# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Diplomat, The General, and the Jelly.pptx

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Research Guides: Ralph Bunche: Topics in Chronicling America: Introduction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ralph Bunche was the first African American to earn the Nobel Peace Prize. This guide provides access to materials related to “Ralph Bunche” in the Chronicling America digital collection of historic newspapers.

# data[].attributes.body
Available at https://library.mtsu.edu/ld.php?content_id=78365112.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Provides access to the files, work, oral interviews, photos, and documentation. SNCC, as a result of its focus on documentation, has available 250 + archives. No other organization has documented the history of the movement and struggle to this magnitude. Without this documentation, this portion of history would be unknown. This Archive enables SNCC to pass on information wealth to young people, organizers, scholars, and organizations looking for guidelines to see struggle on a comprehension level. It allows ordinary people to see the efforts of SNCC and take control of their lives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SNCC Legacy Project - Rooted In Black Struggle

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Provides access to the files, work, oral interviews, photos, and documentation. SNCC, as a result of its focus on documentation, has available 250 + archives. No other organization has documented the history of the movement and struggle to this magnitude. Without this documentation, this portion of history would be unknown.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Freedom Summer 1964 – SNCC remembers | Folklife Today

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At the conclusion of his 2014 keynote address on guarantees enshrined in the Constitution but historically denied to African Americans, Bob Moses – freedom rights activist, educator, and MacArthur Genius award winner – summarized the state of the nation thus: “And we are a country that lurches. We lurch forward and backward, forward and backward. …

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jackson, Branch, and Kremer Presentation.pptx

# data[].attributes.headline
Washington's Revolutionary Battles at a Glance 

# data[].attributes.subject
Washington's Revolutionary Battles at a Glance 

# data[].attributes.body
This chart is taken from "You Never Forget Your First: A Biography of George Washington" by Alexis Coe.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Washington's Revolutionary Battes at a Glance.pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Beige Scrapbook Art and History Presentation

# data[].attributes.headline
Student Packet: ANTEBELLUM UTOPIAS: NASHOBA & FREE HILL, TN

# data[].attributes.subject
Student Packet: ANTEBELLUM UTOPIAS: NASHOBA & FREE HILL, TN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Three Mile Island Lesson Idea Presentation.pptx

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Great Silent Majority

delivered 3 November 1969

Audio mp3 of Address

Plug-in required for flash audio

Your browser does not support the audio element.

click for pdf click for flash

[AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio.]

Good evening, my fellow Americans.

Tonight I want to talk to you on a subject of deep concern to all Americans and to many people in all parts of the world, the war in Vietnam.

I believe that one of the reasons for the deep division about Vietnam is that many Americans have lost confidence in what their Government has told them about our policy. The American people cannot and should not be asked to support a policy which involves the overriding issues of war and peace unless they know the truth about that policy.

Tonight, therefore, I would like to answer some of the questions that I know are on the minds of many of you listening to me.

How and why did America get involved in Vietnam in the first place?

How has this administration changed the policy of the previous Administration?

What has really happened in the negotiations in Paris and on the battlefront in Vietnam?

What choices do we have if we are to end the war?

What are the prospects for peace?

Now let me begin by describing the situation I found when I was inaugurated on January 20: The war had been going on for four years. Thirty-one thousand Americans had been killed in action. The training program for the South Vietnamese was beyond [behind] schedule. Five hundred and forty-thousand Americans were in Vietnam with no plans to reduce the number. No progress had been made at the negotiations in Paris and the United States had not put forth a comprehensive peace proposal.

The war was causing deep division at home and criticism from many of our friends, as well as our enemies, abroad.

In view of these circumstances, there were some who urged that I end the war at once by ordering the immediate withdrawal of all American forces. From a political standpoint, this would have been a popular and easy course to follow. After all, we became involved in the war while my predecessor was in office. I could blame the defeat, which would be the result of my action, on him -- and come out as the peacemaker. Some put it to me quite bluntly: This was the only way to avoid allowing Johnson's war to become Nixon's war.

But I had a greater obligation than to think only of the years of my Administration, and of the next election. I had to think of the effect of my decision on the next generation, and on the future of peace and freedom in America, and in the world.

Let us all understand that the question before us is not whether some Americans are for peace and some Americans are against peace. The question at issue is not whether Johnson's war becomes Nixon's war. The great question is: How can we win America's peace?

Well, let us turn now to the fundamental issue: Why and how did the United States become involved in Vietnam in the first place? Fifteen years ago North Vietnam, with the logistical support of Communist China and the Soviet Union, launched a campaign to impose a Communist government on South Vietnam by instigating and supporting a revolution.

In response to the request of the Government of South Vietnam, President Eisenhower sent economic aid and military equipment to assist the people of South Vietnam in their efforts to prevent a Communist takeover. Seven years ago, President Kennedy sent 16,000 military personnel to Vietnam as combat advisers. Four years ago, President Johnson sent American combat forces to South Vietnam.

Now many believe that President Johnson's decision to send American combat forces to South Vietnam was wrong. And many others, I among them, have been strongly critical of the way the war has been conducted.

But the question facing us today is: Now that we are in the war, what is the best way to end it?

In January I could only conclude that the precipitate withdrawal of all American forces from Vietnam would be a disaster not only for South Vietnam but for the United States and for the cause of peace.

For the South Vietnamese, our precipitate withdrawal would inevitably allow the Communists to repeat the massacres which followed their takeover in the North 15 years before. They then murdered more than 50,000 people and hundreds of thousands more died in slave labor camps.

We saw a prelude of what would happen in South Vietnam when the Communists entered the city of Hue last year. During their brief rule there, there was a bloody reign of terror in which 3,000 civilians were clubbed, shot to death, and buried in mass graves.

With the sudden collapse of our support, these atrocities at Hue would become the nightmare of the entire nation and particularly for the million-and-a half Catholic refugees who fled to South Vietnam when the Communists took over in the North.

For the United States this first defeat in our nation's history would result in a collapse of confidence in American leadership not only in Asia but throughout the world.

Three American Presidents have recognized the great stakes involved in Vietnam and understood what had to be done.

In 1963 President Kennedy with his characteristic eloquence and clarity said,

"We want to see a stable Government there," carrying on the [a] struggle to maintain its national independence." We believe strongly in that. We are not going to withdraw from that effort. In my opinion, for us to withdraw from that effort would mean a collapse not only of South Vietnam but Southeast Asia. So we're going to stay there."¹

President Eisenhower and President Johnson expressed the same conclusion during their terms of office.

For the future of peace, precipitate withdrawal would be a disaster of immense magnitude. A nation cannot remain great if it betrays its allies and lets down its friends. Our defeat and humiliation in South Vietnam without question would promote recklessness in the councils of those great powers who have not yet abandoned their goals of worlds conquest. This would spark violence wherever our commitments help maintain the peace -- in the Middle East, in Berlin, eventually even in the Western Hemisphere. Ultimately, this would cost more lives. It would not bring peace. It would bring more war.

For these reasons I rejected the recommendation that I should end the war by immediately withdrawing all of our forces. I chose instead to change American policy on both the negotiating front and the battle front in order to end the war fought on many fronts. I initiated a pursuit for peace on many fronts. In a television speech on May 14, in a speech before the United Nations, on a number of other occasions, I set forth our peace proposals in great detail.

We have offered the complete withdrawal of all outside forces within one year. We have proposed a cease fire under international supervision. We have offered free elections under international supervision with the Communists participating in the organization and conduct of the elections as an organized political force. And the Saigon government has pledged to accept the result of the election.

We have not put forth our proposals on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. We have indicated that we're willing to discuss the proposals that have been put forth by the other side. We have declared that anything is negotiable, except the right of the people of South Vietnam to determine their own future.

At the Paris peace conference Ambassador Lodge has demonstrated our flexibility and good faith in 40 public meetings. Hanoi has refused even to discuss our proposals. They demand our unconditional acceptance of their terms which are that we withdraw all American forces immediately and unconditionally and that we overthrow the government of South Vietnam as we leave.

We have not limited our peace initiatives to public forums and public statements. I recognized in January that a long and bitter war like this usually cannot be settled in a public forum. That is why in addition to the public statements and negotiations, I have explored every possible private avenue that might lead to a settlement.

Tonight, I am taking the unprecedented step of disclosing to you some of our other initiatives for peace, initiatives we undertook privately and secretly because we thought we thereby might open a door which publicly would be closed.

I did not wait for my inauguration to begin my quest for peace. Soon after my election, through an individual who was directly in contact on a personal basis with the leaders of North Vietnam, I made two private offers for a rapid, comprehensive settlement. Hanoi's replies called in effect for our surrender before negotiations. Since the Soviet Union furnishes most of the military equipment for North Vietnam, Secretary of State Rogers, my assistant for national security affairs, Dr. Kissinger, Ambassador Lodge and I personally have met on a number of occasions with representatives of the Soviet Government to enlist their assistance in getting meaningful negotiations started. In addition, we have had extended discussions directed toward that same end with representatives of other governments which have diplomatic relations with North Vietnam.

None of these initiatives have to date produced results. In mid-July I became convinced that it was necessary to make a major move to break the deadlock in the Paris talks. I spoke directly in this office, where I'm now sitting, with an individual who had known Ho Chi Minh on a personal basis for 25 years. Through him I sent a letter to Ho Chi Minh. I did this outside of the usual diplomatic channels with the hope that with the necessity of making statements for propaganda removed, there might be constructive progress toward bringing the war to an end.

Let me read from that letter to you now:

Dear Mr. President: I realize that it is difficult to communicate meaningfully across the gulf of four years of war. But precisely because of this gulf I wanted to take this opportunity to reaffirm in all solemnity my desire to work for a just peace. I deeply believe that the war in Vietnam has gone on too long and delay in bringing it to an end can benefit no one, least of all the people of Vietnam. The time has come to move forward at the conference table toward an early resolution of this tragic war. You will find us forthcoming and open-minded in a common effort to bring the blessings of peace to the brave people of Vietnam. Let history record that at this critical juncture both sides turned their face toward peace rather than toward conflict and war.

I received Ho Chi Minh's reply on August 30, three days before his death. It simply reiterated the public position North Vietnam had taken at Paris and flatly rejected my initiative. The full text of both letters is being released to the press.

In addition to the public meetings that I have referred to, Ambassador Lodge has met with Vietnam's chief negotiator in Paris in 11 private sessions. And we have taken other significant initiatives which must remain secret to keep open some channels of communications which may still prove to be productive.

But the effect of all the public, private, and secret negotiations which have been undertaken since the bombing halt a year ago, and since this Administration came into office on January 20th, can be summed up in one sentence: No progress whatever has been made except agreement on the shape of the bargaining table.

