In the spring and summer of 1787, a contingent of lawyers, businessmen, and other highly regarded state representatives met at the Pennsylvania State House to fine-tune the parameters of the shaky federal government that was established by the Articles of Confederation, the nation’s first stab at a framework for government. Known as the Constitutional Convention, this meeting was perhaps the most momentous occasion in the short history of the United States following the end of the Revolutionary War.
Even in the absence of founding fathers Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, who were serving ambassadorships in Europe, the gathering boasted a formidable collection of the nation’s leaders, including James Madison of Virginia, Roger Sherman of Connecticut, and the elderly but still razor-sharp Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania.
As described in The Summer of 1787: The Men Who Invented the Constitution, many of the 55 delegates carried with them a raft of ideas and some combination of deft oratory skills and a forceful personality to push others to action. As such, there was no shortage of passionate speeches and threats issued over clashing values, although it proved to be more of a challenge to find calmer voices willing to nudge the rest toward compromise, and an additional challenge to pull the oft-debated and revised proposals into a document with language that would stand the test of time.
Four days after the Constitutional Convention officially commenced on May 25, 1787, Virginia Governor Edmund Randolph presented an outline of 15 draft resolutions under what became known as the “Virginia Plan.” Largely authored by Madison, the plan proposed a three-branch federal government and two-house legislature, a system that heavily concentrated power in the latter and gave the national government the ability to veto state laws.
The ambitious Virginia Plan touched off a series of debates within the convention, starting with how it represented a clean break from — as opposed to a means for improving — the system laid out by the Articles of Confederation. Even more contentious were the debates over how the states would be represented in Congress, and who had the power to choose the chief executive. Although an alliance of the smaller U.S. states later proposed a system that hewed closer to the Articles of Confederation, known as the “New Jersey Plan,” the delegates ultimately rejected this version when the two plans were put to a vote in mid-July.
Credit: Sepia Times/ Universal Images Group via Getty Images
The First Draft
Heading into an 11-day recess in late July, the delegates assigned the job of transcribing the first draft of the Constitution to a group known as the Committee of Detail, consisting of Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts, Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, James Wilson of Pennsylvania, Edmund Randolph of Virginia, and Chairman John Rutledge of South Carolina. The committee largely worked off the Virginia Plan, while also considering a separate draft previously completed by Charles Pinckney of South Carolina, as well as portions of the Articles of Confederation and various state constitutions.
With Randolph providing an initial outline before Wilson delivered a polished revision, the five-person committee tackled the difficult task of balancing state and federal powers, even as they took the bold step of introducing provisions that hadn't been formally discussed at the convention. Randolph's outline, for example, enumerated 18 specific powers accorded to Congress, while Wilson's version ensured that state constitutions could not supersede federal law.
While the other delegates accepted most of the 23 articles delivered by the Committee of Detail, a few ideas spurred additional rounds of heated rhetoric. Among them was a provision that attempted to encode indefinite protection of the slave trade; while this never came to fruition, it exposed the divide between the convention’s plantation owners and abolitionists, and rekindled the argument over how the Southern population of enslaved people affected representation in Congress.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Credit: Sepia Times/ Universal Images Group via Getty Images
The Man Who Wrote Most of the Final Language
After each of the 23 articles had finally been reviewed, a new five-person Committee of Style was tasked with incorporating the various resolutions that came out of the conventions into something close to a final product.
Along with Chairman William Samuel Johnson of Connecticut and Rufus King of Massachusetts, the committee was marked by the notable presences of Madison, whose extensive work on creating and promoting this document earned him the moniker "Father of the Constitution," and New York's Alexander Hamilton, who missed much of the convention but was nonetheless admired for his formidable intellect.
Yet it was Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania who wound up with the job of putting pen to paper, a weighty responsibility awarded on the basis of his writing talents, his ability to work quickly, and a willingness to accept the decisions of his colleagues even if they differed from his own impassioned views.
Proving up to the task on all fronts, Morris streamlined the Committee of Detail's 23 articles into a concise list of seven over the course of about four days. He also wrote the celebrated preamble to the Constitution ("We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union..."), while largely avoiding the temptation of adding new material at this late stage of the game, save for one clause that prevented states from interfering with private contracts.
Credit: Fine Art/ Corbis Historical via Getty Images
The First Signatures
Presented to the rest of the delegates on September 12, 1787, Morris' draft underwent further discussion but minimal changes over the next few days. The final fix came courtesy of the Constitutional Convention’s normally quiet president, George Washington, who sought one final tweak to the never-ending issue of congressional representation. Once the final draft was done, the official job of physically writing out the Constitution was undertaken by Jacob Shallus, assistant clerk of the Pennsylvania Assembly, who carefully engrossed nearly 4,500 words across four sheets of parchment.
On September 17, 38 delegates scribbled their signatures on the freshly printed Constitution (with George Read signing for fellow Delawarian John Dickinson, who could not attend the signing ceremony due to illness). Although the launch of the new-and-improved federal government was not yet complete — nine states still needed to ratify the Constitution, with the Madison-authored Bill of Rights soon to follow — the tangible document stood as proof of the cooler heads that somehow shepherded four months of wildly divergent and oft-incongruent ideas into the law of the land.
Advertisement
Advertisement
10 Facts About the Last 10 Constitutional Amendments
America wouldn’t be what it is without the U.S. Constitution, which was created to lay the groundwork for how the nation would function. But the Constitution isn’t just a relic — it’s a living document that’s always evolving, especially during the 20th century.
The 10 most recent amendments, 18 through 27, were ratified between the years of 1919 and 1992. Included among these is the groundbreaking 19th Amendment, which codified women’s suffrage and marked a major milestone in the fight for gender equality. These newer amendments also deal with issues such as presidential succession, the date of Inauguration Day, and the sale of alcohol. Here are some more fascinating details about the 10 latest amendments to the Constitution.
The 18th Amendment Led to a Misuse of Doctor’s Notes
Ratified in 1919, the 18th Amendment prohibited the “manufacture, sale, and transportation of intoxicating liquors” and ushered in the U.S. Prohibition era. This led people to conceive of clever workarounds for acquiring booze. One such method was asking doctors to write prescriptions stating that alcohol consumption was medically necessary for the patient in question, a trick Winston Churchill famously used during visits to the United States.
A State Legislator Was Convinced To Ratify the 19th Amendment by His Mother
The 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote, but its ratification was far from simple; it required support from three-fourths of the states, which at the time meant 36 of 48. After 35 states had approved the amendment and several others had rejected it, the ultimate deciding factor came down to the Tennessee House of Representatives, which was set to vote in August 1920.
After two consecutive deadlocked votes in the Tennessee Legislature (48 for, 48 against), 24-year-old Representative Harry T. Burn helped reshape the course of history. Burn changed his vote to the affirmative after receiving a convincing note from his mother in support of women’s suffrage, finally confirming the amendment’s passage.
Advertisement
Advertisement
The 20th Amendment Changed Inauguration Day
The gap between Election Day and Inauguration Day was longer prior to the 20th amendment than it is today, which created a “lame duck” period for many outgoing Presidents.
The 20th Amendment moved up the start of a presidential term from March 4 to January 20 to lessen that gap and expedite the start of the President-elect’s term. The amendment was ratified on January 23, 1933, and went into effect on February 6, a mere 17 days later.
The 21st Amendment Is the Only Amendment To Repeal Another
The 21st Amendment — ratified on December 5, 1933 — repealed the Prohibition laws established by the 18th Amendment back in 1919, thus legalizing alcohol once again. This made the 21st Amendment the first — and so far only — U.S. constitutional amendment to repeal another.
While Prohibition had enjoyed a certain degree of popularity at first, public opinion shifted throughout the 1920s and early 1930s. This was due in large part to an increase in illegal alcohol production, which padded the pockets of crime syndicates such as the mob. Congress acted accordingly to stymie further growth in this unseemly direction.
