tensions occurred with the result in Detroit, Michigan, being one of the bloodiest riots in history. The Modern Era, 1945 to the Present At the close of World War II, the United States was the most powerful nation in the world, both politically and economically. The GI bill provided $15 billion for veterans’ college educations and low-cost mortgages for new homes in the suburbs. Factories and businesses sprang up in record numbers, and women in the workforce added to the new afﬂuence of families. America entered the consumer culture in the 1950s, and this trend continued throughout the rest of the century. The 1960s were a period of revolt and change in America. The 1970s continued this radical movement, as the baby boom generation (born just after World War II) came of age and provided new areas of consumer demand for punk rock music, drugs, hippie fashion, and vegetarian cuisine. The late 1970s saw massive inﬂation, and the Arab oil embargo had a profound effect on the cost of living as oil prices soared for business, home, and auto. The American automobile business lost its domestic position dominance, as more fuel-efﬁcient cars from Japan became popular. This business suffered badly until the end of the 1980s, when cooperative deals between American and Japanese automobile manufacturers resulted in Japanese auto plants being built in the United States. Shortly after the end of World War II, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was established, reducing world tariffs and allowing for increased imports. Revisions to GATT in December 1993 provided for the elimination of all quotas on clothing and textiles on 1 January 2005. Also in 1993, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed. This agreement set new guidelines for cooperative trade between the United States, Mexico, and Canada. Since the 1970s a sharp rise in low-cost imports has led to the decline of industry in America, and the United States has lost its place as a world leader in manufacturing. Between 1980 and 1991, the number of workers in the manufacturing sector fell by 2 million. At the same time, United States workers were increasingly ﬁnding employment in the service sector in areas like health care, computer programming, insurance, food service, banking and ﬁnance, and entertainment. Multinational companies became the vogue, and mergers and acquisitions and joint ventures deﬁned the business landscape. Domestic trade in the last decades of the twentieth century was strong in the areas of automobiles, housing, computers, and environmental and health-related products. The computer business was the fastest-growing in-

dustry in the United States between 1973 and the late 1990s, and the cellular telephone business boomed. As manufacturing in the United States declined and large corporations suffered, there was a sharp increase in small businesses (those with 500 or fewer employees). At the turn of the twenty-ﬁrst century, 95 percent of all businesses in the United States were classiﬁed as small businesses. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Badger, Anthony J. The New Deal: The Depression Years 1933–40. New York: Hill and Wang, 1989. Batra, Ravi. The Myth of Free Trade: A Plan for America’s Economic Revival. New York: Scribners, 1993. Boyer, Paul S., ed. The Oxford Companion to United States History. New York: Scribners, 1993. “Doubtless as Good”: Growing Pains. Available at www .americanhistory.si.edu/doubtless Nash, Gerald D. The Great Depression and World War II: Organizing America, 1933–1945. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1979. An Outline of American History. Available at www.usinfo .state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/history Samhaber, Ernst. Merchants Make History: How Trade Has Inﬂuenced the Course of History Throughout the World. Transl. E. Osers. New York: John Day, 1964. Sitkoff, Harvard. Postwar America: A Student Companion. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Streissguth, Tom. An Eyewitness History: The Roaring Twenties. New York: Facts on File, 2001. Uschan, Michael V. A Cultural History of the United States Through the Decades: The 1940s. San Diego, Calif.: Lucent Books, 1999.

Donna W. Reamy Rosalie Jackson Regni

TRADE, FOREIGN. The United States throughout its history has been relatively self-sufﬁcient; yet foreign trade has, since the colonial period, been a dominant factor in the growth of the nation. The colonies were founded basically for the purpose of commerce: the shipment of products, particularly raw materials, to the mother country and the sale of ﬁnished goods from the shops of England in the colonies. Even had colonial plans not been centered around the welfare of Englishmen at home, the results could scarcely have been different. The Atlantic coast is particularly suited to commerce on the high seas. Deep harbors in the North and bays, indentations, and rivers and smaller streams from New York southward provided excellent ports for loading and unloading the ships of the day. Moreover, the settlements, clustered around the places where the ships came in or scattered along the rivers and creeks, were almost completely isolated from each other. As late as 1794 it took a week (under the most favorable conditions) to make the trip by coach from Boston to New York. Although the

163

TRADE, FOREIGN

seas were infested with privateers and pirates (and the distinction was sometimes a thin one) and the ships were small and the journey long, the hazards of overland trading were still greater and the returns more uncertain. Foreign trade was primarily in outgoing raw materials and incoming manufactured goods during the colonial period. Simple economic necessity had turned the colonists to agriculture. When surplus food production became possible, economic specialization appeared. Dictated by climatic and soil conditions, as well as by a host of other factors, production in each section determined the course of its commerce. The trade of the colonies south of Pennsylvania was chieﬂy with England. Ships from British ports called at the wharves of plantations along the rivers of Maryland and Virginia for tobacco and the next year returned with goods ordered from the shops of London and other cities. Furs, skins, naval stores, and small quantities of tobacco made up the early cargoes that went out from the Carolinas, but after 1700 rice quickly gained the lead as the most important export. Before the middle of the century indigo had become a proﬁtable crop not only because it offered employment for the slaves when they were not busy in the rice ﬁelds but also because the demand for the dye in England had induced Parliament to vote a bounty. On the eve of the Revolution indigo made up by value about 35 percent of the exports of South Carolina. The commerce of New England and the middle colonies ran counter to economic plans of empire. Grain, ﬂour, meat, and ﬁsh were the major products of Pennsylvania and New Jersey and the colonies to the north. Yet shipment of these materials to England endangered long-established interests of Englishmen at home. Although small amounts of naval stores, iron, ship timbers, furs, whale oil and whalebone, oak and pine plank, and staves, barrels, and hoops went off to London, other markets had to be sought in order to obtain means of paying for the large amounts of goods bought in England. The search for sales brought what is often referred to as the triangular trade. Southern Europe, Africa, and the West Indies bought 75 percent of the exports of New England and more than 50 percent of those of New York and Pennsylvania. On the eve of the Revolution the middle colonies were shipping annually to southern Europe more than 500,000 bushels of wheat and more than 18,000 tons of bread. Fish, meat, grain, ship timbers, lumber, and materials for barrels, kegs, and casks also went out in large quantities from Pennsylvania, New York, and New England. Rum was exchanged in Africa for slaves, and the slaves in turn sold in the West Indies for specie or for more molasses for New England rum distilleries. These islands, in fact, provided an inexhaustible market for ﬁsh, meat, foodstuffs, and live animals, as well as pearl ash, potash, cut-out houses, lumber, and ﬁnished parts for making containers for sugar, rum, and molasses. Corn,

164

wheat, ﬂour, bread, and vegetables found their greatest outlet in the islands. Unfortunately the sellers of raw materials—the colonists—were almost always in debt to the manufacturers of ﬁnished goods—the British. Carrying charges by English shipowners ate up the favorable balance of the southerners, and the debts of the planters became virtually hereditary. Northern commercial men, selling more than they bought everywhere except in England, gained enough specie to settle their accounts in London with reasonable promptness. The persistent drainage of money to the mother country, however, was a signiﬁcant factor in the discontent that developed in America. Although the Revolution did not destroy American trade, even with the British, the former colonies obviously lost their preferred position in the world of commerce and also the protection of the powerful empire ﬂeet. British trade regulations of 1783 (emphasized by further regulations in 1786–1787) closed the ports of the West Indies to the ships of the new nation and protected others by heavy tonnage duties. Only Sweden and Prussia agreed to reciprocity treaties. Yet this critical postwar period was far less discouraging than it is sometimes pictured to be. Varying tariffs in the ports and hostile action and counteraction among the states did keep commerce in perpetual uncertainty and prevented retaliation against European discriminations, but trade went on either in traditional channels or in new markets. Shipping interests in the new Congress secured legislation favoring Americanowned ships. The tonnage registered for foreign trade increased in the years 1789–1810 from 123,893 to 981,000, and imports and exports in American bottoms jumped roughly from about 20 percent to about 90 percent. The Napoleonic Wars turned production forces to military goods, drove merchant ships from the seas, and pushed prices upward rapidly. Although many ships were seized, American merchant captains and the nation prospered until President Thomas Jefferson, seeking to maintain peace, induced Congress in 1807 to pass the Embargo Act. Exports dropped from $108.3 million to $22.4 million within a year; imports fell from $138.5 million to $56.9 million. Repeal of the embargo brought some revival, but other restrictions and the war against England drove exports to $6.9 million in 1814 and imports to $12.9 million. Foreign trade in the years between 1815 and 1860, though ﬂuctuating often, moved generally upward. Agricultural products made up the major part of the exports. Cotton led all the rest—production mounted from about 200,000 bales in 1821 to more than 5 million in 1860, 80 percent of which was sold abroad. Great Britain and France were the two greatest purchasers, but Germany, Austria, Belgium, Holland, and Russia bought appreciable quantities. The West Indies and South America took large amounts of grain and ﬂour, and English demands increased steadily after the repeal of the corn laws in 1846. Tobacco, rice, meat, and meat products, as well as lumber,