Well, now, who's at fault? It's become clear that the obstacle in negotiating an end to the war is not the President of the United States. It is not the South Vietnamese Government. The obstacle is the other side's absolute refusal to show the least willingness to join us in seeking a just peace. And it will not do so while it is convinced that all it has to do is to wait for our next concession, and our next concession after that one, until it gets everything it wants.

There can now be no longer any question that progress in negotiation depends only on Hanoi 's deciding to negotiate -- to negotiate seriously. I realize that this report on our efforts on the diplomatic front is discouraging to the American people, but the American people are entitled to know the truth -- the bad news as well as the good news -- where the lives of our young men are involved.

Now let me turn, however, to a more encouraging report on another front. At the time we launched our search for peace, I recognized we might not succeed in bringing an end to the war through negotiations. I therefore put into effect another plan to bring peace -- a plan which will bring the war to an end regardless of what happens on the negotiating front. It is in line with the major shift in U. S. foreign policy which I described in my press conference at Guam on July 25. Let me briefly explain what has been described as the " Nixon Doctrine" -- a policy which not only will help end the war in Vietnam but which is an essential element of our program to prevent future Vietnams.

We Americans are a do-it-yourself people -- we're an impatient people. Instead of teaching someone else to do a job, we like to do it ourselves. And this trait has been carried over into our foreign policy. In Korea, and again in Vietnam, the United States furnished most of the money, most of the arms, and most of the men to help the people of those countries defend their freedom against Communist aggression.

Before any American troops were committed to Vietnam, a leader of another Asian country expressed this opinion to me when I was traveling in Asia as a private citizen. He said: "When you are trying to assist another nation defend its freedom, U.S. policy should be to help them fight the war, but not to fight the war for them."

Well in accordance with this wise counsel, I laid down in Guam three principles as guidelines for future American policy toward Asia. First, the United States will keep all of its treaty commitments. Second, we shall provide a shield if a nuclear power threatens the freedom of a nation allied with us, or of a nation whose survival we consider vital to our security. Third, in cases involving other types of aggression we shall furnish military and economic assistance when requested in accordance with our treaty commitments. But we shall look to the nation directly threatened to assume the primary responsibility of providing the manpower for its defense.

After I announced this policy, I found that the leaders of the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, South Korea, other nations which might be threatened by Communist aggression, welcomed this new direction in American foreign policy.

The defense of freedom is everybody's business -- not just America's business. And it is particularly the responsibility of the people whose freedom is threatened. In the previous Administration, we Americanized the war in Vietnam. In this Administration, we are Vietnamizing the search for peace.

The policy of the previous Administration not only resulted in our assuming the primary responsibility for fighting the war, but even more significant did not adequately stress the goal of strengthening the South Vietnamese so that they could defend themselves when we left.

The Vietnamization plan was launched following Secretary Laird's visit to Vietnam in March. Under the plan, I ordered first a substantial increase in the training and equipment of South Vietnamese forces. In July, on my visit to Vietnam, I changed General Abrams's orders, so that they were consistent with the objectives of our new policies. Under the new orders, the primary mission of our troops is to enable the South Vietnamese forces to assume the full responsibility for the security of South Vietnam. Our air operations have been reduced by over 20 per cent.

And now we have begun to see the results of this long-overdue change in American policy in Vietnam. After five years of Americans going into Vietnam we are finally bringing American men home. By December 15 over 60,000 men will have been withdrawn from South Vietnam, including 20 percent of all of our combat forces. The South Vietnamese have continued to gain in strength. As a result, they've been able to take over combat responsibilities from our American troops.

Two other significant developments have occurred since this Administration took office. Enemy infiltration, infiltration which is essential if they are to launch a major attack over the last three months, is less than 20 percent of what it was over the same period last year. And most important, United States casualties have declined during the last two months to the lowest point in three years.

Let me now turn to our program for the future. We have adopted a plan which we have worked out in cooperation with the South Vietnamese for the complete withdrawal of all U.S. combat ground forces and their replacement by South Vietnamese forces on an orderly scheduled timetable. This withdrawal will be made from strength and not from weakness. As South Vietnamese forces become stronger, the rate of American withdrawal can become greater.

I have not, and do not, intend to announce the timetable for our program, and there are obvious reasons for this decision which I'm sure you will understand. As I've indicated on several occasions, the rate of withdrawal will depend on developments on three fronts. One of these is the progress which can be, or might be, made in the Paris talks. An announcement of a fixed timetable for our withdrawal would completely remove any incentive for the enemy to negotiate an agreement. They would simply wait until our forces had withdrawn and then move in.

The other two factors on which we will base our withdrawal decisions are the level of enemy activity and the progress of the training programs of the South Vietnamese forces. And I am glad to be able to report tonight progress on both of these fronts has been greater than we anticipated when we started the program in June for withdrawal. As a result, our timetable for withdrawal is more optimistic now than when we made our first estimates in June.

Now this clearly demonstrates why it is not wise to be frozen in on a fixed timetable. We must retain the flexibility to base each withdrawal decision on the situation as it is at that time, rather than on estimates that are no longer valid. Along with this optimistic estimate, I must in all candor leave one note of caution. If the level of enemy activity significantly increases, we might have to adjust our timetable accordingly.

However, I want the record to be completely clear on one point. At the time of the bombing halt just a year ago there was some confusion as to whether there was an understanding on the part of the enemy that if we stopped the bombing of North Vietnam, they would stop the shelling of cities in South Vietnam.

I want to be sure that there is no misunderstanding on the part of the enemy with regard to our withdrawal program. We have noted the reduced level of infiltration, the reduction of our casualties and are basing our withdrawal decisions partially on those factors. If the level of infiltration or our casualties increase while we are trying to scale down the fighting, it will be the result of a conscious decision by the enemy. Hanoi could make no greater mistake than to assume that an increase in violence will be to its advantage.

If I conclude that increased enemy action jeopardizes our remaining forces in Vietnam, I shall not hesitate to take strong and effective measures to deal with that situation. This is not a threat. This is a statement of policy which as Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces I am making and meeting my responsibility for the protection of American fighting men wherever they may be.

My fellow Americans, I am sure you can recognize from what I have said that we really only have two choices open to us if we want to end this war. I can order an immediate precipitate withdrawal of all Americans from Vietnam without regard to the effects of that action. Or we can persist in our search for a just peace through a negotiated settlement, if possible, or through continued implementation of our plan for Vietnamization, if necessary -- a plan in which we will withdraw all of our forces from Vietnam on a schedule in accordance with our program as the South Vietnamese become strong enough to defend their own freedom.

I have chosen this second course. It is not the easy way. It is the right way. It is a plan which will end the war and serve the cause of peace, not just in Vietnam but in the Pacific and in the world.

In speaking of the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal, I mentioned that our allies would lose confidence in America. Far more dangerous, we would lose confidence in ourselves. Oh, the immediate reaction would be a sense of relief that our men were coming home. But as we saw the consequences of what we had done, inevitable remorse and divisive recrimination would scar our spirit as a people.

We have faced other crises in our history and we have become stronger by rejecting the easy way out and taking the right way in meeting our challenges. Our greatness as a nation has been our capacity to do what has to be done when we knew our course was right. I recognize that some of my fellow citizens disagree with the plan for peace I have chosen. Honest and patriotic Americans have reached different conclusions as to how peace should be achieved. In San Francisco a few weeks ago, I saw demonstrators carrying signs reading, "Lose in Vietnam, bring the boys home." Well, one of the strengths of our free society is that any American has a right to reach that conclusion and to advocate that point of view.

But as President of the United States, I would be untrue to my oath of office if I allowed the policy of this nation to be dictated by the minority who hold that point of view and who try to impose it on the nation by mounting demonstrations in the street. For almost 200 years, the policy of this nation has been made under our Constitution by those leaders in the Congress and the White House elected by all the people. If a vocal minority, however fervent its cause, prevails over reason and the will of the majority, this nation has no future as a free society.

And now, I would like to address a word, if I may, to the young people of this nation who are particularly concerned, and I understand why they are concerned, about this war. I respect your idealism. I share your concern for peace. I want peace as much as you do. There are powerful personal reasons I want to end this war. This week I will have to sign 83 letters to mothers, fathers, wives, and loved ones of men who have given their lives for America in Vietnam. It's very little satisfaction to me that this is only one-third as many letters as I signed the first week in office. There is nothing I want more than to see the day come when I do not have to write any of those letters.

I want to end the war to save the lives of those brave young men in Vietnam. But I want to end it in a way which will increase the chance that their younger brothers and their sons will not have to fight in some future Vietnam some place in the world.

And I want to end the war for another reason. I want to end it so that the energy and dedication of you, our young people, now too often directed into bitter hatred against those responsible for the war, can be turned to the great challenges of peace, a better life for all Americans, a better life for all people on this earth.

I have chosen a plan for peace. I believe it will succeed. If it does not succeed, what the critics say now won't matter. Or if it does succeed, what the critics say now won't matter. If it does not succeed, anything I say then won't matter.

I know it may not be fashionable to speak of patriotism or national destiny these days, but I feel it is appropriate to do so on this occasion. Two hundred years ago this nation was weak and poor. But even then, America was the hope of millions in the world. Today we have become the strongest and richest nation in the world, and the wheel of destiny has turned so that any hope the world has for the survival of peace and freedom will be determined by whether the American people have the moral stamina and the courage to meet the challenge of free-world leadership.

Let historians not record that, when America was the most powerful nation in the world, we passed on the other side of the road and allowed the last hopes for peace and freedom of millions of people to be suffocated by the forces of totalitarianism.

So tonight, to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans, I ask for your support. I pledged in my campaign for the Presidency to end the war in a way that we could win the peace. I have initiated a plan of action which will enable me to keep that pledge. The more support I can have from the American people, the sooner that pledge can be redeemed. For the more divided we are at home, the less likely the enemy is to negotiate at Paris.

Let us be united for peace. Let us also be united against defeat. Because let us understand -- North Vietnam cannot defeat or humiliate the United States. Only Americans can do that.

Fifty years ago, in this room, and at this very desk, President Woodrow Wilson spoke words which caught the imagination of a war-weary world. He said: "This is the war to end wars." His dream for peace after World War I was shattered on the hard reality of great power politics. And Woodrow Wilson died a broken man.

Tonight, I do not tell you that the war in Vietnam is the war to end wars, but I do say this: I have initiated a plan which will end this war in a way that will bring us closer to that great goal to which -- to which Woodrow Wilson and every American President in our history has been dedicated -- the goal of a just and lasting peace.