The 22nd Amendment was added to the Constitution in 1947, during President Harry S. Truman’s time in office. This amendment established presidential term limits and was a direct response to FDR’s extensive time in office (four consecutive terms). President Truman vehemently opposed the very idea of the amendment, describing it as “bad,” “stupid,” and “one of the worst that has been put into the Constitution, except for the Prohibition amendment.”
D.C. Residents Couldn’t Vote for President Before the 23rd Amendment
Prior to the 23rd Amendment’s 1961 ratification, residents of Washington, D.C., were forbidden from voting in national presidential elections. Thanks to this amendment, they were finally able to exercise that right for the first time in 1964 — though on the flip side, the amendment prohibits D.C. from having any congressional representation.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Mississippi Was the Only State To Formally Reject the 24h Amendment
The 24rth Amendment outlawed poll taxes with regards to elections and was easily passed amid the Civil Rights Movement of the mid-1960s. These poll taxes had formerly targeted poor Americans — a majority of whom were Black — by forcing prospective voters to pay in order to exercise their constitutional right to vote. While there had been concerns of Southern states roundly rejecting the amendment and preventing its passage, in the end, Mississippi was the only state to say “nay.”
The 25th Amendment Eliminated Vice Presidential Vacancies
Prior to the ratification of the 25th Amendment in 1967, the office of the Vice President could be left vacant if the previous VP died or ascended to the presidency, which, by that point, had happened 16 times since the office was established. This amendment changed that, ruling that the President must appoint a Vice President to fill the vacancy rather than leave it empty until the end of a term.
Advertisement
Advertisement
The 26th Amendment Initially Applied Only to Federal Elections
The 26th Amendment — which lowered the national voting age from 21 to 18 — underwent a transformation shortly after its passage. One year prior to the amendment’s 1971 ratification, the Supreme Court case Oregon v. Mitchell ruled that Congress could lower the voting age only for national presidential elections, not for state and local elections. However, in 1975, Dunn v. Blumstein extended the amendment to cover all state and local elections as well.
The 27th Amendment Was Originally Proposed in 1789
While the 27th Amendment was ultimately ratified in 1992, it was first proposed a whopping 202 years and seven months prior by James Madison in 1789. This long-delayed amendment requires all congressional pay raises to take effect during the following congressional term in lieu of abrupt salary increases in the middle of a term.
Essentially, members of Congress now have to run again and win in order to receive the higher salary they voted upon. At the time of this amendment’s initial proposal, detractors claimed that the law was unnecessary and that Congress could be trusted to grant themselves fair salaries.
After seven states initially ratified the amendment, it was 80 years before an additional state (Ohio) added its seal of approval in 1873, on the heels of an unpopular congressional pay raise. In the end, the amendment passed after public dissatisfaction with a series of congressional pay increases.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Meet Victoria Woodhull, the First Woman to Run for President
Born in 1838 in Homer, Ohio, Victoria Claflin Woodhull was an outspoken and controversial figure whose legacy as a trailblazer for women’s rights, gender equality, and sexual freedom endures to this day. Not only was she a suffragist and women’s rights advocate, but she also was the first woman to run for President of the United States — at a time when women still didn’t have the right to vote. What’s more, she and her sister, Tennessee (Tennie) Claflin, became the first female stockbrokers on Wall Street and founded a newspaper together.
Despite a tumultuous childhood and a first marriage at age 15 (to Canning Woodhull, a 28-year-old doctor with whom she had two children), Woodhull went on to carve her path in history by embracing unconventional beliefs, including spiritualism and free love, while advocating for the rights of women, laborers, and the poor. Her journey from her rural Ohio home to Wall Street and beyond is as unexpected as it is interesting. Here are five facts about America’s first female presidential candidate.
After divorcing Canning Woodhull, who was an alcoholic and a neglectful husband, Victoria Woodhull kept her married name and became a supporter of the free love movement. She endorsed the idea that decisions about romance and sexuality should be left to the individual, and that women should be able to choose when, or if, to marry. The movement also supported destigmatizing divorce in order to make it easier for women to leave abusive marriages, a goal that aligned with Woodhull’s desire to escape her own difficult first marriage. In 1871, Woodhull gave a speech at New York City’s Steinway Hall called “The Truth Shall Set You Free.” In it, she said, “I have an inalienable, constitutional, and natural right to love whom I may, to love as long or as short a period as I can; to change that love every day if I please, and with that right neither you nor any law you can frame have any right to interfere.”
Though she led a highly accomplished life, Woodhull received very little formal education as a child. Her father was a con man and the family made a living as traveling performers, selling homemade remedies and medicines and telling fortunes. During her marriage, Woodhull needed to earn money to supplement the household income and, in addition to more traditional jobs, she took work as a clairvoyant healer, claiming to be able to cure illness through a variety of natural and psychic remedies. It’s hard to know for sure how much of the business was an act and how much she really believed in her abilities; ever since childhood, Woodhull had claimed to be able to connect with dead spirits.
After her divorce, Woodhull continued to earn money telling fortunes and offering “magnetic healing,” often working and traveling with her sister Tennie. It was through her work as a healer during the Civil War that Woodhull met her second husband, James Harvey Blood, a Union Army veteran. While her marriage to Blood lasted only a few short years — “The grandest woman in the world went back on me,” Blood said after their divorce — another connection she made through her work as a clairvoyant, with railroad tycoon Cornelius Vanderbilt, yielded a literal treasure.
She Was the First Woman Stockbroker on Wall Street
Thanks to valuable stock tips from Vanderbilt, Woodhull and her sister were able to amass more than $700,000 (around $16 million today), which they used to start their brokerage firm, Woodhull, Claflin, and Company, in 1870. As the first financial firm on Wall Street owned and operated by women, the company was a shocking novelty, and the press took to calling the sisters the “Bewitching Brokers” and “Queens of Finance.” The sisters went on to found a newspaper,Woodhull and Claflin’s Weekly, which gave Woodhull another platform to support her causes of free love, political reform, and women’s rights. The paper also published the first English translation of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto.
Credit: PhotoQuest/ Archive Photos via Getty Images
Her Presidential Candidacy Boosted the Cause of Women’s Rights
Woodhull’s run for President in 1872, 50 years before women gained the right to vote, may have seemed like a publicity stunt to many. Lacking the financing to mount a proper campaign, she forged ahead anyway, running on the Equal Rights Party ticket. She campaigned on a platform of women’s suffrage, an eight-hour workday, welfare for the poor, the nationalization of railroads, the regulation of monopolies, and other reforms.
It was, in the end, a symbolic campaign more than anything. Woodhull’s chosen running mate, civil rights activist Frederick Douglass, never even acknowledged the nomination. Though Woodhull’s loss was all but a certainty, the fact that she hadn’t reached the minimum age of 35 required to run for President would have rendered her ineligible even if she had achieved a majority of the votes. Ultimately, the Woodhull-Douglass ticket received a negligible number of votes, and the race resulted in the reelection of incumbent President Ulysses S. Grant.
Even though she was technically ineligible to be elected President, Woodhull stands as the first woman to declare her interest in running for the highest office in the United States. But by the time the 1872 election ended, her radical beliefs and brash actions had started to impact her political reputation. Despite their initial support of Woodhull, women’s suffrage leaders, including Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, began to distance themselves from her, signaling the end of Woodhull’s political aspirations. Twice-divorced and facing bankruptcy, Woodhull expatriated to England with her sister in 1877. The move may have been encouraged by the heirs of Cornelius Vanderbilt, who died the previous year. Woodhull built a new life for herself in England, where she married her third husband, banker John Biddulph Martin, and was generally welcomed into aristocratic society.