TRADE, FOREIGN

naval stores, barrels and kegs, staves, and hoops moved out in large quantities. Cottons, woolens, silks, iron, cutlery, china, and a miscellany of other items made up the bulk of the incoming cargoes. But the glory of the clipper ship was being obscured by the iron-hulled steamers that came from the British shipyards; the day of the whalers was ending even before oil began to ﬂow out of the ﬁrst well at Titusville, Pa., in 1859. As the nation became increasingly industrialized between the Civil War and World War II, domestic production and domestic trade were its basic concerns. Railroads knit marketing centers together and economic specialization reached maturity. Agriculture, spreading into the West, increased each year its outpouring of foodstuffs; and industry, entrenched behind a high protective tariff, grew with astounding rapidity. The American merchant marine declined rapidly as investors turned their dollars into railroads and other industrial ventures at home. The percentage of foreign trade carried in American bottoms decreased from 66.5 percent in 1860 to 7.1 percent in 1900. That did not mean, however, any lessening in total ocean commerce. The value of exports and imports combined rose from $686,192,000 in 1860 to $4,257,000,000 in 1914. Cotton, wheat, ﬂour, and other farm products continued to move out in ever-larger amounts, but it was obvious that agriculture was losing out to manufactured goods. The changing nature of exports and imports clearly revealed the fact that Europe

was becoming each year relatively less important in American foreign trade. Shipments to and from Asia, Oceania, Africa, Canada, and Latin America were growing rapidly. World War I restored temporarily the supremacy of Europe as a consumer of American agricultural products. But new goods also made up large portions of the cargoes—chemicals, explosives, ﬁrearms, special woods for airplane propellers, barbed wire, and a host of other needs of ﬁghting forces. The value of exports and imports more than doubled during the war. The huge purchases of the Allies were based on government credits in the United States, and the slow growth for the next decade was ﬁnanced largely by American loans. The economic structure fell apart in 1929. Prices declined sharply everywhere; world credit and world ﬁnance broke down; foreign exchange transactions were curtailed or taken over completely by government in many places; and the principal powers sought to maintain themselves by hiding behind high tariffs, trade licenses, and ﬁxed quotas. The United States had for a decade been shutting itself off from the world. The climax was reached in the SmootHawley Tariff of 1930, which brought retaliatory restrictions from other nations. Foreign trade of the nation dropped to $2.9 billion in 1932. The slow climb upward to $6.6 billion in 1940 was in part the result of the insistence of Secretary of State Cordell Hull that reciprocity agreements rather than trade restrictions were essentials in commercial revival. By authority of the Reciprocal

165

TRADE, FOREIGN

Trade Agreements Act of 1934 he made a series of executive agreements with foreign nations by which he encouraged American trade, and, by applying the mostfavored-nation clause, spread the gains widely over the world. In the war years 1941–1945 more than $50 billion in goods went out of American ports, and $17 billion came in. But about $32.9 billion of the exports were lend-lease war materials to ﬁghting allies and no payment was expected. That was a startling change in the customary creditor-debtor relationship following World War I, but the experiences of that war dictated the decision. The whole international economic structure was, in fact, undergoing a basic revolution. By the end of the war production facilities had roughly doubled; the nature of the outpouring products had changed astoundingly; and the people of the nation in general and the agricultural and industrial working force in particular had not only found new homes but also new wants and new hopes. Tired of rationing and eager for a new world, Americans were at the end of the war impatient with the delays in transforming the industrial plants from war goods to peace goods and intolerant of any threats of wage cuts. But reconstruction in the nation was slow. Shelves were long empty and shortages of many essentials developed. Europe was paralyzed, and multilateral trade had all but ended. Fearful of communism and convinced that hunger must be eliminated if traditional nations were to be reestablished and if new ones were to be created on the principle of freedom of choice, the United States initiated (1947) the Marshall Plan, which, as proposed by U.S. Secretary of State George C. Marshall, provided $12 billion in aid for the economic recovery of Europe. Already American loans, credits, grants, and relief—private and public—had exceeded that amount by several billion dollars. The plan was not envisioned as a relief program but as a cooperative venture that would restore, or create, economic well-being for all. On 3 April 1948, President Harry S. Truman signed the European Recovery Act, which, through the Economic Cooperation Administration, headed by Paul G. Hoffman and a European coordinating body, the Organization for European Economic Cooperation, gave out through sixteen national ofﬁces in Europe and a mission in China at least $17 billion over a four-year period. Machinery for regulating international monetary and trade relations had already been established by the end of the 1940s. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the World Bank) had been created at a meeting in Bretton Woods, N.H., in 1944. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), with authority to agree on tariff rates in the free world, ﬂoundered for a while but became ﬁrmly established by late 1947.

166

If the 1940s were years of destruction and reconstruction, the 1950s were, throughout the free world, years of growth and of adjustments in a transition from a basically nationalistic thinking concerning tariffs and trade to a basically international philosophy of freedom of world commerce from deadening restrictions. The experiences of the Great Depression and World War II turned thoughts earnestly toward free trade. Led by the social philosophers and economists the movement gained remarkable headway, even among political leaders. Conscious of the disadvantages of small and sometimes jealous countries in building an industrial structure and in bargaining with great nations, such as the United States and the Soviet Union, Europe turned to unity. Assuming an independent stance, although still drawing appreciable amounts of U.S. aid, France, Belgium, West Germany, Luxembourg, Italy, and the Netherlands in 1957 formed the European Economic Community (EEC), most often referred to as the Common Market. Since the primary purpose of the organization was to improve the economy of all the members by throwing a common barrier around the whole and harmonizing restrictions within, various interests in the United States, especially farmers, were deeply concerned. Within three years after the formation of the Common Market, Great Britain, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Austria, Switzerland, and Portugal formed the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). (Finland became an associate member in 1961.) With the United States and Canada, the groupings came to be called the Atlantic Community. But not all was harmony in the new economic community. The mercantilists quarreled with the tariff reformers everywhere, and in the United States there was opposition to shifting control of tariff rates from Congress to an international body. The decade of the 1960s was at times a period of bitter controversy. President John F. Kennedy early in 1962 requested Congress to delegate some of its authority over tariffs to the executive department so that he might make revisions at home and might, in the meetings of GATT, bargain for ends that would further the trade of all of the countries involved. The Trade Expansion Act of 1962 granted much authority to the president, notably the power to reduce tariffs on a linear basis by as much as 50 percent on a most-favorednation basis. American delegates and ofﬁcials of the Common Market, who were determined to assert themselves politically and economically, gathered in Geneva in 1964, in what is called the Kennedy Round of the GATT discussions. The ministers of the various countries had met the year before in a somewhat vain effort to work out ground rules for the proceedings. Agreements concerning rates on even the simplest industrial groups were troublesome to reach, and reductions in agricultural tariffs were arrived at—if at all—only with great difﬁculty. After nearly four years of controversy, the meeting adjourned with average

TRADE, FOREIGN

tariff rates lowered to somewhere between 35 and 40 percent. Many industrialists and laborers in the United States, wholly dissatisﬁed, returned to protectionism. Members of the Common Market were unhappy in many ways also, but obviously pleased that they possessed the power to challenge the United States.

ports as small European cars, encountering little American competition, began to appear in ever-larger numbers in the United States. Only in the export of trucks, buses, and automotive parts and equipment did the United States keep the unfavorable trade to a reasonable limit in the automotive ﬁeld.