As President I hold the responsibility for choosing the best path for that goal and then leading the nation along it.

I pledge to you tonight that I shall meet this responsibility with all of the strength and wisdom I can command, in accordance with your hopes, mindful of your concerns, sustained by your prayers.

Thank you and good night.

Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by McGraw-Hill (2008)

¹ John F. Kennedy, July 17, 1963 Press Conference

Audio Source: The Mills Center for Public Affairs -- Scripps Library and Multimedia Archive

Also in this database:

Page Updated: 2/26/17
Richard M. Nixon - "Cambodian Incursion Address"
U.S. Copyright Status: This text = Property ofAmericanRhetoric.com. Audio & Image = Public Domain.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
richard nixon silent majority speech audio

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Richard M. Nixon: The Great Silent Majority

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Great Silent Majority delivered 3 November 1969 Audio mp3 of Address Plug-in required for flash audio Your browser does not support the audio element. click for pdf click for flash [AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio.] Good evening, my fellow Americans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Webinar: History through Songs: Battle of New Orleans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
[DISCLAIMER: This episode of Cocaine & Rhinestones touches on a topic that will be upsetting for some listeners and readers. If abortion is a particularly sensitive subject for you, proceed with caution.]

Maybe you already know Loretta Lynn's 1975 song about birth control, "The Pill," was banned from radio upon release.

But do you know why?

The real answer is not what many would assume.

This episode of Cocaine & Rhinestones examines the history of contraceptive laws in America, before moving on to uncover the staggering inequality of morality applied to women in country music versus that applied to men in country music.

If your mind isn't blown by the evidence laid out here, then it's only because you're jaded, because, on some level, you've always known this is true and grown resigned to it as fact. Even then, your capacity for amazement may surprise you.

Recommended if you like: Kitty Wells, Webb Pierce, Jimmie Rodgers, Dixie Chicks, Conway Twitty, KT Oslin, Garth Brooks, Sunday Sharpe, Lorene Mann, Jeannie C. Riley, Hank Thompson and feminism.

Also recommended if you don't like: Barbra Streisand.

Contents (Click/Tap to Scroll)

Primary Sources

In addition to The Library, these books were used for this episode:

Transcript of Episode

The Streisand Effect

The California Coastal Records Project is an attempt to acquire and maintain up-to-date photographs of the entire California coastline. They began doing this in 1997 before we had things like Google Earth. It's a husband and wife team. She flies a helicopter and he takes the pictures.

The thing about the California coast is a whole lot of rich and famous people own houses on it - beachfront property. In 2002, one of those people was Barbra Streisand. In 2003, she sued the project. One of the pictures on their website had her house in it. The picture isn't some paparazzi closeup on her backyard. They didn't add an arrow pointing to her home with text saying BABS LIVES HERE! It's a picture of a beach with some big houses in the background.

I know this because I've seen the picture. You can go see the picture, too, on the California Coastal Records project website. Barbra Streisand's lawsuit was dismissed by the state of California. She had to pay over $150,000 to cover the project's legal fees.

But here's the real kicker: when the suit was filed, the offending photograph had only been downloaded six times and two of those were from Streisand's own attorneys. The publicity from the lawsuit sent nearly half a million people to the website within one month. That picture has now surely been seen millions of times more than it would have been if Streisand hadn't filed her lawsuit. Her effort to hide a thing from the world caused many more people to see that thing than if she'd ignored the thing.

She accomplished the opposite of her goal so successfully that today we call this phenomenon, The Streisand Effect, though you can find examples of it that predate the Streisand case.

Like Loretta Lynn's 1975 hit song, "The Pill"...

Loretta is no stranger to controversy. Several of her singles had people riled up when they were released and "The Pill" wasn't the first. But "The Pill" was released 15 years after birth control pills were introduced to the United States. So what was it specifically that radio programmers found unacceptable in this song?

Why was "The Pill" banned?

And how did banning "The Pill" help it become Loretta Lynn's best-selling single at that point in her discography?

A Coal Miner's Daughter

A lot of songs have full lives of their own. It would take too much time to really get into those songs in the middle of regular shows about the artists. So I'm giving songs like this an episode all to themselves.

This is a song episode and that's why we won't spend very much time on Loretta Lynn's personal history today. She wrote a great autobiography called Coal Miner's Daughter that's as close to the truth as anyone will ever get, even if she did use it to shave 3 years off her real age...

Most of you have seen the movie based on the book.

The cool thing about Loretta's music is that you really don't have to go read that book or see that movie to know her background. It's all in the songs. The lyrics of "Coal Miner's Daughter" tell you almost everything you need to know. She was born a coal miner's daughter... in a cabin... on a hill... in Butcher Holler, Kentucky. Picture the kind of place that would be named "Butcher Holler." It was precisely like that.

She married young, moved to the other side of the country and started having kids - lots of 'em. Her husband heard her singing one day, thought she sounded pretty damn good, so he bought her a guitar and pushed her towards music. The rest is history that most of you already know.

So, let's learn about birth control pills...

Supervising the Morality of The Public

To understand the atmosphere around birth control and sex in 1970s America, we have to look all the way back to the late 1800s when this entire country went to hell in a hand basket. Prostitution had hit a serious growth spurt during the Civil War. Photograph technology was the best thing to happen to pornography since paper. Then, there was the rising popularity of a Free Love movement, protesting the very concept of marriage itself. People were flaunting their sexuality with no shame or remorse. It really freaked out the squares, especially this US Postal Inspector named Anthony Comstock.

Comstock seems to me like the most uptight guy to ever live. His morals were so severe that he formed the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice in 1873, in order to "supervise the morality of The Public."

That same year, he influenced Congress to pass the Comstock Laws - new legislation prohibiting the production, publication or use of the postal service for transportation of any obscene materials. Oh, and he was the one who got to define what was considered obscene since he personally enforced the laws.

Here's a short list of things considered obscene by Anthony Comstock: any and every form of sex education whatsoever, tools or methods to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, tools or methods to terminate a pregnancy and tools or methods to prevent a pregnancy.

If that sounds fine to you, consider that, under Comstock's standards, medical students were no longer allowed to have anatomy textbooks sent to them since they were viewed as pornographic. I don't know about you but I want my doctors and surgeons to have a thorough understanding of human anatomy.

These laws applied to everyone. It didn't matter if you were a single person or a happily married couple, trying to learn how to make a baby or keep from making one.

Pieces of the Comstock laws stayed on the books in America for over 100 years - into the 1990s - despite national surveys showing that, as early as 1937, over 70% of the population supported use of contraception and wanted to overturn these laws.

What happens when you have laws that 70% of your population disagrees with is that people break those laws. You can't throw 70% of the country in jail. One woman who broke Comstock laws as often and as publicly as possible was Margaret Sanger, the founder of what we call Planned Parenthood today.

There was a certain satisfaction in doing something that was going to alleviate the sufferings - of women, in particular, and I was quite a feminist at the time [...] and I naturally didn't want to see women take all the suffering of childbearing and of pregnancies. So it was a pleasure, in a sense, to think that you were striking at an archaic law, which it was. [It was] put on the statute books by Anthony Comstock some years ago and no one had stood up against it. No one had tried to change the laws. And at that time not even a doctor had the right to use the United States mails and common carriers for books, for learning, for anything that he had to do with this question. It was considered obscene. -Margaret Sanger

She published pamphlets, opened the first birth control clinic in America and, eventually, convinced a wealthy philanthropist to fund the creation of the first birth control pill.

Contraception in America

Here's a brief timeline of relevant events leading up to the release of Loretta Lynn's 1975 song, "The Pill."

In the 1950s, Comstock laws are still on the books in 30 states. In some of those states, married women are getting hysterectomies after delivering a baby so they can continue having sex without risking pregnancy. It's the one legal form of contraception available to them.

1960: the 1st birth control pill is approved for contraceptive use by the FDA.

1962: there are over one million women on the pill.

1963: a pharmaceutical researcher named Bill Baird is conducting clinical research at Harlem Hospital when he witnesses the bloody death of a woman who tried to give herself an abortion with a coat hanger. This causes him to become a social advocate for reproductive rights.

1965: Griswold vs Connecticut - the Supreme Court rules that it is an unconstitutional violation of the right to privacy for our government to prohibit married couples from using birth control. It is still illegal for single women to have the pill in 26 states, due to Comstock laws.

1967: The Pill is on the cover of Time magazine. Bill Baird is arrested for handing out condoms and contraceptive foam at a speech in Boston. He faces ten years in jail.

1970: Congress removes references to contraception from federal anti-obscenity laws.

1972: Deep Throat is released, receiving more mainstream attention than any porno film ever. Bill Baird's case for his arrest in Boston makes it all the way to the Supreme Court, where the legalization of birth control is extended to all American citizens, regardless of marital status. Loretta Lynn records "The Pill."

1973: Roe vs Wade - the Supreme Court rules that a woman's right to privacy includes the decision to have an abortion - with some caveats. Anyone who's paid any attention to American politics in the last 50 years knows that we've been arguing about Roe v Wade since that day.

1975: Loretta Lynn's record company finally releases "The Pill" after sitting on the recording for years. Everyone loses their mind.

Banning "The Pill"

Again, Loretta Lynn's best songs are autobiographical, whether she wrote them or not. Nearly every online article I read for this episode mistakenly credits Loretta for writing the song. It's an easy mistake. We all know she writes about the events of her life. We all know she married young and started making babies right away. Still, she did not write "The Pill." It was written by Lorene Allen, Don McHan and T.D. Bayless.

And Loretta was never on the pill, either. She gave birth to six children before convincing her husband to have a vasectomy done. The year the song came out, she told People magazine that if the pill had been around when she was having babies, she'd have taken 'em like popcorn.

"I wouldn't trade my kids for anyone's but I wouldn't necessarily have had six and I sure would have spaced 'em better." -Loretta Lynn

That article in People magazine opens with the scene of a preacher condemning Loretta's single to his congregation in her home state of Kentucky. A different writer published this statement in the New York Times: "The new type of country song separates sex from joy, undercuts marital love and fidelity and debases women. It creates a vision of the world as a swamp of sin..." He goes on to praise the tradition of artists like Hank Williams, which is deeply contradictory if you know anything about Hank Williams. I don't know about the other songs he was listening to but what "The Pill" really did achieve was the exact opposite of everything that writer said.

The song is not about a woman who gets a birth control prescription so she can joylessly cheat on her husband with every man in town now that she won't get knocked up. It's about a married woman telling her husband that she's now free to truly enjoy their sex life because she's in control of her body and no longer has to stifle fear or anxiety over adding another human being to their family. She knows he's gone out and partied some when she wasn't in the mood before but now she's free to throw on a miniskirt and have a good time with her husband.