Woodhull spent the remainder of her life continuing to advocate for suffrage and women’s rights, but she distanced herself from spiritualism and the free love movement. From 1892 to 1901, she and her daughter, Zula, published the journalHumanitarian, which featured a progressive agenda that offered commentary on literature, culture, science, spirituality, and politics. Woodhull also promoted the popular Victorian-era idea of eugenics, selective reproduction designed to eliminate disabilities, diseases, and other traits in the human species. Her interest in what was then called “stirpiculture” likely came from the fact that her son, Byron, had profound developmental disabilities that she attributed to her husband’s alcoholism and her own age and inexperience. Today, however, the practice of eugenics is associated with Nazi Germany and racist beliefs, further complicating the legacy of this controversial activist.
Credit: Library of Congress/ Corbis Historical via Getty Images
AuthorMark DeJoy
February 22, 2024
Love it?36
Despite being only one degree away from the presidency, the Vice President of the United States has long been viewed as an inauspicious position. John Adams called it “the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived.” And when Theodore Roosevelt had a noisy chandelier removed from the White House, he ordered, “Take it to the office of the Vice President. He doesn’t have anything to do. It will keep him awake.”
But the Vice President is one step of succession away from the Oval Office, and that simple fact lends weight to the selection. That weight can, in turn, make for some surprising results. These are some of the more unexpected U.S. Vice Presidents to take office.
In 1899, in the months leading up to William McKinley’s 1900 reelection campaign, Vice President Garret Hobart began suffering from symptoms of a severe heart condition, including fainting spells. Though Republican Senator Mark Hanna tried to assure the public that “nothing but death or an earthquake can stop the re-nomination of Vice President Hobart,” the former seemed to be exactly the concern. Unfortunately, Hobart’s health worsened, and he died on November 21, 1899. And McKinley found himself unexpectedly looking for a running mate for reelection.
At the time, Theodore Roosevelt was serving his first year as governor of New York, and immediately emphasized a slate of reforms that put him at odds with the establishment in his own party. Republican Party bosses realized that they could effectively remove “that damned cowboy” (as Hanna referred to Roosevelt) from New York politics by nominating him as McKinley’s running mate. Roosevelt realized the political exile the vice presidency would entail, and argued against his nomination. Hanna, for his part, was vehemently opposed to the idea of Roosevelt as Vice President, at one point pleading, “Don’t any of you realize that there’s only one life between that madman and the presidency?”
The strangely aligned Roosevelt and Hanna were both unable to stem the tide, and the tally at the 1900 Republican National Convention concluded with 929 of a possible 930 votes in favor of Roosevelt as Vice President. The count was not unanimous only because there was one delegate who abstained from voting: Theodore Roosevelt himself. There was no choice but to accept the nomination, and party boss Thomas Platt quipped that he would attend McKinley’s second inauguration just “to see Theodore take the veil.” But Hanna’s warning would prove prescient just one year later, when McKinley was shot and killed, and Roosevelt assumed the presidency.
Harry Truman’s surprising presidential victory in 1948 is much more famous than his vice presidential candidacy in 1944, but Truman being chosen to replace incumbent Henry Wallace as President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s running mate was unexpected in its own right. It wasn’t that FDR changing his Vice President was unprecedented: Wallace himself had replaced two-term VP John Nance Garner for the 1940 election. But Wallace was well established within Roosevelt’s cabinet, having served as secretary of agriculture since 1933, and Roosevelt had even suggested that he wouldn’t run for a third term without Wallace on the ticket.
By 1944, though, FDR was in poor health, and Democratic Party leaders who had disagreed with his choice of Wallace as Vice President in 1940 argued more intently for a different running mate. Perhaps concerned himself about how Wallace’s friendship with Russian mystic Nicholas Roerich left the previous campaign vulnerable to political attack in the form of the infamous “guru letters,” Roosevelt refrained from naming a preferred running mate for 1944. Still, when the first ballot was cast at the Democratic National Convention, Wallace led the pack — though he didn’t secure the number of delegates needed to win the nomination. By the second ballot, Southern states switched their delegates to Truman, allowing him to snare a come-from-behind victory. Years later, Wallace claimed in an article for TIME magazine that the convention leaders had maneuvered the delegates’ switch in favor of their preferred candidate.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Credit: Buyenlarge/ Archive Photos via Getty Images
Andrew Johnson as Abraham Lincoln’s VP
Andrew Johnson might be the most surprising “balance-the-ticket” candidate in history, since he wasn’t even in the same party as the President he was running with. But in the midst of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln wanted a running mate to represent unity, so he advocated for the Southern Democrat to join the ticket. Despite Lincoln’s popularity, the proposal was met with a level of opposition that is probably not very surprising. When told of Lincoln’s intention for the Republican Party to nominate Johnson, Pennsylvania Congressman Thaddeus Stevens protested, “Can't you get a candidate for Vice President without going down into a damned rebel province for one?”
An opposition Republican National Convention was even called in Cleveland to promote California Senator John Frémont for President, with Union General John Cochrane as his running mate. But the unity Lincoln was seeking was evident in the support Johnson had from moderate Republicans. The Republican Party was temporarily renamed the National Union Party, and when the convention took place, Johnson won the vice presidential nomination.
By the presidential election of 1812, Elbridge Gerry was nearly 20 years past his intended (and short) retirement from a storied career in government. He had signed the Declaration of Independence, served two stints in the Continental Congress, acted as a delegate in the Constitutional Convention, and was elected governor of Massachusetts. He was also a firebrand who refused to sign the Constitution, and his frequent overall dissent earned him accusations of partisanship; in a 1787 letter to Thomas Jefferson, an unidentified confidant called Gerry a “Grumbletonian” prone to “objecting to [anything] he did not propose.” His perceived failure to rebuke an attempted bribery scheme by French diplomats in 1796 (known as the XYZ Affair) nearly sunk his post-retirement reentry into politics from the outset. And the redistricting bill he signed early in 1812 while governor was derided to the point that the resulting district was referred to as a “Gerry-mander.”
Gerry was not originally looking to join President James Madison’s 1812 reelection bid; he was attempting to win another term as governor of Massachusetts. Besides, Vice President George Clinton was firmly entrenched in the position, having served in the office since 1805 under both Madison and Thomas Jefferson. But then something unprecedented happened: On April 20, 1812, Clinton died at age 72, marking the first time a sitting Vice President had passed away. Two months later, Gerry’s gubernatorial reelection campaign failed, and he appealed to Madison for a federal position due to the poor state of his finances. Since Madison’s first choice to replace Clinton, James Langdon, declined, Madison ended up asking Gerry to join his election ticket. This aligned with the Democratic-Republican’s desire for a Northerner to complement Madison’s Virginia origins. The Madison-Gerry ticket was a success at the polls, and Gerry served as Vice President for two years before also dying in office at age 70.
When William Rufus King was chosen as Franklin Pierce’s running mate for the 1852 election, he became the first U.S. senator to be nominated for Vice President. Pierce hailed from New Hampshire, and the Alabama senator was chosen for the classic “balance the ticket” strategy. At the time, nearly a decade before the Civil War, balancing the ticket meant nominating a VP who was an ardent supporter of slavery — precisely the attitude needed to appeal to the South.
During the election, however, King was ill with tuberculosis, and was unable to campaign. He spent much of the race seeking a cure in Cuba, and was still there when he and Pierce were elected. As he was not able to travel back to Washington, D.C., in time for their inauguration, Congress needed to pass special legislation in order for King to be sworn in abroad, making him the only Vice President to have ever been sworn into office outside the U.S.
On the surface, Thomas Marshall’s nomination as Woodrow Wilson’s Vice President seems fairly straightforward. As the governor of Indiana, he was the popular leader of what had been a critical swing state — since 1880, no presidential candidate had won the election without carrying Indiana. But there were a few underlying problems: For one, Wilson did not want Marshall on the ticket, referring to him as “a very small caliber man.” And Marshall himself had a similar attitude toward the vice presidency as Theodore Roosevelt before him. He wryly joked, “Once there were two brothers. One ran away to sea; the other was elected Vice President of the United States. And nothing was heard of either of them again.”