The foreign trade of the United States had undergone profound changes. The great surpluses that had marked U.S. world commerce from the 1870s began in the 1950s a decline that reached signiﬁcant proportions in the 1960s. The great steel empire that Andrew Carnegie and Henry Clay Frick had done much to make the wonder of the industrial world was crumbling because of new mills and less costly labor in other countries. Freighters put into ports on the Atlantic, the Paciﬁc, and the Gulf and even traveled down the Saint Lawrence Seaway to Cleveland, Detroit, and Chicago to unload ﬁnished industrial goods in the heart of America. As Europe and other countries of the free world made a remarkable recovery from the war years, products from their new plants poured into the stream of international commerce. Between 1960 and 1967 ﬁnished goods in U.S. imports increased 150 percent. Steel, automobiles, textiles, and electronic goods led the new imports. Incoming steel, until 1957, was insigniﬁcant in amount and had grown only to some 3 million tons in 1960. But by 1967 shipments had reached 11.5 million tons, and the next year reached 18 million. In 1971 steel imports amounted to 18.3 million tons—nearly 18 percent of all steel sold in the nation that year, when total employment in American mills also fell to its lowest point since 1939.

Textile and footwear manufacturers, too, protested the loss of markets because of competing goods from other countries, especially Japan. Some agreements were reached concerning shipments of cotton cloth into the United States, but the whole ﬁeld of synthetic ﬁbers remained open. Between 1965 and 1969 American imports of man-made ﬁber textile increased from 79 million pounds to 257 million pounds. During the same period imports of wearing apparel of man-made ﬁbers grew from 31 million pounds to 144 million pounds. The number of imported sweaters rose from 501,000 dozen in 1965 to about 6.9 million dozen in 1969. Imports of footwear were increasing also: 96 million pairs in 1965; 202 million pairs in 1969. In the ﬁrst four months of 1970, one-third of the demand for footwear was being met by foreign shops.

Competing steelmaking plants, although new, were not appreciably more efﬁcient than those of the United States. Basically the steel problem was too much steel. Production facilities over the world were far in excess of need; yet Japan, for instance, although having to both bring in raw materials and send its ﬁnished product to faraway markets, ever increased its output. Even production in Mexico, South Korea, Spain, and the Philippines, for example, grew steadily as capacity outside the United States doubled in the 1960s. American steelmakers were both unwilling and unable to bargain in the marketplace. They blamed cheap labor (the European advantage, they asserted, was about $20 a ton; the Japanese roughly twice that amount) and liberal governmental assistance in the form of border taxes, license requirements, special levies, quotas, export rebates, hidden subsidies, value added tax, and other monetary and legislative provisions for hindering exports from the United States and encouraging exports to the United States. They turned to Congress for help. Both European and Japanese producers agreed to limit further shipments of steel for the next three years to an annual growth of 2.5 percent. The automobile industry was turned topsy-turvy also. Large British and French cars—once popular as prestige vehicles—steadily declined among American im-

Electronic goods in foreign trade added appreciably to the deﬁcit in the United States. Between 1963 and 1970 such imports, by value, mostly from Japan, increased at the annual rate of 32 percent. By 1970 they accounted for 37 percent of the television sets, 63 percent of the phonographs, 92 percent of the radios, and 96 percent of the tape recorders sold in the United States—though some of the parts were made in American plants or in Americanowned foreign plants. Even the developing countries exported local products, including tropical fruits and novelties, and such substantial products as special steels. The basic problem in American foreign trade in the early 1970s was that imports had increased more rapidly than exports. Building on the foundation of American aid after World War II, and to an appreciable extent on borrowed American technology, Europe and parts of Asia performed an industrial miracle and captured markets over the world, especially in the United States, with their well-made goods. Moreover, the United States, suffering from persistent inﬂation and its consequent high prices, could not effectively compete in world markets. Imports were cheap in comparison with domestic prices, and foreign goods ﬂowed freely into the ports. Many industrialists and wage earners in the United States resented the economic penalties they thought the changing foreign trade situation had brought. During the 1960s ever-increasing numbers of U.S. corporations and individuals set up factories throughout the world. Some said they were ﬂeeing behind the protective walls that prevented Americans from selling in many world markets; others said they were escaping the high wages at home that choked them out of world competition; a few said they were getting away from the irresponsible American workmen. Discontent in the nation continued to grow, and American industrialists and laborers and a great num-

167

TRADE, FOREIGN

ber of other citizens, convinced that the whole international experiment had been a failure, turned to protection. Arguments by theoretical scholars and realistic statisticians that free trade had created more jobs than it had destroyed and that a return to the old order would bring economic tragedy were unconvincing to factory owners with limited markets or to men without jobs. American foreign trade was involved not only in the complex industrial world but also in the even more complex monetary world. The annual unfavorable balance of payments, sometimes of several billion dollars, made it difﬁcult for the nation to pay its bills. The merchandise exchange was with few exceptions favorable to the United States; it was the balance of payments that embarrassed the nation. Military commitments in Europe and elsewhere, the Vietnam War, heavy expenditures of American tourists abroad, shipping charges, and a host of other payments left the nation each year through the 1960s and at the beginning of the 1970s heavily indebted. This debt steadily increased the claims on the gold reserves of the United States and brought an ever-growing doubt concerning the dollar. The essential monetary difﬁculty was not so much the problem of gold as it was the problem of adjusting the existing monetary system to the needs of the new international situation and the overvalued dollar—the only currency in the free world with a ﬁxed value based on a speciﬁc amount of gold. (The designers of the IMF at Bretton Woods had set up that standard with all other currencies having a parity relation to it. There was a modest permissible variation in the rate of exchange.) If, however, the unit value of any currency became too cheap or too expensive in terms of other currencies, it could be devalued or revalued upward to be realistically realigned with the dollar. In the 1960s most of the currencies of the major countries had become greatly undervalued in terms of the dollar, notably the West German mark and the Japanese yen. Thus imports were temptingly cheap in American ports, and exports discouragingly costly in foreign markets. Through the 1960s U.S. imports grew twice as fast as exports, and the small trade surplus fell each year far short of meeting the persistent foreign debt. Dollar claims piled up in Europe. In 1968 additional reserves (often referred to as paper gold) were provided by the creation of Special Drawing Rights issued by the IMF. But the imbalance continued. There was no lack of suggested remedies: devalue the dollar; increase the price of gold; widen the parity margin; ﬂoat all currencies; desert gold altogether. Each proposal stirred some doubts, and each one presented a plethora of known and unknown difﬁculties. As the 1970s began, there was no question that the dollar was under tremendous pressure. The impending crunch came in August 1971, when higher interest rates in the United States, rumors of revaluations, and a growing American deﬁcit, swelled by strikes and threatened strikes, poured a ﬂood of unwanted