Yeah, it's pretty sassy and there's plenty of innuendo. She tells him he's "set this chicken" for the last time and her "incubator is overused" from him keeping it filled...

...and those are the only lines in the song that could possibly be considered obscene, since merely referencing contraception hasn't been obscene since that 1970 act of Congress. The only way those lines could be considered obscene is if being pregnant while married is obscene. That's what those lines are describing. A set chicken. A full incubator. Metaphors for pregnancy. Banned by 60 radio stations in the United States. Sixty. More than one per state in the union.

All they accomplished by banning the song was to send record sales through the roof while artificially harming the single's performance on the charts. Remember, we're talking about an America where 70% of the population supports the use of contraceptives. Every time the song was publicly shamed, it's statistically accurate to say that 7 of the 10 people present went out and found a way to listen to the song. Plenty of them liked what they heard enough to buy the album.

When stations were put in the position of having to play the song or lose listeners to other stations that would, the song finally rose to #5 on the country charts and #70 on the pop charts - Loretta's best performance on the pop charts to this day.

So why had they banned it?

It was either a knee jerk reaction to a country song about birth control or it was something else. And I'm about to prove it wasn't a knee jerk reaction to a country song about birth control.

In 1971, Chet Atkins produced a song by Lorene Mann with vocal accompaniment by The Jordanaires. The title of that song is "Hide My Sin" and then, spelled out letter-by-letter in parentheses, the words "Abortion New York." That's the title of the song. The Jordanaires sing out the letters to spell "Abortion New York" in the background, so there's no missing it. The female narrator sings the sad story of an abortion she's already had and regrets. The song came out in 1972 on RCA records, three years before "The Pill." It was not banned.

All the songs used for background music in this episode make reference to birth control. Every one of them came out before "The Pill" by Loretta Lynn. Not a single one was banned from radio play in the US. Here's a little quick info on two of 'em.

1972: Harry Chapin releases "Woman Child" with lyrics about a groupie having an abortion that he says he isn't even certain is his. It's pretty gross but it was not banned.

1974: Paul Anka's "You're Having My Baby," widely regarded as one of the worst songs of all time, has lyrics that say he's glad a woman wants to have his baby because he knows she she didn't have to keep it. He would have been cool with the abortion and it would have been all over then but having the baby is totally awesome too. Not banned. A country singer named Sunday Sharpe covers this song as soon as it comes out. Her cover of the song with lyrics changed to the female perspective went to number 11 on the country music charts in October of 1974, less than a year before Loretta's song came out. Not banned.

So, what the hell?

Double Standards in Country Music

The standards applied to male artists and female artists in country music are different and they always have been. Men have to go way over the line. All women have to do is get near it.

Let me remind you that this show is about country music in the 1900s and let me be clear that I'm speaking only of major label singles intended for airplay that were banned by radio stations. I'm not talking about clean radio edits or songs that had curse words bleeped out for airplay.

In the 1900s, female country artists had exponentially more songs banned from radio than men did. In fact, I know of just five singles by male artists banned from country radio before the year 2000, which is fewer than Loretta Lynn had banned from radio by herself.

In 1931, Jimmie Rodgers had the song "What's It?" banned because the "what's it" in the title lives in his girlfriend's underwear. Webb Pierce had "There Stands the Glass" banned in 1953 for being such a blatant ode to alcoholism. Conway Twitty's "You've Never Been This Far Before" would probably still make some parents shut off the stereo. So it's not that surprising that it was banned by a few stations, though merely a few. It was on the country charts for 16 weeks and stayed at #1 for three weeks. Tim McGraw had his song "Indian Outlaw" banned from radio. It's essentially lyrical redface.

The only other pre-Y2K country song by a man that I know was banned from some radio stations was Merle Haggard's "Okie from Muskogee" - and that one's complicated enough to deserve its own episode down the road...

"The Pill" wasn't banned from country radio because it was a song about birth control. It was banned because the woman in the song proudly and happily sings about the freedom birth control gives her to live her life on her terms, regardless of what men think about it.

If she was ashamed to be on birth control or embarrassed to be on birth control then the song would not have been banned. If "The Pill" had been recorded by a male artist and the gender PoV changed to "She's Got the Pill," a celebration of how much the pill has improved the marriage and the sex for him, it would not have been banned.

Female artists have their songs banned simply for standing up to society or for fighting back. "Harper Valley PTA" is a perfect example. There isn't anything scandalous about that song. It's about a single mother telling some people off for not minding their own business and for being hypocrites. It was banned from several radio stations.

Kitty Wells' "It Wasn't God Who Made Honky Tonk Angels" is a song about how she's tired of married men acting like they're single and women getting blamed for it. It was a direct response to Hank Thompson's hit "The Wild Side of Life." - a song about cheating women which spent 15 weeks at #1 and caused zero controversy the whole time. Kitty's song was banned from radio.

Johnny Cash can sing about shooting a man just to watch him die in 1955. When Dixie Chicks release "Goodbye Earl" in 1999? We can't have a song about a woman who's tried every way of escaping an abusive husband except finally killing him. Banned from radio. Their label almost wouldn't let them release it as a single, only allowing it after the girls played the song at the Grammy awards without the world ending.

I can even show you an instance of a male artist being banned for depicting a woman fighting back. "The Thunder Rolls" by Garth Brooks has a third verse that his producer talked him out of recording. In that third verse, the wife of the cheating husband in the song gets a gun out of a drawer and tells herself this is the last time. Garth saved those lines for live performances of the song. When it came time to make the music video, he decided to include that image from the third verse. The wife gets the gun and she uses it.

You know what happened next, right?

The day after it was released, TNN banned the video and then CMT banned the video.

I should mention that TNN said they'd put the video back in rotation if Garth filmed a disclaimer to run with it. TNN had a script made for the disclaimer they wanted and sent it over to Garth, who read it. I don't know what that disclaimer said but Garth refused. One of his managers said Garth refused because the disclaimer would have made it seem like Garth was apologizing for making the video.

It's a good thing Loretta Lynn had the foresight to release nearly nothing but Top 10 singles for a decade before "The Pill" came out or we may never have heard it.

Here's what happened to KT Oslin...

Her first single went to #72 on the country charts in 1981. She followed it up just months later with a song called "Younger Men." It was about how men her age, around 40 years old, were either uninterested or unable to run at her speed, so to speak. This was way before that other pill, Viagra, so she's decided to try out a younger guy - possibly a 19 year old.

Now, I've never met a 19 year old guy in charge of deciding what songs aren't allowed to be played on a radio station. I've met plenty of 40 year old guys who are. "Younger Men" didn't hit the country charts. It wasn't banned. Radio stations simply chose not to play it.

KT's next single came out five years later and went to #40. Her following three singles made it in the Top 10 because they didn't hurt the feelings of radio programmers.

In 1987, she re-recorded "Younger Men" and put it out as a single again in 1988. No airplay, again. No charts, again. Her following single broke the Top 20 and the three after that all hit Top 5.

I could do this all day but I think I've proven my point.

Walking the Line - Or Not

If you were a woman making country music in the 20th century then you'd better have some serious momentum built up before taking the car off road or you were liable to get stuck.

Loretta Lynn may tell you she's had as many as fourteen songs banned from radio stations. As far as I can tell, the real number is closer to nine. Some of the women mentioned in this episode were victims of an unfair system. Loretta Lynn was not one of them. Her "aw shucks" hillbilly personality is authentic but there's a deeply perceptive person behind it.

She knew exactly what she was doing.

Maybe not the first time it happened but certainly the next time and the one after that and so on. Revisit the timeline from earlier. Loretta recorded "The Pill" in 1972, the year the Supreme Court made the birth control pill legal for all American citizens. The record company held her back for three years but Loretta was trying to push the envelope even earlier than she did.

The lyrics Loretta wrote for "Don't Come Home Drinkin with Lovin on Your Mind" ruffled some feathers. For the first time in her career, a song she'd written herself was being treated as scandalous. And for the first time in her career she had a #1 hit single.

She'd already started recording her next album four months before "Don't Come Home Drinkin" was a hit. So skip that one and the next Loretta Lynn album you have with singles released from it is a record called Fist City. The title track was banned and it was her second #1 single.

It's an easy pattern to spot and it's held up over her entire career. Once she became a big enough star that the public response and the industry response to her new albums were newsworthy, Loretta Lynn was able to consistently exploit The Streisand Effect to her benefit before we even had a name for it.

Years later, Loretta would joke that she could always tell how well her songs were doing by looking at how many radio stations had banned them.

Thank you for listening to and reading Cocaine & Rhinestones. Every episode of the podcast is written and produced by me, Tyler Mahan Coe. You can find me on Facebook and Twitter under my full name, if you want.

I know we're just getting started and you may not know what you really think about this show yet but try to stick with me because I'm teaching myself how to do all of this as I go. If you are enjoying it at all then I'll ask again that you share it with one person. Even better if you talk about it with them in real life. Talk about these stories and this music. If you're here before November 9th, then I shouldn't be in iTunes or Stitcher yet but you can subscribe to new episodes by email or subscribe on an Android phone. If you are listening on iTunes or Stitcher then please leave me a good review. I'm told it helps a lot and I need all the help I can get. Thank you.

Next week, I'm telling a story that, well... it may have legitimately traumatized me. Only time will tell. It could be the darkest stain on the history of country music. Of course, I'm talking about Spade Cooley's dominance of the California country music scene and the horrific way it ended with the brutal torture and murder of his wife. I've seen many people get this story wrong over the years and I didn't know how wrong until I looked into it for myself. It's tough... There's just no way around it. It's very difficult to listen to... So, yeah, make sure you catch that one so you can have nightmares for three weeks like I did! I don't listen to the "murder podcasts" but I guess if you like those then maybe you will like this upcoming episode. I find it pretty rough going.

-TMC

Liner Notes

Excerpted Music

This episode featured excerpts from the following songs, in this order:

Excerpted Video

The following videos were either discussed or excerpted in this episode. It's possible that they may have been removed for any of a number of reasons since this post was written:

Commentary and Remaining Sources

Here is the California Coastal Records Projects webpage on the Streisand case. Two links with more of the details I mentioned ( one - two). Then here's an article from TechDirt about that case turning into "The Streisand Effect."

You can go read the full 1975 People magazine article on Loretta Lynn if you want to see just how hysterical people got over this song and how much it drove up her sales.