By the time of the 1912 Democratic National Convention, the party was still split on who would serve as Wilson’s running mate. Democratic powerhouse William Jennings Bryan was proposed as a candidate by a delegate from the District of Columbia, but declined consideration in a response speech, and instead advocated for both North Dakota Governor John Burke and Oregon Senator George Chamberlain. Meanwhile, rumors circulated that Wilson himself was delaying the vote in order to persuade Missouri Congressman James Beauchamp “Champ” Clark to be his running mate. The first vote was held at 1 a.m., and resulted in no decision. After nearly an hour of angling and debate, Marshall was finally elected the party’s vice presidential nominee — and even then, he considered rejecting the office due to its inadequate pay.
As tensions rose between the Soviet Union and the West after World War II, Soviet Prime Minister Nikita Khrushchev sought to end the wave of emigration out of the USSR-controlled East Germany. The number of fleeing East Germans was staggering: Between 1949 and 1961, roughly 2.5 million people fled the state, a loss that threatened to upend the East German economy. Finally, after upwards of 65,000 citizens migrated to West Berlin between June and August 1961, East German leaders pushed for Moscow to close the border, and construction of the Berlin Wall began the night of August 12, 1961.
The boundary started off as a barricaded barbed wire between East and West Berlin, and the effects were swift and merciless. Within two weeks, the border to the west was completely sealed — crossing was forbidden, and the wall was guarded by officers permitted to shoot attempted escapees on sight. For the next two decades, the now-infamous barrier served as a symbol of the political and ideological divide of the Cold War. Here are five interesting facts about this notorious structure.
The Name “Checkpoint Charlie” Came From the NATO Phonetic Alphabet
Berlin was divided into four sectors following the Second World War. The Soviet Union controlled the eastern part of the city, while France, the United States, and Britain controlled three sectors in the west. There were three major checkpoints along the Berlin Wall, which monitored the border crossings of foreigners, diplomats, and military officials: Checkpoint Alpha, Checkpoint Bravo, and the most famous, Checkpoint Charlie. The names of all three checkpoints originated with the NATO phonetic alphabet, representing the letters “A,” “B,” and “C.” Checkpoint Charlie was located in the heart of Berlin, and marked the divide between the Soviet and American zones. It became a symbol of the Cold War divisions, and is now a historical site and memorial in Berlin.
Photo credit: Keystone/ Hulton Archive via Getty Images
The “Death Strip” Was the Most Dangerous Part of the Wall
Though it’s known as the Berlin Wall, the boundary was actually two structures. The original 96-mile wire barrier proved too easy to scale, so in 1962, construction began on another fence that ran parallel to the original about 100 yards behind it. Both were later reinforced with concrete topped with barbed wire. The corridor between them became known as the “death strip.” The area was covered in raked gravel so footprints could be easily seen, helping guards track down and shoot those fleeing to the west — that is, if escapees managed to evade the mines and booby traps set up along the way. Still, many risked their lives to cross, and succeeded: An estimated total of around 5,000 East Berliners managed to make it to the other side of the wall.
To deter defections, the Berlin Wall was reinforced multiple times over the years. The final phase began in 1975, when the previous wall was replaced with a sophisticated cement barrier with increased surveillance. Known as “Grenzmauer 75” (“Border Wall 75”), the structure was made up of 45,000 separate sections of reinforced concrete, measuring around 12 feet high and 5 feet wide. Completed in 1976, the final version of the Berlin Wall (and the one commonly seen in images from its fall) was outfitted with armored vehicles, canine units, 300 watchtowers, and a rounded concrete pipe at the top to deter climbing. Yet the escapes continued.
Photo credit: PhotoQuest/ Archive Photos via Getty Images
Escapes Became Increasingly Creative
The sudden border closing of 1961 trapped thousands of people in East Germany, many of whom were desperate to flee. Buildings located on the border with windows facing west provided opportunities to clear the border for those willing to jump, but the Soviets soon bricked up all openings that could aid in escape. East Germans adapted: Some made it to West Berlin by tunneling under the wall, while others swam across the Teltow Canal to the south of the city, walked a tightrope, and used zip lines. Occasionally, East German border guards assisted by choosing not to accurately fire, or by defecting themselves and assisting future escapees.
An Administrative Error Led to the Fall of the Berlin Wall
On November 4, 1989, some 500,000 East Berliners gathered to protest the Soviet state’s strict border laws. The demonstration came roughly two months after Hungary lifted restrictions on travel to Austria, marking one of the first times the Iron Curtain was lifted. In an attempt to calm the crowds, East German leaders announced on November 9 that they too would loosen borders to make travel easier. However, East German spokesperson Günter Schabowski erred when asked when the borders would open. With no time to read through the rules before speaking, he answered, “As far as I know, effective immediately, without delay.” East and West Berliners were finally united as stunned border guards stood aside. That night, the Berlin Wall finally came down.
Advertisement
Advertisement
10 Facts About the First 10 Constitutional Amendments
The U.S. Constitution is among the most important and esteemed texts in American history. Since its ratification on June 21, 1788, this living document has served as the groundwork for the country’s government on both the federal and state levels. It’s also constantly evolving: The Constitution has been amended 27 times over the years, beginning with the certification of the first 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, in 1791. Here’s a closer look at each of those first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
The First Amendment Was Introduced by James Madison
Long before he assumed the role of commander in chief, America’s fourth President, James Madison, introduced the Bill of Rights to Congress, starting with the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech, religion, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the government. Madison drafted the Bill of Rights in 1789. A representative of Virginia, he based the First Amendment’s text on the Virginia Declaration of Rights, as well as the English Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta.
The Second Amendment Was Agreed Upon as a Compromise
The right to bear arms as defined by the Second Amendment has been a controversial topic for ages, even dating back to when it was first agreed upon. Like much of the Bill of Rights, the final text was a compromise between pro-government Federalists and rival Anti-Federalists, who argued over whether an adequately armed population could deter potential government oppression. Anti-Federalists fought for a Second Amendment that preserved the right of the people to fight back against government oppression, while Federalists maintained that those fears were overblown.
The Third Amendment Has Never Been Argued in Front of the Supreme Court
While many constitutional amendments have been the subject of heated judicial debate, the Third Amendment has never been the focus of a U.S. Supreme Court case. The amendment forbids the government from forcing citizens to house soldiers in their private homes without their consent during peacetime. It is one of the more universally agreed-upon elements of the Constitution.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Photo credit: Nadinlargo/ iStock via Getty Images Plus
An Exemption to the Fourth Amendment Was Created for Cars
The Fourth Amendment was ratified in 1791, establishing rules against warrantless searches by law enforcement. Given that the amendment was ratified long before cars existed, it wasn’t until the 1925 case Carroll v. United States that vehicle searches were first debated on a judicial level. The case ultimately established an exemption to the Fourth Amendment that permits warrantless vehicle searches, provided there is probable cause to suspect there is contraband inside.
Advertisement
Advertisement
“Due Process” Was Added to the Fifth Amendment at New York’s Request
The “due process” clause — which guarantees fair treatment under the law — is an integral component of the Fifth Amendment, which protects those accused of criminal activity against self-incrimination and prohibits “double jeopardy” (being prosecuted twice for the same offense twice), among other protections. In essence, the concept of due process ensures that every American will be treated fairly in court, but it may never have existed if not for a request made by delegates from the state of New York, which had a similar concept included in its own Bill of Rights Statute. The request led James Madison to draft due process into the Fifth Amendment.