168

dollars into Europe. Speculators, corporations, commercial banks, and other holders, protecting themselves from changes in currency values, began to scurry out from under their surplus dollars. They returned to the United States $4 billion in the second week of August. The nation at the time held only $13 billion in its gold reserve against some $60 billion in short-term obligations. On 15 August President Richard M. Nixon closed the door on gold redemptions and levied a 10 percent surtax on dutiable imports. The drastic action, it was hoped, would force Japan and the major European countries to revalue their currencies upward, remove some of their manifold barriers to United States trade, and share the costs of American military forces stationed abroad. Despite many fears that the action might disrupt the monetary world, the situation cleared appreciably, although the bitternesses that had long existed did not disappear. By February 1972 the monetary situation had begun to deteriorate rapidly. Fearful that Congress, dissatisﬁed with promised trade concessions from the Common Market, Canada, and Japan, would severely amend the devaluation proposal, Europe began to enact currency controls. American foreign trade throughout the year remained the largest in the world, but exports made no appreciable gains on imports. The surtax, soon removed, had not lessened appreciably the amount of goods coming into American ports. Tariff walls had come down, but other barriers had gone up. The dollar, devalued again in February 1973 and further deteriorated through the succeeding currency ﬂoat, continued to decline relative to the currencies of the Common Market and Japan. A gasoline shortage developed with the oil embargo of October 1973, and by the early months of 1974 the economic situation was recognized by even the most optimistic as a full-blown depression, with further unemployment but no end to inﬂation. Quarrels in the free world intensiﬁed as the United States established de´tente with the Soviet Union and offered a friendly hand to China. Sales of grain to the Soviets, reductions in military and other world expenditures, augmented returns from foreign investments, and other favorable factors pushed the balance of trade substantially in favor of the United States by the beginning of 1976. Between the 1970s and the mid-1990s the U.S. post– World War II dominance of world trade came to an end. Major changes in transportation, ﬁnance, corporate structures, and manufacturing restructured the global economy, erasing the signiﬁcance of international economic boundaries. Whole industries in the United States were largely eliminated, unable to compete effectively against cheaper and often better imports. In labor-intensive industries, such as textiles, shoes, and assembly work, the competition came from low-wage developing countries; in the automobile, steel, and electronics industries it came from technological innovators abroad who developed new products and efﬁcient manufacturing.

TRADE, FOREIGN

The United States continued to be the world’s largest internal economic market, but this did not isolate the United States from international trade, as it willingly imported goods and services and eagerly exported goods and know-how. The United States sought a role in the global economy, as evidenced by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and major revisions in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). NAFTA, which became effective in January 1994, created a major regional trading block including Canada, the United States, and Mexico. This far-reaching agreement reduced tariffs over a ﬁfteen-year period, eased cross-border transportation, and opened Mexico to U.S. and Canadian investments, even in banking and state-owned energy monopolies. Labor unions opposed NAFTA, asserting that corporations would transfer jobs and plants to Mexico because of lower wages and lax environmental regulations. GATT negotiations were protracted. Revisions were negotiated by three presidents—Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and Bill Clinton—who supported cutting tariffs among 123 nations. The GATT agreement known as the Uruguay Round reduced tariffs by 40 percent, cut agricultural subsidies, extended patent protection, and set out rules on global investment. Disputes were to be resolved by the World Trade Organization (WTO), a powerful arbitration board that would decide whether a nation’s domestic laws violated the agreement. The arguments for trade liberalization through NAFTA and GATT were the classic economic arguments of comparative advantage originally articulated by the early nineteenth-century British economist David Ricardo. The idea was simple—nations should specialize in products they can produce cheaper or better. Deciding what products that would mean for the United States was problematic. The last U.S. trade surplus (U.S. exports exceeding imports) occurred in 1975, when the nation enjoyed a $12.4 billion surplus. By 1984, however, the United States was posting $100 billion-plus trade deﬁcits each year, reaching a record $166 billion in 1994. The trade deﬁcit is a summary statistic for a more complicated set of relationships that includes country-to-country deficits and surpluses and differences between economic sectors. In 1993, for example, the United States ran a trade surplus of $12.8 billion for foods, feed, and beverages but had large deﬁcits in automotive vehicles ($50 billion) and consumer goods ($79.4 billion). U.S. productivity lost its advantage when other industrializing nations used new technologies and lower wages to gain access to the vast U.S. market, outcompeting domestic manufacturers. A television-addicted nation sat glued in front of foreign-produced sets. The last U.S. television factory—operated by Zenith Electronics Corporation in Springﬁeld, Mo.—closed in 1992, leaving more than 1,300 workers jobless when production shifted to Mexico. Japan cut into several consumer markets— electronics, cameras, computers, automobiles. Japanese brand names became household words: Sony, Mitsubishi,

Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Hitachi, Mazda, Sharp, Canon, Panasonic. The United States turned to quotas to stem Japanese imports. Japan responded by opening plants in the United States that employed U.S. workers but still diverted dollars abroad. Labor unions urged the public to “buy American,” but identifying the products was far from easy. A car “made in America” contained components built in more than a dozen countries on three continents and ultimately assembled in a U.S.-based factory. Was the car American made? A General Motors executive in 1952 testiﬁed before Congress: “What is good for the country is good for General Motors.” The reasoning no longer held as GM moved jobs and facilities to East Asia or to Mexican plants along the U.S. border. Displaced from well-paying jobs, U.S. workers and managers found reentering the workforce difﬁcult. Even in a growing economy, new jobs paid less. The Census Bureau found that workers who left or were laid off between 1990 and 1992 saw their weekly wages fall 23 percent when they regained employment, often without health insurance and other beneﬁts. The international economy developed an infrastructure of transportation, ﬁnancing, and communications that made the movement of money, information, and goods easier and cheaper. Corporations moved money around the world to ﬁnance trade, protect against currency ﬂuctuations, or to seek higher returns on investments. Meanwhile U.S. individual and institutional investors looked overseas for investments, often ﬁnancing enterprises that competed against U.S.-based companies. Huge amounts of capital that otherwise might have been invested in domestic companies found its way abroad into emerging markets in Eastern Europe, Latin America, and the Paciﬁc Rim. Money could be moved instantaneously around the world. Capital’s loyalties were not to governments or domestic economies but to the best rate of return. Making the United States competitive internationally was easier to advocate than accomplish. It put pressures on corporations to reduce employment and improve production. Problems created in the United States by trade liberalization remained largely unaddressed by the end of the 1990s. For the public, trade liberalization was complicated and confusing, with contradictions that were difﬁcult to explain or accept. If trade agreements were good for the nation, why were jobs lost and industries hurt? In 1994 the United States displaced Japan as the world’s most competitive economy, based on an annual index by the World Economic Forum. The international economy subjected the U.S. labor force to new economic pressures—job insecurity, stagnant wages for nonskilled labor, and fewer company-sponsored beneﬁts, particularly health insurance. U.S. wage rates were substantially lower than those in Germany and Japan, but within the United States something else occurred—a long-term trend of widening income inequality between the nation’s rich and the poor and middle classes. Meanwhile, the domestic

169

T R A D E U N I O N E D U C AT I O N A L L E A G U E

economy was transforming itself, moving from an industrial age to the information age, one for which many workers were ill prepared. The questions were how many high-tech, well-paying jobs could the economy realistically create and how could those stuck in low-wage jobs in the growing service section support themselves and their families.

Barrett, James R. William Z. Foster and the Tragedy of American Radicalism. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1999. Klehr, Harvey. The Heyday of American Communism: The Depression Decade. New York: Basic Books, 1984.

James J. Lorence See also Communist Party, United States of America; Trade Unions.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Audley, John J. Green Politics and Global Trade: NAFTA and the Future of Environmental Politics. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1997. Buchanan, Patrick J. The Great Betrayal: How American Sovereignty and Social Justice Are Sacriﬁced to the Gods of the Global Economy. Boston: Little, Brown, 1998. Dunkley, Graham. The Free Trade Adventure: The WTO, the Uruguay Round, and Globalism, a Critique. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000. Ferguson, Niall. The Cash Nexus: Money and Power in the Modern World, 1700–2000. New York: Basic Books, 2002. Friedman, Thomas L. The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization. New York: Anchor Books, 2000. Hufbauer, Gary C., and Jeffrey J. Schott et al. NAFTA: An Assessment. Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics, 1993. Krugman, Paul R. The Age of Diminished Expectations: U.S. Economic Policy in the 1990s. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1990. Pomfret, Richard W. T. International Trade: An Introduction to Theory and Policy. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1991. Yergin, Daniel. Commanding Heights: The Battle between Government and the Marketplace That Is Remaking the Modern World. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1999.

James A. Barnes Brent Schondelmeyer / a. g. See also Dollar Diplomacy; Foreign Investment in the United States; Imperialism; Latin America, Relations with; Most-Favored-Nation Principle; Pan-American Union; Reciprocal Trade Agreements; South America, Relations with; Treaties, Commercial.