Regardless of what you think about Dixie Chicks' political beliefs or their outspokenness about them, there is no sane argument for why "Goodbye Earl" should have been banned from radio, especially in light of the perpetual presence of any and all types of revenge killing in country music. I don't even need the song to be "tongue-in-cheek" as suggested by the guy quoted in this article on Dixie Chicks being banned. The guy beat his wife so he got dealt with. The end. That's country music.

I'm honestly pretty nervous about putting this episode out into the world but this entire podcast would be bullshit if I didn't, so I kind of feel like I have to do it. It is fascinating but in a way that's like a car wreck. You're gonna look. You have to look. You can't not look.

Only, this car wreck... It's like if you were driving and the entire road trip from Nashville to Los Angeles there was just one long car crash on the side of the interstate the entire time.

I expect country music fans are already aware of the problems women artists face in a general way, although maybe not aware of how extreme a problem it really is. I guess what I'm worried about here is that I very much intend this show to be appealing to people who are not already fans of the genre. I think these stories and this history will be fascinating to people who may even currently believe that they hate country music.

So, in today's political climate, where everything has to be political, whether it's meant that way or not - even just sitting down and listing some facts, which I feel is pretty much all I've done here - I could see some outsiders with an agenda having a knee-jerk reaction, saying I'm blowing things out of proportion or even making shit up. I wish I was. It brings me no pleasure to document this massive shortcoming of a type of music that I love.

I mean, listen, I'm not trying to position myself as the be-all, end-all authority on country music history. Please, go look up anything you believe I may have gotten wrong. If I did get something wrong, feel free to let me know. If you have a good source for your information, it's not just some story your grandpa told you, I'll even update the episode with correct information. That goes for every episode.

My aim here is to tell the truth. I love country music. I want to talk about it. I want the conversation to stay honest. Sometimes that's going to be uncomfortable for me and for you. So... deal with it, you know?

I misspoke in the episode regarding the KT Oslin single. She re-recorded "Younger Men" in 1987 and it was re-released as a single in 1988. I said in the episode that she re-recorded it in 1988. It was not worth going back and rerecording a bunch of stuff, so I'm telling you here. Everything else I said about it was accurate but I also forgot to mention that the album it came out on the second time around won a Grammy award. That's even more damning, I feel.

Seriously, go look at KT Oslin's discography page on Wikipedia, scroll down to the section on her singles and there's just a hole right there in the middle of all these hits. It's arguably the height of her career and there's one song there that didn't get any airplay for some strange reason. Hmmm.... I wonder how many of the radio programmers who kept her song off playlists couldn't get it up anymore?

Anyway...

By the way, I was not talking shit on Hank Williams Sr.

I love Hank and his music. His biography is so fascinating to me that I'm intimidated by the thought of discussing him on this show. I'm just saying it's super out of touch for anyone to hold up Hank as the pinnacle of morality, as that writer seemed to be doing for some weird reason...

I obviously recommend that everyone read Coal Miner's Daughter if you want to know more about Loretta Lynn. A lot of country singer autobiographies are full of shit but hers seems mostly legit. I should warn you that Loretta's wedding night is a straight up rape scene. It's still messed up in the book, even though it's sort of glossed over, but seeing it in the movie is unsettling, to say the least. I would say it didn't age well but it's just history. History has not aged well...

The Margaret Sanger clip was taken from the interview with Mike Wallace posted above, which I'm aware is a controversial interview for a lot of people for many different reasons. You can get yourself into quite an argument in the YouTube comments if you want. I don't feel a need to give an opinion on it. I don't really know what happened. I wasn't there.

Nothing in this episode was about shoving political ideas at anyone. It would have been ridiculous to try and talk about why Loretta's song "The Pill" could have been banned without talking about the history of birth control in America. Margaret Sanger was a part of that history. I had a clip of her saying exactly what I was saying about her in her own words with her own voice. I used it.

I read several things to build the timeline of birth control in America. The one that I would recommend as an actual good read is America and The Pill by Elaine Tyler May. If I said anything remotely fresh or insightful on the subject, which I probably did not, I'm sure it was inspired by her book. If you thought any of that was interesting you should read her book.

Alright, here's the area where it's most likely that you think I said something completely wrong: talking about men being banned from country radio. Listen, like I said, if you find a reputable source to add something to the list, feel free to get in touch. Make sure you check your date - it's gotta be before the year 2000. I don't want to hear about your local radio station banning a song. Anyone can start a radio station in the middle of nowhere and ban whatever they want. I need legit stations. There's gotta be more than one of them. I'm not saying I missed any songs and I don't think that I did. I don't think it's at all possible that I did miss enough songs to balance the scales, here. I didn't even come close to mentioning all the songs banned by women in country music. This episode would have been 2 hours long.

I'll also point out that I was very lenient with my sources, regarding those five songs by men being banned. It's hard to research this topic now because, after 9/11, Clear Channel banned a bunch of random songs and that's mostly what comes up in when you try to search for banned music now. To give you an idea, there was some random little book called The Rough Guide to Cult Pop. It had one sentence about Webb Pierce being banned so I put that in this episode. Then I found the same thing about Webb in a better book, called Taboo Tunes, which was a more thorough look at the topic. That's where I got Jimmie Rodgers from. There weren't any other male country acts in that whole book dedicated to this very subject. So, yeah, come at me...

I would love to get a look at the disclaimer TNN asked Garth Brooks to film for that music video.

What horseshit.

Anyway, Patsi Bale Cox wrote a biography of Garth called The Garth Factor. Patsi is a great writer. She's done several biographies that I'll be using for future episodes. She always goes deep and if there's a situation where there's more than one side of a story, it looks like she tries to include all the different sides. See if she's written a book on someone you like - I'm sure it's good.

Her book actually has some information on this. Apparently Garth went to TNN to read the script that they wrote for him. It's one of those things like, "Hi, I'm Garth Brooks. What you've just seen, though very sad, is very real. Unfortunately, domestic violence is very much alive in our society." The script goes on to tell men, women and children, if they're involved in domestic violence situations to seek help. Apparently, Garth felt like it was wrong. It felt like he was getting exposure by exploiting a controversy, which was not his intention. I mean, come on, this is garbage. Making an artist turn what they wanted to make into something else...

I mean, this is the dude who did Chris Gaines, by the way.

Can we remember that?

Maybe you don't understand what he's doing but this guy clearly put some thought into what he wanted to do. He's trying to say what he wants to say. If he wants to make a commercial, he'll make a commercial. This is not the kind of guy you're gonna get to read your disclaimer and let you off the hook for showing his music video. It's just ridiculous.

This is not in Patsi's book but one time Garth Brooks and Loretta Lynn were both at a White House dinner. Loretta asked the waitstaff what this fancy looking little piece of flat bread was supposed to be and they told her it was a biscuit. So Loretta sent instructions back to the kitchen on how to make a good biscuit, like a proper biscuit. Garth Brooks tells that story.

Alright, that's it. You have no idea how much it means to me that you even wanted to read or listen to this. I'm really surprised by how many people are interested in a country music podcast but I'm glad that it does seem to be working so far.

Thank you. I'll be back in a week.

-TMC

[Send questions concerning this episode or anything else to questions@cocaineandrhinestones.com and your question may be answered in a Q & A episode at the end of the first season.] BONUS: Cocaine & Rhinestones Season 1 Q&A Episode!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CR002 - The Pill: Why Was Loretta Lynn Banned? | Cocaine & Rhinestones

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
DISCLAIMER: This episode of Cocaine & Rhinestones touches on a topic that will be upsetting for some listeners and readers. If abortion is a particularly sensitive subject for you, proceed with caution.] Maybe you already know Loretta Lynn's 1975 song about birth control, "The Pill," was banned from radio upon release.

# data[].attributes.headline
WWII Homefront in TN: New Deal Programs During WWII

# data[].attributes.subject
WWII Homefront in TN: New Deal Programs During WWII

# data[].attributes.headline
WWII Homefront in TN: Tennesseans at Home

# data[].attributes.subject
WWII Homefront in TN: Tennesseans at Home

# data[].attributes.headline
WWII Homefront in TN: Tennesseans at War

# data[].attributes.subject
WWII Homefront in TN: Tennesseans at War

# data[].attributes.headline
WWII Homefront in TN: Social, Economic, and Political Changes in Wartime and Post-war Tennessee

# data[].attributes.subject
WWII Homefront in TN: Social, Economic, and Political Changes in Wartime and Post-war Tennessee

# data[].attributes.headline
Lesson Plan: Depictions of Blount Mansion

# data[].attributes.subject
Lesson Plan: Depictions of Blount Mansion

# data[].attributes.body
This interdisciplinary lesson plan asks students to think about the architecture of a significant historic site from the point of view of both a government-sponsored technical drawing and a drawing of the same building by an African American artist during the Harlem Renaissance.

# data[].attributes.body
This activity uses the Library of Congress primary source analysis model and incorporates classroom discussion with each student assigned active roles throughout the activity.
Compiled by Teaching with Primary Sources Program at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville

# data[].attributes.body
You can access the grade level resource guides on the first tab of our Primary Source Sets page. These resources guides align with current TN state social studies standards. You will find a guide for grades K-8, high school U.S. History, and high school World History.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to Main Content

It looks like you're using Internet Explorer 11 or older. This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. If you continue with this browser, you may see unexpected results.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Walker Library: TPS Home: Primary Source Sets

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Skip to Main Content It looks like you're using Internet Explorer 11 or older. This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. If you continue with this browser, you may see unexpected results.

# data[].attributes.headline
Frances Perkins and the Role of the Secretary of Labor

# data[].attributes.subject
Frances Perkins and the Role of the Secretary of Labor

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Frances Perkins and the Role of the Secretary of Labor

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Glimpses of Soldiers Lives (Liljenquist Collection)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Information about soldiers represented in the Liljenquist Family Collection of Civil War Photographs

# data[].attributes.headline
Civil War Soldier's Portraits Primary Source Set

# data[].attributes.subject
Civil War Soldier's Portraits Primary Source Set

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The resources in this primary source set are intended for classroom use. If your use will be beyond a single classroom, please review the copyright and fair use guidelines.

Teacher's Guide

To help your students analyze these primary sources, get a graphic organizer and guides: Analysis Tool and Guides

This resource was created by Mark Sanchez, the 2013 Liljenquist Family Fellow at the Library of Congress

Although the Civil War passed into history generations ago, the faces of those who fought in the war are still with us. Hundreds of thousands of photographs were taken during the war years, some experts estimate. Some of those photos were of officers, battlefields, and political leaders, but many of them were portraits of individual soldiers on the way to fight, or on a break from battle. The items in the Liljenquist Family Collection of Civil War Photographs at the Library of Congress capture the wartime lives of the everyday soldiers, some not yet out of their teens, who fought and died on both sides of the conflict. These small, personal portraits provide a unique window into the lives of ordinary men and their loved ones caught up in an extraordinary war.