The Sixth Amendment Didn’t Include State Court Cases for 172 Years
The Sixth Amendment protects the rights of those facing criminal charges, such as the right to a fair and speedy trial by an impartial jury, as well as legal representation. It has provided the right to a free defense counsel on a federal level since its ratification in 1791, but it wasn’t until 1963 that the amendment was expanded to include felony cases facing state prosecution. The expansion was a result of the landmark decision in the case Gideon v. Wainwright, in which the court ruled that states must provide attorneys to any criminal defendant unable to afford their own counsel.
The Seventh Amendment Still Applies to Cases That Exceed a Value of Just $20
The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a trial by jury in federal civil cases, but only regarding issues where the value exceeds $20 — a stipulation that’s still in place today. The amendment was ratified in 1791, so in modern terms, that $20 would be roughly equal to around $650. However, the text of the amendment still reads “twenty dollars.”
The Eighth Amendment Was Taken Nearly Verbatim From the English Bill of Rights
The Eighth Amendment — which reads, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” — was taken nearly verbatim from the English Bill of Rights of 1689. While many other amendments from the Bill of Rights were influenced by the British Constitution, the Eighth Amendment is notable for its highly similar wording.
Advertisement
Advertisement
The Ninth Amendment Doesn’t List Any Specific Rights
While the first eight amendments clearly define the rights they’re meant to protect, the Ninth Amendment is significantly more abstract in nature. It was put in place to reaffirm that rights shouldn’t be denied solely because they aren’t explicitly stated in the Constitution. The entirety of the amendment reads, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The 10th Amendment Has Never Been Invoked to Protect Individual Citizens
The 10th Amendment essentially establishes the concept of states rights, and underscores the limits of the federal government as restricted to the powers enumerated in the Constitution. The text reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Though the 10th Amendment has been invoked many times with regard to protecting state’s rights, it’s never been invoked by an individual citizen in a case against the federal government.
Steve Liss/ The Chronicle Collection via Getty Images
AuthorMark DeJoy
November 9, 2023
Love it?46
The first line of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution contains the oft-referenced statement of purpose, “to form a more perfect union.” Presidential elections have served as a significant (if not the most significant) part of the process behind that intention, as a quadrennial evaluation of the not-yet-perfect union’s direction. As with any growth process though, there’s bound to be some, well, awkward phases — and the United States certainly has had them. Entire political parties have come and gone, constitutional amendments have been necessitated, and there’s been all manner of outright oddity throughout the history of U.S. presidential elections. Here are some of the most bizarre moments.
If anything proves that partisan politics and electoral machinations are nearly as old as the United States itself, it’s the election of 1800, when Federalist Party incumbent President John Adams sought reelection against Democrat-Republican Vice President Thomas Jefferson. The already-bizarre premise of opposing parties holding the presidency and vice presidency was made possible at the time by a law stipulating that the presidential candidate who earned the second-most number of electoral votes became Vice President. In the election of 1796, Jefferson lost the presidency to Adams by only three votes, and the 1800 election was a rematch between the political rivals.
That time, with another narrow margin likely, both parties turned toward influencing electors, whose votes decided the winning candidate in states where there was not yet a popular vote. Jefferson wrote of his intent to sway electors in New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey in a letter to James Madison. Federalist Senator Charles Carroll accused Jefferson and his supporters of also attempting to use “arts and lies” to manipulate votes in Federalist-leaning Maryland. From there, the accusations, well, escalated. Jefferson-supporting pamphleteer James Callendar claimed that John Adams was a hermaphrodite. Federalist newspapers accused Jefferson of maintaining a harem at Monticello.
When the votes were finally cast, the election ended in a tie between Jefferson and… his intended running mate, Aaron Burr. How? Each elector had two votes to cast, but there was no distinction at the time between a vote for President versus a vote for Vice President. Casting one vote for Jefferson and one vote for Burr was in effect a vote for each as President. The Constitution called for resolving this tie between the Democrat-Republican candidates with a vote in the House of Representatives, which was controlled by, you guessed it, the Federalist Party.
The task at hand was to vote on who, between Jefferson and Burr, would be President, but the Federalists saw an opportunity to seize power, either by delaying the proceedings past the end of Adams’ term, or attempting to invalidate enough votes to give Adams the majority. Others advocated for supporting Burr. Between February 11 and February 16, 35 rounds of voting took place, each ending in deadlock. Finally, after much lobbying by Alexander Hamilton against Burr, the 36th ballot resulted in Jefferson being appointed President. In the wake of the turbulent election, the 12th Amendment was ratified in order to prevent a repeat ordeal in 1804.
Photo credit: Kean Collection/ Archive Photos via Getty Images
1840: William Henry Harrison vs. Martin Van Buren
If William Henry Harrison is known today, it’s for the obscurity of his mere 31 days in office. But the campaign leading to his presidency was a rollicking and often rowdy phenomenon that sparked a voter turnout of more than 80%, an increase of nearly 23 percentage points from the previous election.
The election pitted Harrison and running mate John Tyler of the upstart Whig Party against incumbent Democratic President Martin Van Buren during a period of economic strife caused by the Panic of 1837. Harrison’s campaign played off of his military fame for his victory at the Battle of Tippecanoe, with the slogan “Tippecanoe and Tyler Too.” It also attacked Van Buren with accusations of living in aristocratic luxury. The Van Buren campaign and its supporters countered by painting the 67-year-old Harrison as too elderly and frail for the presidency. An editorial in the Baltimore Republicanmocked Harrison with the line, “Give him a barrel of hard cider, and settle a pension on him… he will sit the remainder of his days in his log cabin by the side of the fire and study moral philosophy!”
The Whigs, however, embraced the hard cider and log cabin imagery, and built the rest of the campaign around it. They leaned into the association with the “everyman,” and organized cider- and whiskey-fueled mass rallies. There were songs, stump speeches, and all manner of bric-à-brac emblazoned with cider kegs and log cabins. There were also the 10- to 12-foot slogan-covered balls Whigs would roll down the streets while chanting in support of the candidates. It all led to Harrison shellacking Van Buren in the election, albeit not quite as might be expected: The lopsided victory was in the Electoral College, 234 to 60, but the popular vote margin was only about 150,000 votes. No need to pity Van Buren, though. He later remarked, “The two happiest days of my life were those of my entrance upon the office and my surrender of it.”
Incumbent President Ulysses S. Grant’s Republican Party was beginning to fracture leading into the June 1872 National Convention. A reform wing calling itself Liberal Republicans had held its own convention the previous month, nominating New York Tribune founder and editor Horace Greeley as its candidate. Overestimating the power of this new faction, the Democratic Party refrained from nominating its own candidate and instead threw its support behind Greeley, despite Greeley’s history of pointed criticism of the Democratic Party.
Almost immediately, Greeley was lambasted in the press. The New York Timescalled the Democratic Convention that nominated him “the ghastliest of political shows.” Political cartoons were especially harsh, depicting him as mousey or infantile. Greeley soldiered on, making campaign stops in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana between September 19 and 29, and giving nearly 200 speeches in that short span. Unfortunately for the candidate, his running mate Benjamin Gratz Brown completely undermined that effort by giving an incoherent drunken speech at Yale, and then fainting during an event in New York City.
The Greeley campaign never really mounted a serious threat to Grant. “I have been assailed so bitterly that I hardly knew whether I was running for the presidency or the penitentiary,” Greeley lamented. Grant won reelection easily with 55.6% of the popular vote. In a bizarre and tragic twist, Greeley died on November 29, before the Electoral College could cast its ballots. Because of this, the 63 votes he would have earned were dispersed among other candidates. It remains the only time in U.S. history that a candidate has died in the interim between the popular vote and the Electoral College vote.
The 1872 election was also notable for another reason: Though not a legal candidate (she was under 35 years old), Victoria Woodhull also ran in the 1872 election, making her the first woman to campaign for President of the United States.