TRADE UNION EDUCATIONAL LEAGUE (TUEL). Established in Chicago (1920) under the leadership of William Z. Foster, TUEL grew from left-wing labor activists’ efforts to build a progressive union movement. Used by the Communist Party to strengthen leftist forces inside the American Federation of Labor (AFL), it advocated industrial unionism, rank-and-ﬁle inﬂuence, support for the Soviet Union, and the formation of a labor party as a preliminary step in the establishment of a workers’ republic. It created linkages with some mainstream union leaders and assumed leadership of strikes in northeastern textile and garment industries (1926–1928). Conservative AFL opposition and the Communist Party shift toward revolutionary dual unions undermined TUEL, which disbanded in 1929.

170

BIBLIOGRAPHY

TRADE UNION UNITY LEAGUE (TUUL) was founded in Cleveland (1929) as the Communist Party’s vehicle for union activity during the Great Depression. Its establishment resulted from the party’s decision to create a revolutionary alternative to the American Federation of Labor. Although independent radical unions had appeared before 1929, dual unionism accelerated the development of separate progressive labor organizations. Led by William Z. Foster and Jack Johnstone, TUUL gained strength in the needle trades, textiles, and coal mining. It led strikes in textiles and coal, including dramatic but unsuccessful stoppages in Gastonia, North Carolina, and Harlan County, Kentucky. With the shift to the Popular Front in 1934, TUUL was dissolved. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cochran, Bert. Labor and Communism: The Conﬂict That Shaped American Unions. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1977.

James J. Lorence See also Communist Party, United States of America.

TRADE UNIONS are associations that represent the collective interests of their employee-members in bargaining and negotiating with large employers. Trade unions generally seek to obtain higher wages, reduced working hours, and improved working conditions for employees. In addition, trade unions seek to improve workplace safety and to obtain increased beneﬁts, such as health insurance, pensions, and disability insurance, for employees. Unions also look to protect the employment security of their members, largely by negotiating to implement seniority rules and to eliminate “at-will” employment contracts under which non-union employees traditionally have been subject to dismissal without cause. Although trade unions did not obtain legal recognition until the 1930s, laborers ﬁrst began organizing to bargain collectively with employers long before obtaining such recognition. 1780s–1880s In addition to being the cradle of American liberty, the city of Philadelphia also served as the cradle of American labor activism. In 1786, Philadelphia printers staged America’s ﬁrst labor strike, successfully procuring a $6 per week

TRADE UNIONS

minimum wage. In 1792, Philadelphia shoemakers formed America’s ﬁrst labor association, which lasted for one year before disbanding. In 1834, representatives from various separate trade unions convened at the National Trades’ Union (NTU) Convention, in New York City. The NTU convention, which marked the ﬁrst substantial effort to create a national labor organization in the United States, set goals for the labor movement that included obtaining legal recognition for trade unions in every American jurisdiction, organizing unorganized workers, establishing universal free public education for children and adults, and eliminating child labor. Some NTU members sought to pursue their goals through political channels by creating a separate political party. A successor to the NTU was formed in 1866, when the National Labor Union (NLU) brought together national trade organizations, local trade unions, city trade assemblies, and other reform-minded groups. The NLU’s progressive agenda included equal pay for equal work regardless of race or gender, an eight-hour work day, and arbitration. Three years later, in 1869, Philadelphia tailors formed the Noble Order of the Knights of Labor (KoL), an organization that included skilled and unskilled labor and promoted arbitration over strikes. Inspired by the socialist movement, the KoL proposed to replace capitalism with workers’ cooperatives. In the following decades, however, these organizations went into decline. First, in 1872, the NLU dissolved after local issues came to overshadow national efforts. Then, a decade later, the KoL lost inﬂuence and membership after loosely organized labor was implicated in Chicago’s violent Haymarket Riot of 1886. 1880s–1930s: Labor Gains Momentum In 1886, a KoL splinter group formed the American Federation of Labor (AFL), electing cigar-maker Samuel Gompers as its ﬁrst president (1886–1924, except 1895). The AFL organized skilled craftsmen by trade, but excluded unskilled workers. Stressing economic rather than political goals, the AFL under Gompers promoted the use of labor strikes and boycotts, and emphasized the need for written contracts with employers. The AFL’s focus was national; Gompers discouraged involvement with local or international issues. Gompers worked within existing political parties, dampening support for a separate labor party. In the early twentieth century, a series of statutes enacted by Congress secured legal protection for labor organizing and union activity. In 1914, the Clayton Antitrust Act made clear that peaceful combinations of workers in labor organizations were not criminal conspiracies. In 1932, the Norris-LaGuardia Act stripped federal judges of power to enjoin strikes, making it easier for workers to strike and picket. The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (Wagner Act or NLRA) recognized the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively. The NLRA

also created the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), whose three members were charged with supervising union elections and stopping employers’ unfair labor practices. In 1935, President John L. Lewis of the United Mine Workers of America urged the AFL to begin organizing unskilled industrial workers, in addition to skilled workers. When the AFL refused, Lewis formed the Committee on Industrial Organization (CIO) within the AFL. By late 1938, however, the CIO ratiﬁed its own constitution (becoming the Congress of Industrial Organization), and split from the AFL. During Lewis’s tenure as the CIO’s ﬁrst president (1936–1940), unskilled steel and automobile production workers were organized. 1939–1945: War Economy After Pearl Harbor, the AFL and CIO promised to refrain from utilizing labor strikes for the duration of the war. Without the power to strike, workers lost their most important tool to offset employer power. Further, accelerated wartime productivity increased workplace accidents and injuries. To support workers, President Franklin D. Roosevelt created a 12-member National War Labor Board in 1942, with four members each representing business, organized labor, and government. No constituency was satisﬁed. Workers disliked the Little Steel Formula of 1942, which restricted wage increases in order to check inﬂation. Business leaders chafed under Board rulings that presumed new workers at union plants to be union members, and that required employers to terminate workers who failed to pay union dues. Labor, however, remained loyal to Roosevelt, hopeful that their loyalty would pay off politically at the war’s end. Japan’s surrender in August 1945 ended the AFL-CIO No-Strike Pledge, and was followed by a six-month tidal wave of strikes. 1945–1960: Gains in Collective Bargaining, Stability, Affluence In the postwar period, labor unions consolidated successes including the institutionalization of collective bargaining, the development of employee beneﬁts packages, and the adoption of grievance procedures and unionsponsored seniority systems for individual employment decisions. These union successes improved the lot of nonunion workers as well. Per capita U.S. wages rose 45 percent in the 1940s, and 56 percent in the 1950s. For many, the urgency of the worker’s struggle diminished. At the same time, new postwar legislation sought to limit union power. The 1947 Taft-Hartley Act gave individual workers a right to refuse union membership (striking a blow against “closed shop” facilities). It also required unions to provide advance notice of strikes; reauthorized federal courts to enjoin strikes affecting national health or safety for eighty days; restricted unions’ ﬁnancial contributions to political candidates; deﬁned unfair