Background

Personal Portraits in a Time of War

From 1861-65, more than three million Americans took up arms in the bloodiest conflict of the nineteenth century. Hailing from every state and territory, these men were real people who loved, feared, and often died in the service of their country. The century and a half separating us from our Civil War counterparts can accentuate our differences, but in many ways these soldiers were just like contemporary Americans.

There is one fact that makes Civil War soldiers seem much more modern than soldiers of the teacher's guide primary source set nation's earlier wars: many of them had their pictures taken. The onset of war coincided with a boom in photography in the United States. By the start of the Civil War, photographs were much less expensive and much easier to produce than ever before. New technologies brought the price of the new ambrotype (glass-backed) and tintype (metal-backed) emulsion plates down to between 25 cents to $2.50 in the Union states. The average Civil War soldier, who might make between $11-16 per month, could finally afford his own personal photograph.

Attitudes and Motivations

By the time the first shots were fired at Fort Sumter in April 1861, tensions between the free states and the slave states were at a boiling point. Even before abolition became an official aim of the Union, Northern soldiers fighting to protect the Union and Southern soldiers fighting to protect their way of life had more than enough motivation to go into battle. Soldiers on both sides expressed their sentiments through their portraits, some by displaying slogans, some by brandishing weapons or striking fierce poses.

Though enthusiasm would shrink as the war went on, at the beginning of the war, men were so eager to join up that a big problem for both armies was finding enough supplies for its soldiers. Despite minimum age requirements, surviving photos indicate that there was a liberal interpretation of what constituted an eighteen year-old. Those too young to successfully feign maturity could join as drummer boys. The desire not to be left behind can be seen in the example of a nineyear-old drummer boy from Ohio, Johnny Clem.

After running away from home and shooting a Confederate officer in the battle of Chickamauga, he became the youngest non-commissioned officer in the history of the United States.

After the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, African Americans were able to enlist and fight on behalf of the Union. Some white Northerners were opposed to their inclusion, but by the end of the war close to two hundred thousand African American troops would join the armed services. Many of these soldiers and sailors took time to have their portraits made in uniform. Women were not included in the armed forces, but often supported the war effort through volunteer organizations, as well as by making clothing, distributing supplies, and writing letters to their loved ones in the field.

Letters from home can be found tucked inside the cases of photographs of Civil War soldiers. With so many Americans off fighting and only too aware of the possibility that they might not be returning home, the number of portrait photographs soared. The naval blockade against the Confederacy led to much higher prices-up to $20-for photographs in the South. This cost difference is one reason for the disproportionately higher production of Union portraits, yet the Liljenquist Family Collection still serves as a visual record of Civil War soldiers on both sides.

The portraits of most soldiers were small-2.75 by 3.25 inches was the most common size-and could be carried in a friend's jacket pocket, mailed home to family, or held in the hand of a loved one. The photos were often kept safe in ornate frames and decorated cases, some made of leather or molded from hardened shellac compounds. For many of these soldiers, a wartime portrait was a major occasion, and might be the only photograph ever taken of them. In the props, pose, and clothing that each chose, a viewer today can search for clues about the subject's personality through the way he presented himself for his moment before the camera.

The men who donned blue or gray uniforms between 1861 and 1865 only spent a portion of those years in combat, and some photographs provide glimpses of the more humdrum moments of their military lives. In the few times of the day when they were not fighting or in drill, soldiers in camp played cards, performed music, and, in their own nineteenth-century fashion, relaxed. Many soldiers served together for long stretches of the war, and posed for portraits as comrades in arms. Of the three million who served, more than 620,000 died by the end of the war, and many more were left badly wounded or otherwise changed by the experience. Many died in combat, but disease killed even more. Prisoners of war were often denied proper healthcare and nutrition, and thousands died in military prisons, some of starvation. Still, despite the physical and emotional trauma of the war's aftermath, the nation dove straight into the Reconstruction effort, and most soldiers returned to civilian life.

History has recorded little about most of the soldiers in these portraits. In fact, for the majority we don't even know their names. But their photographs have traveled on without them, passed from hand to hand over the decades until coming together in this collection. Today these portraits, which might have been intended for a few friends and sweethearts, can be seen and studied by people around the world. Although we may not know their names or their stories, we can look into their faces and ask ourselves what they experienced and how they felt as they played their part in a war that changed a nation.

Suggestions for Teachers

Write a caption for a photo. What is happening? What is the subject feeling?

Select an image. Predict what will happen one minute after the scene shown in the image. One hour after? Explain the reasoning behind your predictions.

Study and analyze the items by and about Cornelius V. Moore. Consider the tone and content of the two letters. Reflect on what can be learned from the set that cannot be learned from a single item.

Choose one of the photographs and create a series of correspondence telling the subject's story. Write one letter from before the photo was taken and one letter from after. Take into consideration the subject's age, facial expression, uniform, and any objects in the photograph.

Consider that, in the 21st century, people can take a photograph whenever they want. During the Civil War, however, having one's photograph taken was rare enough to warrant carefully composing every aspect of the photo. Ask: If you were preparing for the only photo you would ever have taken of yourself, what items-or even animals-would you have with you? How would you pose? What would you stand in front of? Who would you send it to? If time permits, ask students to bring their items to class and take their "only" photograph.

Additional Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Civil War Soldiers' Portraits: The Liljenquist Family Collection | Classroom Materials at the Library of Congress | Library of Congress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The resources in this primary source set are intended for classroom use. If your use will be beyond a single classroom, please review the copyright and fair use guidelines.

# data[].attributes.headline
Civil War Photographs Primary Source Set

# data[].attributes.subject
Civil War Photographs Primary Source Set

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The resources in this primary source set are intended for classroom use. If your use will be beyond a single classroom, please review the copyright and fair use guidelines.

Teacher's Guide

To help your students analyze these primary sources, get a graphic organizer and guides: Analysis Tool and Guides

This resource was created by Sam Klotz, the 2014 Liljenquist Family Fellow at the Library of Congress

The Civil War era was a particularly important moment in the history of photography. During this era photographs began to dominate American visual culture, as new technologies and new formats brought depictions of battle scenes, wartime leaders, and everyday soldiers into private homes as never before. Examining the photographs produced by these new technologies can both shed light on the culture of the era and provide insights into the history of this powerful form of visual communication.

Background

Primary Photographic Technologies in Use

The Daguerreotype (1839-1890, common use 1840-1860) - is a photograph sitting on a silver coated copper plate made light sensitive with chemicals before exposure. Because of its intense detail and attractive shiny mirrorlike surface, it achieved success as a cheaper alternative to oil painting for portraiture, even though to have a daguerreotype taken, the subject had to sit facing direct light for several seconds without blinking or moving. The daguerreotype eventually went out of fashion later in the 19th century with the introduction of cheaper and more efficient processes like ambrotype or tintype and paper prints.

The Salted Paper Print, or Salt Print (1840s-1850s) was among the first methods for creating a photographic print on paper. The process involved soaking paper in a sodium chloride solution, then coating it with silver nitrate. The paper was then exposed to sunlight while in contact with a negative. Salt prints were later replaced by albumen prints, which were more clear and had a glossy look.

The Wet-Plate/Collodion Process (1850s-1900s) was a developmental breakthrough from earlier photographic technologies such as the daguerreotype and the calotype. The collodion process involved coating a glass plate with light sensitive chemicals and exposing it to get a negative image. This process was significant because of its short exposures and efficiency, and it was used to create the types of photographs listed below.

The Ambrotype (1850s-1860s) - a collodion negative placed against a dark background, which made the image appear positive. Ambrotypes were not reproducible because the positive image could only be created by manipulating the negative. After developing ambrotypes, photographers often added watercolor to give their images a life-like effect. The ambrotype was a preferred portrait medium because it was both cheap and easy to make. Its name is derived from the Greek word "ambrose," meaning immortal, suggesting the image's capacity to immortalize a constructed image of the self.

The Tintype (1850s-1930s) - a collodion negative, like the ambrotype, but printed on iron (not tin, despite the name). It also was not reproducible. The tintype peaked in popularity during the Civil War Era because of its durable surface. The tintype, like the ambrotype, was often colored, and superseded the ambrotype as the preferred portrait medium because it was the cheapest and most efficient form of photography at the time. These photographs cost as little as twenty-five cents and thus were often more casual in nature.

The Albumen Print (1850s-1900) - a collodion negative printed on paper coated with a surface layer of a beaten egg-white solution. This layer gave the prints great brightness and detail, consistent quality, and tonal range. Unlike the ambrotype or tintype, photographers could produce many albumen prints from one negative. Albumen prints were used to capture everything from landscapes to portraits. Other technologies included opalotypes and ivorytypes, glass negatives similar to the ambrotype and tintype, though more expensive and notable for their rich color.

Photographic Presentations of Technologies

The Stereograph (1850s-1920s) - consisted of two albumen prints placed side by side on a small card, captured by a camera with two lenses separated by two-and-a-half inches. The compound image was viewed using a stereoscope, a device that merged the two images into one. This gave the illusion of three dimensions and allowed the stereograph to make distant places come to life.

Carte-de-visite (1850-1860s) - a small albumen print mounted on a piece of cardstock measuring approximately two-and-a-half by four inches. Like the tintype, though less durable, the carte was a cheap and easily producible way for people to preserve images of themselves. Cartes were also used to depict celebrity figures, tourist attractions, and to convey promotional messages.

Photographic books also became increasingly popular during the Civil War, and newspapers and magazines used photographs as the basis for printed engravings. Sometimes, photographers even photographed illustrations for reproduction.

Today, we see photographs everywhere. The Civil War era marked the first time photographic technologies brought many people into visual contact with subjects outside of their daily life. Ask students to discuss how images of current events in faraway places affect how they think about those events. Invite them to imagine how they would relate to an event they cannot see. How would being able to see images shape their response? Ask students to study the technology visible in "Wagons and Camera of Sam A. Cooley" and then think about the photographic technology they most often use. How would the size of the camera affect use? Invite students to list as many other factors as they can that would affect how and where they would take photographs. As a follow up, students might research photographic processes from the Civil War era and consider how that has changed over time.

Historians have discovered that in the photograph "Home of a Rebel Sharpshooter", Alexander Gardner moved the body into position and added the rifle, which is not a sharpshooter's rifle but a Springfield rifle, from his own belongings. Ask the students: Given that we often assume photographs to be accurate representations of the world, how does this information change your perception of the photograph, its title, and the accompanying prose description? How does this information affect your perception of other photographs that you might not expect to be posed? What questions can we ask to discern how true to life a photograph is?