Photo credit: Central Press/ Hulton Archive via Getty Images
1964: Lyndon B. Johnson vs. Barry Goldwater vs. a Fabricated “Jewish Mother”
The 1964 presidential election took place less than a year after the assassination of John F. Kennedy; the Vietnam occupation was approaching its midpoint, and segregationist Alabama Governor George Wallace was running a primary campaign in the northern U.S. on a platform of outright racism. Into this fraught atmosphere stepped a wisecracking independent write-in candidate named Yetta Bronstein, with slogans such as “We need a Jewish mother in the White House,” A mink coat in every closet,” and “If you want simple solutions, then you gotta be simple.” Calling herself a “Jewish housewife” running for a political party called the “Best Party,” Bronstein managed to attract media attention and invitations for radio interviews, wherein she advocated for increasingly kooky things such as adding “truth serum” to the Senate drinking fountains, and putting a nude photo of Jane Fonda on postage stamps.
Yetta Bronstein was a complete fabrication, though. A character invented by husband-and-wife hoaxers Alan and Jeanne Abel (and played by Jeanne in radio interviews), Yetta was conceived as a way to poke fun at credulous media. In the real world, Lyndon B. Johnson and Barry Goldwater were engaging in some of the most grueling mudslinging yet, culminating in the legendary Johnson “Daisy” campaign ad (officially titled “Peace, Little Girl”), in which a young girl counts petals as a nuclear countdown cuts to a mushroom cloud. Ultimately, Johnson trounced Goldwater by more than 15 million votes in the popular election, and 486 Electoral College votes to Goldwater’s 52. Yetta Bronstein didn’t get a single vote.
The 1988 presidential election was an open field, with Ronald Reagan finishing out his last term as President. The primary season on the Democratic side included a slate of relative upstart contenders referred to in overtly derisive political commentary as “the Seven Dwarfs”: Bruce Babbitt, Joe Biden, Michael Dukakis, Richard Gephardt, Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, and Paul Simon. On the Republican side, Vice President George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, Jack Kemp, and televangelist Reverend Pat Robertson were the contenders, escaping a derisive nickname of their own for reasons that are lost to history.
Almost immediately, the Democratic side was beset with paparazzi-style scandals: Early, pre-Seven Dwarfs contender Gary Hart was caught having an affair with a woman who accompanied him on a luxury yacht called, all too on-the-nose, Monkey Business. Another scandal followed when a tape surfaced with footage of Joe Biden speaking at the Iowa State Fair and quoting British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock without attribution. The resulting furor, and Biden’s subsequent mishandling of it, prompted him to drop out of the race. When TIME magazine reported that the tape came from the Dukakis campaign, the campaign initially denied the report, before eventually coming clean. Dukakis aides John Sasso and Paul Tully also stepped down.
Meanwhile, George H.W. Bush was emerging as the Republican nominee, despite receiving frequent criticism for not communicating the priorities of a Bush presidency (“the vision thing,” as Bush himself rather flippantly put it). Once Dukakis became the Democratic nominee, Bush fully dismissed “the vision thing” in favor of Lee Atwater-aided negative campaigning, successfully painting Dukakis as soft on crime with the viciousness of a Thomas Jefferson-John Adams-era series of invectives.
Another enduringly famous attack ad was one that the Dukakis campaign itself unintentionally provided the imagery for. The ad featured an unfortunately goofy Dukakis video op with the candidate perched upon an M1 Abrams tank and wearing a too-large helmet that looked more Great Gazoo than commander in chief. Bush won the election with 53.4% of the popular vote and a whopping 426 electoral votes.
Advertisement
Advertisement
We Asked an Anthropologist About the Gangs of 19th-Century New York
Beginning in the 1830s, a combination of poverty, rapid industrialization, and immigration contributed to the rise of notorious street gangs throughout New York City. For the next several decades, these groups ran rampant until being largely replaced by organized crime syndicates toward the end of the 19th century. But during their heyday, gangs such as the Bowery Boys and Dead Rabbits ruled the streets of New York, particularly a neighborhood in southern Manhattan known as the Five Points. This turbulent period in New York City was marked by violence and corruption, events that were brought to the silver screen in Martin Scorsese’s 2002 historical drama Gangs of New York.
While that film is based on realities of the time, it also furthered several misconceptions about this crime-ridden era. We reached out to anthropologist R. Brian Ferguson, a professor at Rutgers University-Newark and author of the 2023 book Chimpanzees, War, and History, to learn more about this volatile period in NYC history. Ferguson has spent decades studying and teaching how conflict permeates throughout society, and was interviewed for the 2002 documentary Uncovering the Real Gangs of New York, a special feature included on DVD copies of the Scorsese film.
(Editor’s note: This interview has been edited for length and clarity.)
HISTORY FACTS: What was life like in New York City’s Five Points neighborhood?
FERGUSON: Well, the Five Points was from the intersection of different streets, and it began as a residential neighborhood but it was built on landfill from filling in a big lake. So it was wet, and it was sinking, which meant that it was full of diseases in the summer. By 1827, it was already disreputable. Mainly poor people who had no choice about where to live were there — it was the bottom for New York society.
For decades it became — not just in New York, but internationally — famous for incredible squalor and crime and drunkenness and prostitution. It became a symbol for all of that. It was also a highly political environment, and the politics of the time were more contentious in New York than what we’re seeing today in our own lives. It was really a tough time politically.
HISTORY FACTS: Speaking of politics, I know Tammany Hall was a big player in New York City. What was Tammany Hall and how did it play a role in local politics?
FERGUSON: Tammany Hall was the Democratic political machine. It won elections, gave out patronage; it was famous for corruption and vote fraud. But besides that, it was the only kind of government that did anything for the poorest of the poor. In the 1840s, it had found its base in immigrants who were pouring into New York, many of whom were Catholic, which Protestant America generally hated.
Tammany Hall was controlled by political ward politicians from the street up, using force. It wasn’t a top-down organization as it once was, but it was really responding to what was happening on the streets, like in the Five Points. The Five Points was its central power base because it was so densely populated. It was known as the “Bloody Ould Sixth Ward,” and the votes from there could control mayors, city government, even tip state and presidential elections.
HISTORY FACTS: Who were the predominant gangs at the time?
FERGUSON: Gangs were always changing; they rarely lasted more than a few years. They came and went by time and place and by politics. The movie by Scorsese is based on a book by Herbert Asbury, both called Gangs of New York, and both of those introduced a lot of inaccuracies. In the movie, the big gangs were the Dead Rabbits and the followers of Bill “the Butcher” Poole. The riot that did occur was between the Dead Rabbits and the Bowery Boys. The Dead Rabbits were a gang; whether the Bowery Boys were a gang or not — they were also kind of a social type — is not as clear.
The movie was inspired by the Bowery Boy-Dead Rabbit riot of 1857. That was a real thing that went on for hours with maybe 11 people dead, and it involved fighting — bricks, up to guns. It was the biggest gang clash that ever occurred in New York City. Not the biggest violence on the street, but the biggest gang clash. And that was the inspiration for Scorsese’s film adaptation.
HISTORY FACTS: You mentioned immigration — how did the gangs reflect the ethnic makeup of New York City at this time?
FERGUSON: The gangs were organized — the nucleus of the power structure were saloons and volunteer fire companies, which were omnipresent and very political. Leadership in a gang came by association with one of those, and leadership was based mainly on fists. Fighting in the street was extremely common. All neighborhoods had their ethnic character, but it was never pure; it was always a mix.
So the Five Points was mostly Irish-inhabited at this point, but not exclusively. Gangs were mostly Irish but wouldn’t turn away anybody who lived in the neighborhood who could fight. But they were also shaped from the top down. Politicians built their organizations based on the compositions of neighborhoods. It was both a cause and effect of the political organization that gave life to the gangs. And it wasn’t just mostly Irish, but you could say particular areas of Ireland. A whole building might be from one area.