171

TRADE UNIONS

labor and union practices; outlawed mass picketing; and neutralized the NLRB’s former labor advocacy position. Labor leaders responded to Taft–Hartley by intensifying political action. Both the AFL and the CIO backed the Democratic Party, effectively ending any lingering support for a separate labor party. In the late 1940s, labor unions began expunging communists from their ranks. In 1952, staunch anticommunist George Meany became head of the AFL. Three years later, to increase labor’s clout, Meany and CIO president Walter Reuther orchestrated an AFL-CIO merger. While Meany assumed the new joint AFL-CIO presidency, Reuther continued to serve as United Auto Worker (UAW) president until his death in 1970. In 1957, Congress enacted the Landrum-Grifﬁn Act to control union corruption, while the AFL-CIO expelled the 1.5 million-member Teamsters Union for corruption. Between 1957 and 1988, three Teamster presidents were convicted and sentenced to prison terms for corruption (Dave Beck, Jimmy Hoffa, and Roy Williams). The Teamsters Union was not readmitted to the AFL-CIO until 1987. 1960s–1970s: Labor Looks Conservative and Bureaucratic In 1962, President John F. Kennedy issued an executive order encouraging union representation and collective bargaining on behalf of federal employees. Consequently, union membership ballooned among public sector employees during the 1960s. However, with the AFL-CIO and the Teamsters serving as the public face of the labor movement, unions’ liberal image changed. In particular, these organizations’ pro–Vietnam War positions caused declines in new union membership among America’s youth. The AFL-CIO also was widely perceived in the 1960s as being insufﬁciently supportive of civil rights. In particular, unions suffered from a dearth of African American union ofﬁcials and from ongoing segregation and unequal treatment in the locals. In 1960, Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters president A. Philip Randolph (then the only African American AFL-CIO ofﬁcial) formed the Negro American Labor Council (NALC) in order to advance the interests of African American laborers. In 1966, however, Randolph resigned from NALC after its public criticisms of the AFL-CIO intensiﬁed. The labor movement’s public reputation was also marred in 1964, when it was revealed that Teamsters’ pension funds had been loaned by union ofﬁcials to organized crime ﬁgures. The ensuing scandal caused the downfall of Teamsters’ president Jimmy Hoffa, who began serving a thirteen-year federal prison term in 1967, but remained president of the Teamsters Union until 1971. Differences between AFL head Meany and UAW (and former CIO) head Reuther on issues of civil rights, political activity, funding of organizing activities, and even-

172

tually Vietnam, all led to the UAW’s thirteen-year withdrawal from the AFL-CIO from 1968 to 1981. In 1972, the pro-war AFL-CIO declined to endorse pro-labor Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern, because of McGovern’s antiwar stance. Even while the established organs of organized labor were facing difﬁcult times, however, at least one new union was gaining strength in the 1960s and 1970s. During that period, the United Farm Workers of America (UFWA), led by Cesar Chavez, organized Hispanic and Filipino migrant farm workers in California and Arizona. Utilizing both labor strikes and boycotts, the UFWA eventually won collective bargaining agreements from California grape and lettuce growers. In 1971, the UFWA joined the AFL-CIO. 1980–Present In 1981, organized labor suffered a major setback when President Ronald Reagan responded to a federal air trafﬁc controllers strike by ﬁring the striking employees. By illustrating the ability of employers to recruit replacement workers, this episode chilled unions from calling for future labor strikes. Instead, unions in the 1980s and 1990s looked increasingly to legislatures for protection in such areas as minimum wage, family and medical leave, workplace safety, and pension protection. However, organized labor suffered a major legislative defeat in 1994 when the North American Free Trade Agreement was implemented despite heavy union lobbying against it. Since then, however, unions have successfully sponsored campaigns for a Living Wage, which have been enacted by several local governments throughout the United States. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bernstein, Irving. The Lean Years. Cambridge, Mass.: Houghton Mifﬂin, Riverside, 1960. Bernstein, Irving. A Caring Society: The New Deal, the Worker, and the Great Depression. Boston: Houghton Mifﬂin, 1985. Craver, Charles B. Can Unions Survive?: The Rejuvenation of the American Labor Movement. New York: New York University Press, 1993. Frankfurter, Felix, and Nathan Greene. The Labor Injunction. New York: MacMillan, 1930. Geoghan, Thomas. Which Side are You On? Being for Labor when Labor is Flat on its Back. New York: Plume, 1992. Goldﬁeld, Michael. The Decline of Organized Labor in the United States. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1987. Zieger, Robert H. American Workers, American Unions, 2d ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.

Linda Dynan See also American Federation of Labor–Congress of Industrial Organizations; International Brotherhood of Teamsters; United Automobile Workers of America; and vol. 9: Ford Men Beat and Rout Lewis; The Pullman Strike and Boycott.

TRADEMARKS

TRADE WITH THE ENEMY ACTS. England’s common law, supplemented by orders-in-council and acts of Parliament, governed restriction of trade with the enemy as a means of economic coercion and domestic conservation. During the French and Indian War (1756– 1763) these prohibitions, with the revival of the Molasses Act of 1733, threatened to disrupt the interdependent commerce between the food-producing English colonies and the sugar- and rum-producing French West Indies. Colonists thereupon evaded embargoes by fraudulently sailing cargoes to the enemy’s Caribbean ports in “ﬂags of truce,” ships licensed ostensibly to exchange prisoners. An indirect trade also developed through such neutral ports as Curac¸ao, Saint Eustatius, and Montecristi, until neutral ships thus involved were captured and condemned under the Rule of War of 1756. The revolutionary embargoes and nonconsumption agreements against England were more effective than the English restrictions of trade largely because of the energy of American committees directed by the Continental Congress and reinforced by local embargo laws.

deemed applicable, such as the Korean “emergency” of 1950 and the extended embargo against China and North Korea that thereafter became part of the cold war arsenal. Embargoes proscribed trade with Cuba in 1963 and with North Vietnam in 1964. As involvement in Vietnam increased, the National Liberation Front, the Vietcong, and the Liberation Red Cross faced the act’s restrictions.

During the Franco-American “misunderstanding” of 1798–1800 and the War of 1812, Congress proscribed trading with the enemy as part of military policy, although imported war materials from the enemy country were opportunistically permitted. The president had authority to limit and suspend operation of the law.

Lourie, Samuel Anatole. “The Trading with the Enemy Act.” Michigan Law Review 42 (1943).

In the Mexican-American War no restrictions on enemy trading existed. When the enemy’s ports and customshouses had been captured, President James K. Polk not only raised the blockade but encouraged imports into Mexico in order to collect duties to ﬁnance the army of occupation. During the Civil War both belligerents employed the commercial weapon to some extent. The North blockaded southern ports and imposed an embargo; at the same time the Treasury had authority to purchase southern cotton and to license limited trade. Meanwhile the Confederacy prohibited trade with Northerners, and various states ordered further embargoes on cotton exports. During World War I the country adopted extensive measures to prevent enemy trading and to enforce the Allied blockade of Germany. They included executive proclamations, the Espionage Act, and the Trading with the Enemy Act of 6 October 1917. The latter act carefully deﬁned and almost completely prohibited such trade. At the outset of World War II, under the auspices of the Trading with the Enemy Act, Congress renewed and enlarged presidential power to seize any property “belonging to or held for, by, on account of, or on behalf of, or for the beneﬁt of, an enemy or ally of an enemy.” Courts consistently upheld its provisions as a necessary means to conduct economic warfare despite its broad scope and sweeping application. After 1950 Congress extended the Trading with the Enemy Act to situations that had not hitherto been

In 1969 President Richard M. Nixon opened the door to trade with China, and by 1975 there was a steady trade in nonrestricted goods between China and the United States, setting a precedent that in the future the Trading with the Enemy Act would apply only to “hot war” adversaries. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berman, Harold J., and John R. Garson. “United States Export Controls—Past, Present, and Future.” Columbia Law Review 67 (1967). Eichengreen, Barry J., ed. Transatlantic Economic Relations in the Post–Cold War Era. New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press, 1998.

———. “ ‘Enemy’ Under the Trading with the Enemy Act and Some Problems of International Law.” Michigan Law Review 42 (1943).

Eric L. Chase Harold W. Chase / c. w. See also Blockade; China Trade; Committees of Correspondence; Smuggling, Colonial; Trade, Foreign.