Suggestions for Teachers

Ask students to choose and examine a photograph they like. What aspects of the image could be controlled by the photographer? What could not be controlled? How do these considerations affect the way you respond to the photograph?

In the 21st century U.S., most people can take a photograph whenever they want. During the Civil War, however, having one's photograph taken was rare enough to warrant carefully composing every aspect of the photo. Ask: If you were preparing for the only photo you would ever have taken of yourself, what would you want your photograph to say about you? What items, animals, or other people would you have with you? How would you pose? What would you stand in front of? Who would you send it to? If time permits, ask students to bring their items to class and take their "only" photograph.

Additional Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Civil War Photographs: New Technologies and New Uses | Classroom Materials at the Library of Congress | Library of Congress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The resources in this primary source set are intended for classroom use. If your use will be beyond a single classroom, please review the copyright and fair use guidelines.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Why do I have to complete a CAPTCHA?

Completing the CAPTCHA proves you are a human and gives you temporary access to the web property.

What can I do to prevent this in the future?

If you are on a personal connection, like at home, you can run an anti-virus scan on your device to make sure it is not infected with malware.

If you are at an office or shared network, you can ask the network administrator to run a scan across the network looking for misconfigured or infected devices.

Another way to prevent getting this page in the future is to use Privacy Pass. Check out the browser extension in the Chrome Web Store.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Keynote Speaker on Japanese American Internment Camps | Immigration and Imprisonment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Guest speaker Sam Mihara was imprisoned in the Heart Mountain Wyoming Japanese American internment camps during WW2. His educational presentation gives a historical perspective to immigration and imprisonment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
HOME

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cotton Gin | The African Americans | PBS LearningMedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This video from The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross describes how the invention of the cotton gin revolutionized the worldwide textile industry, and with it the dynamics of the American slave community.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Podcast Recommendations: - Presentation (16:9) by Layla J Smallwood

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Migrant Farmworkers  and  the United Farm Workers

# data[].attributes.body
This was originally shared in our June 2017 newsletter. See page 2.

# data[].attributes.headline
Crossing the Veil: A Young W.E.B. DuBois in Rural Tennessee

# data[].attributes.subject
Crossing the Veil: A Young W.E.B. DuBois in Rural Tennessee

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
TPS - MTSU Religion in America Workshop - Quiz

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Find and create gamified quizzes, lessons, presentations, and flashcards for students, employees, and everyone else. Get started for free!

# data[].attributes.headline
First and Second Great Awakening Sources 

# data[].attributes.subject
First and Second Great Awakening Sources 

# data[].attributes.headline
Understanding the Great Awakenings PowerPoint

# data[].attributes.subject
Understanding the Great Awakenings PowerPoint

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
July Newsletter AME Church Student Packet.pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SPECIAL THANKS to WETA for providing funding for this project.

Additional thanks to Dr. Carroll Van West, director of the Center for Historic Preservation at Middle Tennessee State University, for providing historical resources for this project.

From NPT:
Project producers: Kayla Todd, LaTonya Turner, and Rosemary Brunton
Graduate research assistant: October Kamara
Digital mapping developers: Shane Burkeen, Joe DelMerico, Kyle Sweet
Communications: MiChelle Jones
Executive producer: Will Pedigo
Interim CEO: Daniel Tidwell

Major corporate support for The Black Church: This is our Story, This is our Songis provided by Johnson & Johnson.
Major support is also provided by Lilly Endowment Inc., Ford Foundation, and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, PBS and public television viewers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SPECIAL THANKS to WETA for providing funding for this project. Additional thanks to Dr. Carroll Van West, director of the Center for Historic Preservation at Middle Tennessee State University, for providing historical resources for this project.

# data[].attributes.headline
Religion and the Founding of the American Republic exhibition

# data[].attributes.subject
Religion and the Founding of the American Republic exhibition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Men and women with deep religious convictions crossed the Atlantic Ocean to practice their faith freely in the colonies that in 1776 became the United States of America.

# data[].attributes.headline
“A Wall of Separation” article about TJ’s letter to the Danbury Baptists

# data[].attributes.subject
“A Wall of Separation” article about TJ’s letter to the Danbury Baptists

# data[].attributes.body
The recently discovered first draft: https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpost.html

The final version: https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

Both those two versions of the letter are linked from the longer article, but it’s a bit hard to find/scroll through.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Following is an article by the curator of a major exhibition at the Library that opens this month and runs through Aug. 22. A key document on view in "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic" (see LC Information Bulletin, May 1998), is the letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, which contains the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state." With the help of the FBI, the draft of the letter, including Jefferson's obliterated words, are now known.
Thomas Jefferson's reply on Jan. 1, 1802, to an address from the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association, congratulating him upon his election as president, contains a phrase that is as familiar in today's political and judicial circles as the lyrics of a hit tune: "a wall of separation between church and state." This phrase has become well known because it is considered to explain (many would say, distort) the "religion clause" of the First Amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...," a clause whose meaning has been the subject of passionate dispute for the past 50 years.

During his lifetime, Jefferson could not have predicted that the language in his Danbury Baptist letter would have endured as long as some of his other arresting phrases. The letter was published in a Massachusetts newspaper a month after Jefferson wrote it and then was more or less forgotten for half a century. It was put back into circulation in an edition of Jefferson's writings, published in 1853, and reprinted in 1868 and 1871.

The Supreme Court turned the spotlight on the "wall of separation" phrase in 1878 by declaring in Reynolds v. United States "that it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [first] amendment."

The high court took the same position in widely publicized decisions in 1947 and 1948, asserting in the latter case, McCollum v. Board of Education, that, "in the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'" Since McCollum forbade religious instruction in public schools, it appeared that the court had used Jefferson's "wall" metaphor as a sword to sever religion from public life, a result that was and still is intolerable to many Americans.

Some Supreme Court justices did not like what their colleagues had done. In 1962, Justice Potter Stewart complained that jurisprudence was not "aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the 'wall of separation,' a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution." Addressing the issue in 1985, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist lamented that "unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years." Defenders of the metaphor responded immediately: "despite its detractors and despite its leaks, cracks and its archways, the wall ranks as one of the mightiest monuments of constitutional government in this nation."

Given the gravity of the issues involved in the debate over the wall metaphor, it is surprising that so little effort has been made to go behind the printed text of the Danbury Baptist letter to unlock its secrets. Jefferson's handwritten draft of the letter is held by the Library's Manuscript Division. Inspection reveals that nearly 30 percent of the draft -- seven of 25 lines -- was deleted by the president prior to publication. Jefferson indicated his deletions by circling several lines and noting in the left margin that they were to be excised. He inked out several words in the circled section and a few words elsewhere in the draft. He also inked out three entire lines following the circled section. Click here to see the text of the final letter.

Since the Library plans to display Jefferson's handwritten draft of the Danbury Baptist letter in its forthcoming exhibition "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic," the question was raised whether modern computer technology could be used to uncover Jefferson's inked-out words, so that the unedited copy of the letter might be shown to viewers alongside Jefferson's corrected draft. The Library requested the assistance of FBI Director Louis Freeh, who generously permitted the FBI Laboratory to apply its state-of-the-art technology to the task of restoring Jefferson's obliterated words. The FBI was successful, with the result that the entire draft of the Danbury Baptist letter is now legible (below). This fully legible copy will be seen in the exhibition in the company of its handwritten, edited companion draft. Click here to see Jefferson's unedited text. By examining both documents, viewers will be able to discern Jefferson's true intentions in writing the celebrated Danbury Baptist letter.

The edited draft of the letter reveals that, far from being dashed off as a "short note of courtesy," as some have called it, Jefferson labored over its composition. For reasons unknown, the address of the Danbury Baptists, dated Oct. 7, 1801, did not reach Jefferson until Dec. 30, 1801. Jefferson drafted his response forthwith and submitted it to the two New England Republican politicians in his Cabinet, Postmaster General Gideon Granger of Connecticut and Attorney General Levi Lincoln of Massachusetts. Granger responded to Jefferson on Dec. 31.

The next day, New Year's Day, was a busy one for the president, who received and entertained various groups of well-wishers, but so eager was he to complete his answer to the Danbury Baptists that, amid the hubbub, he sent his draft to Lincoln with a cover note explaining his reasons for writing it. Lincoln responded immediately; just as quickly, Jefferson edited the draft to conform to Lincoln's suggestions, signed the letter and released it, all on New Year's Day, 1802.

That Jefferson consulted two New England politicians about his messages indicated that he regarded his reply to the Danbury Baptists as a political letter, not as a dispassionate theoretical pronouncement on the relations between government and religion. His letter, he told Lincoln in his New Year's Day note, was meant to gratify public opinion in Republican strongholds like Virginia, "being seasoned to the Southern taste only."

Expressing his views in a reply to a public address also indicated that Jefferson saw himself operating in a political mode, for by 1802 Americans had come to consider replies to addresses, first exploited as political pep talks by John Adams in 1798, as the prime vehicles for the dissemination of partisan views. A few weeks earlier, on Nov. 20, 1801, Jefferson had, in fact, used a reply to an address from the Vermont legislature to signal his intention to redeem a campaign promise by proposing a tax reduction at the beginning of the new session of Congress in December.

In his New Year's note to Lincoln, Jefferson revealed that he hoped to accomplish two things by replying to the Danbury Baptists. One was to issue a "condemnation of the alliance between church and state." This he accomplished in the first, printed, part of the draft. Jefferson's strictures on church-state entanglement were little more than rewarmed phrases and ideas from his Statute Establishing Religious Freedom (1786) and from other, similar statements. To needle his political opponents, Jefferson paraphrased a passage, that "the legitimate powers of government extend to ... acts only" and not to opinions, from the Notes on the State of Virginia, which the Federalists had shamelessly distorted in the election of 1800 in an effort to stigmatize him as an atheist. So politicized had church-state issues become by 1802 that Jefferson told Lincoln that he considered the articulation of his views on the subject, in messages like the Danbury Baptist letter, as ways to fix his supporters' "political tenets."

Airing the Republican position on church-state relations was not, however, Jefferson's principal reason for writing the Danbury Baptist letter. He was looking, he told Lincoln, for an opportunity for "saying why I do not proclaim fastings & thanksgivings, as my predecessors did" and latched onto the Danbury address as the best way to broadcast his views on the subject. Although using the Danbury address was "awkward" -- it did not mention fasts and thanksgivings -- Jefferson pressed it into service to counter what he saw as an emerging Federalist plan to exploit the thanksgiving day issue to smear him, once again, as an infidel.