But [in terms of the city’s general ethnic makeup] German immigration was big; [New York City] also had people who were native born and were seen as “true” Americans. Italians hadn’t come in yet; the Eastern European Jews hadn’t come in yet. But New York always had lots of different people in it, like Syrians were a big immigrant population.
Advertisement
Advertisement
HISTORY FACTS: How did immigration contribute to the rise of these gangs?
FERGUSON: The immigration was a big part of, to use a contemporary word, the intersectionality of street organizations back then. Most immigrants were also extremely poor. But it wasn’t just the immigrants — this is when industrialism was on the rise, unemployment was exploding for all, and the time around the 1850s was seen as mainly just rich and poor. [There was] little in between. And poverty was mapped onto the ethnic divisions.
Also, politicians would scare the immigrants with the specter of competition from freed slaves, and really conjured up racism to a hot degree. So, there were mixes in terms of how people were organized. The racist, and anti-abolitionist groups, were mostly poor and could include any of the poor. But nativism, which was anti-immigrant, excluded the Catholics, and the Catholics were a lot of the poor. So there were these different combinations possible, and the local ward politicians worked all of these permutations.
HISTORY FACTS: Is the Irish vs. “native” conflict as depicted in Scorsese’s film accurate?
FERGUSON: The Irish versus the “native” thing, it’s a yes and no. It’s not false, but it’s not really true either. The Bowery Boy-Dead Rabbit riot of 1857 was part of crises all across the United States in the time leading up to the Civil War. In New York state, this played out largely as a conflict between the state government and the city government. The state government in Albany was Protestant, Republican, and anti-immigrant, and the city government by this time was more immigrant- and Catholic-oriented and Democrat. So this was the polarization.
The state of New York then put through, in 1857, a kind of a coup, restructuring the city, which took over many of the city functions — like control of the Port of New York. But most important of all, they disbanded the police force at the time — the Tammany police force known as the Municipal Police — and created a new police force called the Metropolitan Police that were controlled from Albany. Tammany itself, besides the state and city thing, was extremely divided into two warring factions. So there was like a three-way struggle going on.
Nativism was a part of all of that, but who had political power, and who got the benefits of controlling corruption were at least as big or bigger issues. When I did research on the gangs that fought in 1857, they all had clear local political alignments, and one thing that was left out entirely of the film, and Asbury’s book, was that the fights that became riots began with attacks on the Metropolitan Police — that’s the state police force. That was clearly one of the biggest issues here.
Advertisement
Advertisement
HISTORY FACTS: What led to the rise of these gangs and their eventual downfall?
FERGUSON: Well, poor neighborhoods like the Five Points — but there were many — provided kind of the raw material: people who could fight and were looking for something to do, and were looking for a leg up. These could be shaped into adult gangs. But as an anthropologist, what I like to look at is the local organizations of the street that organized and raised up gangs into kind of political actors. Back at that time, there were two organizations: There was the saloon, which was the neighborhood center, and the volunteer fire companies, which were all over the city and connected to large political factions. And [all of these groups] were always fighting; they would fight each other all the time. So, the conflicts in 1857 went through these things, like volunteer fire companies and saloons, to raise these local street people up into named gangs and to pit them against each other.
If you look at the gangs around then, they’re very big in newspapers of the times. After that, they’re not so much. In later years, and I’ll just pick 1885 as an example, there were still street gangs all around the town, but they were less important politically. The reason was the then-boss of Tammany Hall, a guy named Dick Croker, had iron control and didn’t need [the gangs] as much.
Also, that was the Gilded Age of extreme capitalist fortunes, and the capitalists who had great control over the city supported the police, which by that point was the NYPD, to keep control of what they saw as dangerous classes — the people who lived in the slums. Otherwise, cops — if [the cops] kept [the people in the slums] from being a problem — could do whatever they wanted, which led over a couple of decades to police brutality and corruption.
And then there was a big scandal that came along in 1895. It was called the Lexow Investigation and it revealed that the New York Police Department was what they called “organized criminality” in New York City. It wasn’t allowing it, it was it. So, reform and another era of political turmoil in Tammany Hall led to new named gangs coming up. People might recognize the Monk Eastman gang or the Paul Kelly gang. And by about 1900, these were changing from what they used to be and taking over what the police had been pushed out of and had controlled, including gambling and prostitution and rackets and extortion.
That was a new era that led to the gangster era, and the gangsters in their peak generally led to less street crime because they were organized to make money. You didn’t want people to get mugged when they came out of a speakeasy. So, the area got less violent, less uncontrolled, as that developed. And as it went on, New York City went through the whole process of development, which is a much bigger topic about changing industrial structure and job structure and development of a middle class.
HISTORY FACTS: Going back to Scorsese’s movie, what did the film get right and what did it get wrong?
FERGUSON: It’s imaginary, like any movie; I don’t hold that against it. The plot, of course, is fiction. The film was loosely based on Herbert Asbury’s book, and Herbert Asbury really tried, but he had bad information. I’ve tracked down most of his sources in my own research. The movie did get the look right. Many details of the time are very real. They exaggerated certain things, like they made the Dead Rabbits look like they wore a particular kind of uniform, which, not really. No naval ships fired cannons on crowds, although soldiers did. The film left out the stench and the insects and the sewers in the street and all of that stuff. So you don’t get quite that depth of it, but it’s a movie. (Editor’s note: Ferguson recommended a book by Tyler Anbinder called Five Points for those interested in learning more about these details.)
Other big inaccuracies are due to the fact that the filmmakers had to compress time. And so Bill “the Butcher” [Poole] — the guy played by Daniel Day-Lewis — was dead a few years before the big Bowery Boy-Dead Rabbits riot. And Scorsese, consistent with his own film background, made Bill Poole a crime boss, getting a cut of everything. No, that came later. There’s nothing indicating that this was organized crime in that sense. Another thing is that Bill Poole worked for the politicians. He wouldn’t kill one of them, as he does in the film. There was a political hierarchy and he was a step down.
There were, in reality, lots of little turf fights all the time, but there wasn’t anything like Daniel Day-Lewis says to decide once and for all who’s going to be the lords of the Five Points. It wasn’t that kind of territorial control. And one big inaccuracy of the movie is the excessive violence, especially in the opening riot. Now, there was violence all the time, but with fists and bricks and sometimes up to guns. Most people in the poor neighborhoods didn’t own guns; they were too expensive. But there were chimneys all over the place and you could topple a chimney over and you’ve got a supply of bricks, which is what they did.
I think the thing that I have the biggest issue with in the film is that it leaves out how important was politics and everything that was going on, and how important was the role of the new state Metropolitan Police. But I’ll add, on a positive note, I think it was great that Scorsese brought in the Draft Riots [violent citywide protests against the Civil War draft and fueled by racial tension] — although, this was not a gang event, other than gang members participating in rioting mobs, individually. But I teach about the Draft Riots, and what I can tell you is that no one has heard about this incredible event in American national history. The Draft Riots tell you an awful lot about what was becoming America.
Advertisement
Advertisement
HISTORY FACTS: What gang-related sites from this time period are still standing?
FERGUSON: There are a lot of gang locations if you know where to look, walking on 2nd Avenue from 14th Street to Houston Street. And there’s more than a dozen significant locations, mainly shootings, that took place on that stretch, although that was mostly the later gangsters up to the beginning of Prohibition.
From the [Gangs of New York] film era, and for the Five Points, there’s really only one thing that remains. On the northwest corner of Baxter and Worth Street — this is between the courthouse district and Columbus Park — is the only remaining point. That point, I can’t go by that area without going by and standing on that point. I’ve seen lots of illustrations of the Five Points and I just imagine all those illustrations while I’m there and standing on that point. But that’s the only physical remnant that you can see.