TRADEMARKS are words or symbols used on goods to indicate source. Merchants and artisans have used trademarks for centuries; the medieval trademark not only allowed artisans to take credit for their work but also permitted guilds to control quality. English common law (the law of court decisions rather than statutes) protected trademarks beginning in the seventeenth century. The colonists brought this law with them from England. George Washington, in 1772, sought to protect the mark “G. Washington” for use on ﬂour. The purpose of trademark law was to prevent consumer deception as to source. This meant that trademarks were local and goods-speciﬁc, as was most trade at the time. A trademark of “Washington’s” for ﬂour in Virginia would not extend to “Washington’s” on silverware or to “Washington’s,” even on ﬂour, outside Virginia. Through the nineteenth century, trade became less local, and a system of federal registration was created in 1870. This system, held unconstitutional in 1879 in a series of Supreme Court decisions collectively known as the Trademark Cases, was replaced in 1881, and then in 1905 with a federal trademark registration statute restricted to marks used in interstate commerce, thus rendering it constitutionally valid. The federal scheme became more im-

173

T R A D I N G C O M PA N I E S

portant during the twentieth century with the rise of truly national commerce and advertising combined with the judiciary’s generous views as to what constitutes interstate commerce. Today, trademark law is increasingly governed by the federal Lanham Act, passed in 1946 and amended in 1988, though state law remains important. Unlike patents and copyrights, trademarks have no ﬁxed duration. Trademarks are more valuable than ever; some, like CocaCola, are certainly worth tens of millions of dollars. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Chisum, Donald S., and Michael A. Jacobs. Understanding Intellectual Property Law. New York: Matthew Bender, 1996. McCarthy, J. Thomas. McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition. 4th ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group, 1998.

John A. Kidwell See also Copyright; Intellectual Property.

TRADING COMPANIES played an important part in colonial American settlement. Six incorporated British companies established settlements: the Virginia Company at Jamestown (1606), the London and Bristol Company at Sagadahoc (1610), the Council for New England at Newfoundland (1620), the Bermuda Company at Bermuda (1622), the Massachusetts Bay Company at Salem (1629), and the Old Providence Company at Old Providence (1630). The Dutch used a similar organization to plant their settlement in New Netherland at New Amsterdam. There were two types of trading companies: jointstock and associates. Joint-stock companies were legally incorporated by the crown by royal charter. They were run by a treasurer and an executive council from headquarters named in the charter. They resembled a modern corporation in selling shares to stockholders, whose liability was limited to their speciﬁc investments and who met quarterly in “general courts.” A company’s charter gave it title to a speciﬁc territory and a legal monopoly to trade in that region, and it granted the company governmental powers over any settlements in its territory. The company also had control over the natives and authority to defend its settlements and trade from foreign aggression. The colonists themselves lived under a complex of rules and regulations that originated with both company ofﬁcers and the settlers participating in colonial governments. All the ships, storehouses, and livestock bought from company funds were company property. Individual colonists might also own private property, and these holdings were subject to taxation to raise money for the colony. The land was a common stock belonging to the stockholders until disposed of by grant to settlers or investors. Practically, there was no way a stockholder in England could share in this common stock except by emigrating to the colony. Trading privileges belonged to the stockholders of the home company.

174

Limited partnerships called associates—less formal arrangements than joint-stock companies—were another common type of trading company. Such companies were not fully incorporated, and their territorial grants came from some legally incorporated company. The London Company used this device in the settlement of Virginia, where associates settled Berkeley Hundred and many other regions. In return for a title to a speciﬁed tract of land, associates agreed to transport a certain number of settlers to a given area and establish them within a limited time. The London Company issued forty-four such grants, including one to the group of settlers that came to be known as the Pilgrims, which they never used because they landed in Plymouth instead. Another company of associates, the Dorchester Company (1624), received a grant in what later became Massachusetts and established a settlement at Salem. This company, with its grant, was ﬁnally merged into the Massachusetts Bay Company, which was incorporated under royal charter. Because the charter stipulated no place for the company’s ofﬁces and meetings, the ofﬁcers moved the company and charter to America, where the company became the basis of a commonwealth, and the “general court” assumed governmental power. The company’s trading division maintained headquarters in London until 1638. The Massachusetts Bay Company furnished a model for later settlements in Rhode Island and Connecticut, the governments of which were similar to that of the joint-stock companies. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andrews, K. R., N. P Canny, and P. E. H. Hair, eds. The Westward Enterprise: English Activities in Ireland, the Atlantic, and America, 1480–1650. Detroit, Mich.: Wayne State University Press, 1979. Carr, Lois Green, Philip D. Morgan, and Jean B. Russo, eds. Colonial Chesapeake Society. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988. Clark, Charles E. The Eastern Frontier: The Settlement of Northern New England, 1610–1763. New York: Knopf, 1970. Cook, Jacob Ernest, et al., eds. Encyclopedia of the North American Colonies. New York: Scribners, 1993.

O. M. Dickerson / s. b. See also Colonial Charters; Colonial Settlements; Council for New England; General Court, Colonial; Hundred; Local Government; Massachusetts Bay Colony; Pilgrims; Plymouth Colony; Virginia Company of London.

TRADING POSTS, FRONTIER. British, French, and Dutch traders established some of the earliest North American trading posts in the seventeenth century as trade between Indians and European fur trappers increased. While Europeans engaged in the enterprise for proﬁts to be realized from the sale of sought-after furs, Indians exchanged pelts for desired items such as guns and ammunition, blankets, copper kettles, silver, glass beads, and

TRADING POSTS, FRONTIER

cloth. Though often no more than a collection of dilapidated cabins, frontier trading posts served as the commercial centers of the frontier, built on or near waterways to expedite both the shipment of furs and pelts downriver, and the return of supplies and trade items upriver. Under the leadership of Samuel de Champlain, the French established trading posts at Acadia in 1604–05 and Quebec in 1608. In 1609, English sailor Henry Hudson, employed by the Dutch East India Company, claimed the Hudson River valley for the Dutch. Forts Orange (the present site of Albany, New York) and Amsterdam were established as trading posts shortly thereafter. Some of the earliest English trading post records date to 1662, when ten pounds of tobacco were traded for furs to make a hat. Britain’s Hudson’s Bay Company was granted exclusive trade rights to the Hudson River watershed in 1670 and for one hundred years enjoyed trade dominance in North America. The fur trade moved into the Great Lakes region in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, and in 1715 the French established a principal trading post at Michilimackinac on Lake Michigan, near the site of the mission station established by Pe´re Marquette in 1668. A group of independent traders formed the North West Company in 1784 and began to establish trading posts throughout the interior regions of North America, eventually reaching the Paciﬁc Coast.

The XY Company organized in 1798 but found competition with the North West Company too ﬁerce; the two merged in 1804. This merger provided the Hudson’s Bay Company with its greatest competition, and in 1821 the North West and Hudson’s Bay Companies combined, retaining the name of the latter. The American Fur Company, established in 1808 by John Jacob Astor, was the largest American trading company and dominated the fur trade in the United States through its numerous trading posts until its dissolution in 1850. The American fur trade, along with the number of frontier trading posts, increased dramatically after 1803 as the Louisiana Purchase opened vast western territories to exploration, trade, and settlement. In the early-to-midnineteenth century, A. P. Chouteau, West Point–educated son of French trader Pierre Chouteau, acted as general manager of his family’s four trading posts, all located near St. Louis and in the Upper Missouri River valley. The Chouteaus obtained furs and pelts from the Osage, Comanche, and Kiowa, among others, and supplied their posts with goods imported from Europe and Asia. The Hudson’s Bay Company controlled the fur trade in the Northwest from its headquarters, located at the mouth of the Columbia River. Fort Vancouver, under the leadership of post factor John McLoughlin, was the grandest and most self-supporting of the trading posts in