Jefferson's hand was forced by the arrival in the United States in the last week of November 1801 of what the nation's newspapers called the "momentous news" of the conclusion between Britain and France of the Treaty of Amiens, which relieved the young American republic of the danger that had threatened it for years of being drawn into a devastating European war. Washington had proclaimed a national thanksgiving in 1796 to commemorate a much more ambiguous foreign policy achievement, the ratification of Jay's Treaty that attempted to adjust outstanding differences with Great Britain. Would Jefferson, the Federalists archly asked, not imitate the example of his illustrious predecessor and bid the nation to thank God for its delivery from danger by the Treaty of Amiens? The voice of New England Federalism, the Boston Columbian Centinel, cynically challenged Jefferson to act. "It is highly probable," said the Centinel on Nov. 28, 1801, "that on the receipt of the news of Peace in Europe, the President will issue a Proclamation recommending a General Thanksgiving. The measure, it is hoped, will not be denounced by the democrats as unconstitutional, as previous Proclamations have been."

The Centinel and its Federalist readers knew that Jefferson would never issue a Thanksgiving proclamation, for to him and the Republican faithful in the middle and southern states, presidential thanksgivings and fasts were anathema, an egregious example of the Federalists' political exploitation of religion. Federalist preachers had routinely used fast and thanksgiving days to revile Jefferson and his followers, going so far in 1799 as to suggest that a Philadelphia yellow fever epidemic was a divine punishment for Republican godlessness.

During the Adams administration, Republicans organized street demonstrations against presidential fast days, ridiculed them in the newspapers and boycotted them. Since Federalists knew that Jefferson would never proclaim a national thanksgiving to praise God for the Treaty of Amiens, they calculated that they could use his dereliction as evidence of his continuing contempt for Christianity, which had spilled out again, in their view, in his invitation to "Citizen" Thomas Paine to return from France to the United States.

To offer the nation's hospitality to Paine, author of The Age of Reason, the "atheist's bible" to the faithful, was, the Washington Federalist charged on Dec. 8, 1801, an "open and daring insult offered to the Christian religion." Here, for the Federalists, was the same old Jefferson, the same old atheist. Political capital, they concluded, could still be made from sounding the alarm about presidential infidelity.

During the presidential campaign of 1800, Jefferson had suffered in silence the relentless and deeply offensive Federalist charges that he was an atheist. Now he decided to strike back, using the most serviceable weapon at hand, the address of the Danbury Baptists.

Jefferson's counterattack is contained in the circled section of his draft and in the inked-out lines. He declared that he had "refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion," i.e., thanksgivings and fasts, because they were "religious exercises." This was conventional Republican doctrine that could be found in any number of party newspapers. On March 27, 1799, for example, an "old Ecclesiastic" declared in the Philadelphia Aurora that "Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer are religious acts belonging to the kingdom of Christ" over which the civil magistrate, in the American system, had no authority.

Jefferson took the gloves off when he asserted that the proclamations of thanksgivings and fasts were "practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church," i.e., by George III, King of England. By identifying the proclamation of thanksgivings and fasts as "British," Jefferson damned them, for in the Republican lexicon British was a dirty word, a synonym for "Anglomane," "Monocrat," "Tory," terms with which the Republicans had demonized the Federalists for a decade for their alleged plans to reverse the Revolution by reimposing a British-style monarchy on the United States. One of the most obnoxious features of the Federalists' American monarchy, as the Republicans depicted their putative project, was a church established by law, and Jefferson doubtless expected those who read his message to understand that, by supporting "British" fasts and thanksgivings, the Federalists were scheming, as always, to open a door to the introduction of an ecclesiastical tyranny.

In indicting the Federalists for their "Tory" taste for thanksgivings and fasts, Jefferson was playing rough. Thanksgivings and fasts had regularly been celebrated in parts of the country since the first settlements: to sully them with Anglophobic mudslinging, generated by the partisan warfare of his own time, as Jefferson did, was a low blow. But who was being more unfair: Jefferson or his Federalist inquisitors, who continued to calumniate him as an atheist?

The unedited draft of the Danbury Baptist letter makes it clear why Jefferson drafted it: He wanted his political partisans to know that he opposed proclaiming fasts and thanksgivings, not because he was irreligious, but because he refused to continue a British practice that was an offense to republicanism. To emphasize his resolve in this matter, Jefferson inserted two phrases with a clenched-teeth, defiant ring: "wall of eternal separation between church and state" and "the duties of my station, which are merely temporal." These last words -- "merely temporal" -- revealed Jefferson's preoccupation with British practice. Temporal, a strong word meaning secular, was a British appellation for the lay members of the House of Lords, the Lords Temporal, as opposed to the ecclesiastical members, the Lords Spiritual. "Eternal separation" and "merely temporal" -- here was language as plain as Jefferson could make it to assure the Republican faithful that their "religious rights shall never be infringed by any act of mine."

Jefferson knew and seemed to savor the fact that his letter, as originally drafted, would give "great offense" to the New England Federalists. Reviewing the draft on Dec. 31, Postmaster General Granger, the object of unremitting political harassment in Connecticut, cheered Jefferson on, apparently welcoming the "temporary spasms" that he predicted the letter would produce "among the Established Religionists" in his home state. When Levi Lincoln, a cooler head, saw the letter the next day, he immediately perceived that, as written, it could hurt Jefferson politically among the growing number of Republicans in New England. People there, Lincoln warned Jefferson, "have always been in the habit of observing fasts and thanksgivings in performance of proclamations from their respective Executives." To disparage this custom with an "implied censure" by representing it as a tainted, Tory ceremony could be politically disastrous, however well the slur might play south of the Hudson River.

Jefferson heeded Lincoln's advice, with the result that he deleted the entire section about thanksgivings and fasts in the Danbury draft, noting in the left margin that the "paragraph was omitted on the suggestion that it might give uneasiness to some of our republican friends in the eastern states where the proclamation of thanksgivings etc. by their Executives is an antient habit & is respected." Removed in the process of revision was the designation of the president's duties as "merely temporal"; "eternal" was dropped as a modifier of "wall." Jefferson apparently made these changes because he thought the original phrases would sound too antireligious to pious New England ears.

In gutting his draft was Jefferson playing the hypocrite, sacrificing his principles to political expediency, as his Federalist opponents never tired of charging? By no means, for the Danbury Baptist letter was never conceived by Jefferson to be a statement of fundamental principles; it was meant to be a political manifesto, nothing more.

Withholding from the public the rationale for his policy on thanksgivings and fasts did not solve Jefferson's problem, for his refusal to proclaim them would not escape the attention of the Federalists and would create a continuing vulnerability to accusations of irreligion. Jefferson found a solution to this problem even as he wrestled with the wording of the Danbury Baptist letter, a solution in the person of the famous Baptist preacher John Leland, who appeared at the White House on Jan. 1, 1802, to give the president a mammoth, 1,235-pound cheese, produced by Leland's parishioners in Cheshire, Mass.

One of the nation's best known advocates of religious liberty, Leland had accepted an invitation to preach in the House of Representatives on Sunday, Jan. 3, and Jefferson evidently concluded that, if Leland found nothing objectionable about officiating at worship on public property, he could not be criticized for attending a service at which his friend was preaching. Consequently, "contrary to all former practice," Jefferson appeared at church services in the House on Sunday, Jan. 3, two days after recommending in his reply to the Danbury Baptists "a wall of separation between church and state"; during the remainder of his two administrations he attended these services "constantly."

Jefferson's participation in House church services and his granting of permission to various denominations to worship in executive office buildings, where four-hour communion services were held, cannot be discussed here; these activities are fully illustrated in the forthcoming exhibition. What can be said is that going to church solved Jefferson's public relations problems, for he correctly anticipated that his participation in public worship would be reported in newspapers throughout the country. A Philadelphia newspaper, for example, informed its readers on Jan. 23, 1802, that "Mr. Jefferson has been seen at church, and has assisted in singing the hundredth psalm." In presenting Jefferson to the nation as a churchgoer, this publicity offset whatever negative impressions might be created by his refusal to proclaim thanksgiving and fasts and prevented the erosion of his political base in God-fearing areas like New England.

Jefferson's public support for religion appears, however, to have been more than a cynical political gesture. Scholars have recently argued that in the 1790s Jefferson developed a more favorable view of Christianity that led him to endorse the position of his fellow Founders that religion was necessary for the welfare of a republican government, that it was, as Washington proclaimed in his Farewell Address, indispensable for the happiness and prosperity of the people. Jefferson had, in fact, said as much in his First Inaugural Address. His attendance at church services in the House was, then, his way of offering symbolic support for religious faith and for its beneficent role in republican government.

It seems likely that in modifying the draft of the Danbury Baptist letter by eliminating words like "eternal" and "merely temporal," which sounded so uncompromisingly secular, Jefferson was motivated not merely by political considerations but by a realization that these words, written in haste to make a political statement, did not accurately reflect the conviction he had reached by the beginning of 1802 on the role of government in religion. Jefferson would never compromise his views that there were things government could not do in the religious sphere -- legally establish one creed as official truth and support it with its full financial and coercive powers. But by 1802, he seems to have come around to something close to the views of New England Baptist leaders such as Isaac Backus and Caleb Blood, who believed that, provided the state kept within its well-appointed limits, it could provide "friendly aids" to the churches, including putting at their disposal public property that even a stickler like John Leland was comfortable using.

Analyzed with the help of the latest technology, the Danbury Baptist letter has yielded significant new information. Using it to fix the intent of constitutional documents is limited, however, by well established rules of statutory construction: the meaning of a document cannot be determined by what a drafter deleted or by what he did concurrently with the drafting of a document. But it will be of considerable interest in assessing the credibility of the Danbury Baptist letter as a tool of constitutional interpretation to know, as we now do, that it was written as a partisan counterpunch, aimed by Jefferson below the belt at enemies who were tormenting him more than a decade after the First Amendment was composed.

Back to June 1998 - Vol 57, No. 6

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'A Wall of Separation' (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Following is an article by the curator of a major exhibition at the Library that opens this month and runs through Aug. 22. A key document on view in "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic" (see LC Information Bulletin, May 1998), is the letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, which contains the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state."

# data[].attributes.headline
Muscogee Creek Nation: The Treaty of Indian Springs

# data[].attributes.subject
Muscogee Creek Nation: The Treaty of Indian Springs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Muscogee Creek Nation and Removal.pptx

# data[].attributes.body
Be sure to check out their virtual walking tours!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Forgotten History of the Smallpox Vaccine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
March Newsletter Resources List for Padlet.pdf