175

TRADING STAMPS

the West. As fur trade brigades were dispatched to remote areas for weeks and months at a time, the lumber produced at the company mill and the fruits and vegetables raised on the company farm were shipped north to Russian posts in the Aleutians, west to the Hawaiian Islands, and around Cape Horn to England. Fort Vancouver served as the depot for all the Hudson’s Bay Company activities in the Northwest from 1824 until 1860, when the company ceased operations in the United States and its territories. Built in 1834 on the LaRemay’s (Laramie) River, Fort William was another of the early western trading posts. William Sublette and his partner, Robert Campbell, undercut prices offered by the competing Rocky Mountain Fur Company, secured the Indian trade, and became quite prosperous. Though Fort William lacked the opulence and grandeur of Fort Vancouver, it provides a better representation of the era’s trading posts; its rectangular stockade, built from cottonwood logs with elevated blockhouses on two corners and over the main entrance, was typical of most eighteenth- and nineteenth-century western posts. In 1824, the U.S. government established Fort Gibson on the Arkansas River to protect settlers against Indian attack. The fort included a sutler’s store; this addition of government merchants began a series of events that permanently altered frontier trade. In the years that followed, the federal government obtained several abandoned frontier trading posts to serve as military posts. In 1850, the army moved into a trading post established by the North West Company in 1820 at The Dalles on the Columbia River and in 1855 it purchased Fort Pierre Chouteau in Dakota Territory. Trappers and traders held a variety of views regarding the consumption of alcohol at frontier trading posts. While Britain’s Hudson’s Bay Company ofﬁcers occasionally partook of a glass of wine, they banned other forms of alcohol from their trading posts, insisting that consumption caused Indians to become aggressive and ﬁght amongst themselves, rather than paying due diligence to trapping. The French considered themselves primarily trappers, and not traders. They married Indian women, adopted aspects of Indian culture, and, unconcerned with the “evils of alcohol,” indulged in large quantities of food and drink as the opportunity presented itself. Alcohol was the most popular item offered in trade by the American companies since most Indians preferred to trade with the British for their ﬁnely tooled goods. Alcohol became an American trade staple and so critical to the American fur trade that the proceeds generated by its sales to Indians, and to trappers at the annual rendezvous, represented most if not all trade company proﬁts. Trapping became more difﬁcult as settlement moved further westward and fur-bearing animal populations diminished; at the same time, it became less important to traders. Frontier trading posts began to resemble the general stores of the East, with homesteaders and farmers, many of them women, numbering among the traders. Al-

176

though the fur trade continued in parts of the West into the 1870s, by the 1840s most frontier trading posts had been replaced by traditional mercantile establishments and thus rendered obsolete. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Chittenden, Hiram Martin. The American Fur Trade of the Far West: A History of the Pioneer Trading Posts and Early Fur Companies of the Missouri Valley and the Rocky Mountains and of the Overland Commerce with Santa Fe. 3 vols. 1902. Reprint, 2 vols. Stanford, Calif: Academic Reprints, 1954. McNitt, Frank. The Indian Traders. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1962. Morrison, Dorothy Nafus. Outpost: John McLoughlin and the Far Northwest. Portland: Oregon Historical Society Press, 1999. Northwest Forts and Trading Posts. Tacoma: Washington State Historical Society, 1968. Roberts, Robert B. Encyclopedia of Historic Forts: The Military, Pioneer, and Trading Posts of the United States. New York: Macmillan, 1987. Rorabaugh, W. J. The Alcoholic Republic: An American Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979. Trennert, Robert A., Jr. Indian Traders on the Middle Border: The House of Ewing, 1827–54. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1981. White, Richard. The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650–1815. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Brenda Jackson See also Fur Companies; Fur Trade and Trapping; Indian Trade and Traders; Missouri River Fur Trade; Pacific Fur Company.

TRADING STAMPS. See Thrift Stamps.

TRAIL DRIVERS, cowboys who moved cattle, typically in herds of about 2,500, from a home range to a distant market or another range. The typical outﬁt consisted of a boss, who might or might not be the owner of the herd; ten to ﬁfteen hands, each of whom had a string of from ﬁve to ten horses; a horse wrangler (or remudero), who drove and herded the cow ponies; and a cook. The men drove and grazed the cattle most of the day, herding them by relays at night. Most considered ten or twelve miles a good day’s drive, as the cattle had to thrive along the route. Wages for a trail driver were about $40 a month. The trail drivers’ code presupposed that no matter what the hazards, hardships, or physical torture, a man would stay with his herd as loyally as a captain stays with his ship at sea. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hunter, J. Marvin, compiler and ed. The Trail Drivers of Texas: Interesting Sketches of Early Cowboys. Austin: University of

TRAIL OF TEARS

Texas Press, 1985. The original edition was published San Antonio, Texas: Jackson Printing, 1920–1923.

J. Frank Dobie / c. w.

“TRAIL OF BROKEN TREATIES.” A central protest event of the Red Power activist period of the 1970s, the “Trail of Broken Treaties” was organized by members of the American Indian Movement (AIM) to bring national attention to Native grievances. The “trail” began on the West Coast in the late summer of 1972 as an automobile caravan composed of Indians from across the country who intended to demonstrate their concerns in Washington, D.C. As it proceeded east, the caravan stopped by reservations and urban Indian communities to drum up support, recruit participants, conduct workshops, and draft an agenda for Indian policy reform. The caravan arrived in Washington, D.C., in the early days of November, just before the 1972 presidential election, a time considered ideal for anyone seeking media coverage. As it traveled across the country, the caravan grew, numbering several hundred when it arrived in the capital. Initially the group was orderly, but when housing for the protesters disintegrated, the original goals of the organizers shifted from meetings and demonstrations to a weeklong occupation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs building. The occupation was reported on the front pages of the New York Times and many other newspapers. The publicity drew attention to Indian rights and provided a platform for the protesters to present their “20-Point Program” to increase the role of tribes in the formation of Indian programs. The “self-determination” federal legislation of the mid-1970s that shifted more local control to recognized tribes should be understood against the backdrop of the Red Power protest era, especially the Trail of Broken Treaties and the protests it inspired. Another important outcome of the Trail of Broken Treaties and the other protests of the era was a surge of Native pride and consciousness. For example, the Lakota author Mary Crow Dog describes the response to militant Indians such as those in the American Indian Movement: The American Indian Movement hit our reservation like a tornado, like a new wind blowing out of nowhere, a drumbeat from far off getting louder and louder. . . . I could feel this new thing, almost hear it, smell it, touch it. Meeting up with AIM for the ﬁrst time loosened a sort of earthquake inside me. (pp. 74–75) BIBLIOGRAPHY

Crow Dog, Mary, and Richard Erdoes. Lakota Woman. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1990.

TRAIL OF TEARS, most closely associated with the Cherokees, is perhaps the most well known injustice done to Native Americans during the removal period of the 1830s. Historically, the Cherokees occupied lands in several southeastern states including North Carolina and Georgia. Acting under the Removal Act of 1830, federal authorities sought to win the tribe’s agreement to exchange tribal lands for a reservation in the West. In 1835, approximately 500 Cherokees, none of them elected ofﬁcials of the Cherokee nation, gathered in New Echota, Georgia, and signed a treaty ceding all Cherokee territory east of the Mississippi to the United States in exchange for $5 million and new homelands in Indian Territory (modern Oklahoma). Though a majority of the tribe protested this illegal treaty, it was ratiﬁed—by a single vote— by the U.S. Senate on 23 May 1836. In May 1838, federal troops and state militia units supervised by General Winﬁeld Scott rounded up the Cherokees who refused to accept the New Echota agreement and held them in concentration camps until they were sent west in groups of approximately 1,000 each. Three groups left that summer, traveling 800 miles from Chattanooga by rail, boat, and wagon, primarily on the water route. In November, with river levels too low for navigation and with inadequate clothing and supplies, twelve more groups traveled overland, under close military supervision and primarily on foot, in spite of roads rendered impassable by autumn rains and the subsequent onset of winter. By March 1839, all survivors had arrived in their new home. Of the 15,000 Cherokees who began the journey, about 4,000—a ﬁfth of the total Cherokee population—perished along the route. Though local and state governments along with private organizations and individuals made some efforts to recognize this tragic event in American history, it was not until 1987 that Congress designated the Trail of Tears as a National Historic Trail under the supervision of the National Park Service.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, William L., ed. Cherokee Removal: Before and After. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1991. Hoig, Stan. Night of the Cruel Moon: Cherokee Removal and the Trail of Tears. New York: Facts on File, 1996. National Park Service. Certiﬁcation Guide: Trail of Tears National Historic Trail. Santa Fe, N. Mex.: National Park Service, 1994. Perdue, Theda, and Michael D. Green, eds. The Cherokee Removal: A Brief History with Documents. Boston: Bedford Books, 1995.

Josephy, Alvin M., Jr., Joane Nagel, and Troy Johnson, eds. Red Power. 2d ed. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1999.

Michael Sherfy

Joane Nagel

See also Cherokee; Cherokee Nation Cases; Indian Land Cessions; Indian Removal; Indian Territory; Removal Act of 1830.