As time went on, the Five Points kind of got toned down by mission and other reform efforts in the Five Points itself. The most squalid and dangerous part of New York moved just one block east to Mulberry Street. When they tore down the block known as Mulberry Bend, they didn’t cart the stuff away; they just tumbled everything into the basements. So when they were redoing Columbus Park, they cleaned away the surface and I could see all of these basements that were the Five Points, that were Mulberry Bend — they’re still there. But they’re underground.
If I can expand the scope a little bit for gangster sites, my favorite is many blocks north on Great Jones Street, which is in the East Village. Right on the south side of Great Jones Street, west of the Bowery, there are two buildings. One has a window on the second floor that has an arch to it. This window became famous because Andy Warhol bought it some years ago, and the artist [Jean-Michel] Basquiat had a studio there, and in fact died in that room. But that building was the headquarters of Paul Kelly’s gang. Paul Kelly, whose birth name was Paul Vaccarelli, is what my [current] research centers on, and I think he was the most successful gangster in New York City history. For one thing, he died in bed, which most gangsters didn’t.
____
R. Brian Ferguson is a New York City-based anthropologist. To learn more about his work, visit his website. His most recent work, Chimpanzees, War and History, is also available for purchase here.
In American politics, there are few families who have had as big an impact on the nation’s history as the Kennedys. The family’s roots can be traced back to two Irish Catholic immigrant families, the Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys, who came to the U.S. beginning in the 1840s to escape the potato famine in Ireland. In 1914, Joseph P. Kennedy, the son of a wealthy Boston businessman, married Rose Fitzgerald, the daughter of an equally prominent Boston family. The couple went on to have nine children: Joseph Jr., John (“Jack”), Rose Marie, Kathleen, Eunice, Patricia, Robert (“Bobby”), Jean, and Edward (“Ted”), many of whom served the country in a variety of elected and appointed roles, helping steer the course of the nation.
The most famous of Joseph and Rose’s children was their second-oldest child, John F. Kennedy. Before he became the 35th and youngest elected President of the United States in 1961, he served in the Navy and represented Massachusetts in both houses of Congress. The 1963 assassination of the young and charismatic President triggered a wave of profound shock and grief across the nation, marking the end of an era as postwar idealism gave way to a period of political and social turbulence. Here are six little-known facts about this famous political family.
Photo credit: Historical/ Corbis Historical via Getty Images
Jackie Kennedy Started a School in the White House
First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy was known to be a private person who was very protective of her children. Concerned about potential security risks and the omnipresent press, Jackie decided to turn the third-floor solarium in the White House into a nursery school for her young daughter, Caroline, in 1961. The school grew to around 20 students that included Caroline’s playmates and children of White House staff, and the salaries of two New York State-certified teachers were paid by the Kennedys and other parents. Though school segregation was outlawed in 1954, the process to integrate schools was ongoing at the time, and President Kennedy was criticized for not sending his own daughter to an integrated public school. In September 1962, The New York Timesreported that Caroline’s school was being desegregated that fall with the addition of a Black student, the son of associate White House press secretary Andrew Hatcher.
The “Camelot” Comparison Came From an Interview With Jackie
Just a week after John F. Kennedy’s assassination, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Theodore H. White interviewed the grieving First Lady forLife magazine. Jackie’s recollections of the day her husband was killed, and what happened in the aftermath, were published as an “epilogue” of the President’s life. The First Lady reminisced about her husband’s fondness for the musical Camelot, noting that his favorite lines were from the last song in the show, “Finale Ultimo”: “Don’t let it be forgot, that once there was a spot / for one brief shining moment / that was known as Camelot.” Jackie went on to say, “There’ll be great Presidents again… but there’ll never be another Camelot again.” Her poignant commemoration of her husband’s presidency contributed to JFK’s enduring legacy as a modern-day hero whose life was cut tragically short.
Just like his older brother, Robert F. “Bobby” Kennedy was actively involved in politics. He even served as U.S. attorney general when JFK became President. In a May 1961 Voice of America radio broadcast, Bobby envisioned a time when a Black person would be able to “achieve the same position that my brother has as President of the United States.” It was an optimistic prediction in the years before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — legislation that Bobby urged his brother to advance — and one that took 47 years to fulfill with Barack Obama’s presidency. Bobby was assassinated just two months after Martin Luther King Jr., but his legacy of civil rights advocacy continues with the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights foundation, which was founded in his name just a few months after his assassination in 1968.
Ted Kennedy’s Long Senate Career Started With JFK’s Seat
Edward “Ted” Kennedy was the youngest of Joseph and Rose Kennedy’s nine children, and just as politically ambitious as his older brothers. After JFK won the 1960 presidential election, he resigned from his Senate seat, and Ted wanted the position. However, he wasn’t yet eligible to pursue the office because he was only 28 years old — two years younger than the minimum age to be a senator. JFK asked the Massachusetts governor to appoint family friend Ben Smith to serve as interim senator, a “seat warmer” until Ted was able to run. Ted went on to win the 1962 special election and maintained his place in the Senate until his death in August 2009. Despite family tragedies and the infamous Chappaquiddick controversy, the “Lion of the Senate” represented the state of Massachusetts for 46 years, nine months, and 19 days, making him the fifth-longest-serving senator in U.S. history.
In 1928, Joseph and Rose Kennedy bought the summer home they had been renting in Hyannis Port, a village on the Cape Cod peninsula in Massachusetts. The “big house” was renovated and expanded to accommodate their large family, becoming a place for the elder Kennedys to gather with their children and grandchildren. The purchase of two nearby properties, one owned by John and Jackie, the other by Bobby and his wife Ethel, established what came to be known as the “Kennedy Compound.” The 6-acre property remained in the family until 2012, when the main house (which had been Ted Kennedy’s primary residence until his death in 2009) was donated to the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate. Robert Kennedy’s widow, Ethel, still lives in the nearby home she shared with her husband, and the house that once belonged to JFK is now owned by Ted Kennedy’s son Edward M. Kennedy Jr.
Chicago History Museum/ Archive Photos via Getty Images
AuthorTony Dunnell
August 25, 2023
Love it?53
As early as the colonial era, the consumption of alcoholic beverages was a contentious issue in America. Drunkenness was generally frowned upon, and certain sectors of society believed that alcohol was nothing short of the devil’s juice. Tensions came to a head in the early 20th century, when the temperance movement (which advocated for moderation in all things), supported by groups such as the Anti-Saloon League, the National Prohibition Party, and women suffragists, convinced lawmakers to curtail what they saw as the calamitous and ungodly effects of alcohol.
The result was the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified on January 16, 1919. One year after the ratification, the prohibition of alcohol in the United States began, and breweries, wineries, and distilleries across the country were shuttered.
Initially, the signs were positive. There was a significant reduction in alcohol consumption, booze-related hospitalizations declined, and there were notably fewer crimes related to drunkenness. But one thing never changed: Many people still enjoyed an occasional drink and weren’t willing to live completely dry lives. Enter bootleggers, speakeasies, and organized crime. The Prohibition era lasted until 1933, and marked a period of colorful characters, clandestine operations, and government corruption. Here are seven facts from this fascinating time in U.S. history.
The 18th Amendment prohibited “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors” within the United States, but it didn’t ban the consumption of alcohol at home. So, during the one-year grace period before Prohibition began, people — those who could afford it, at least — began stockpiling wine and liquor while it was still legal to buy. Once the cellars had been stocked and Prohibition began, there was a notable rise in home entertaining and dinner parties — a shift that transformed America’s drinking culture in a way that’s still felt to this day.
Despite the constitutional law, certain legal loopholes existed that facilitated the acquisition of alcohol. Doctors could prescribe whiskey for medicinal purposes, making a friendly neighborhood pharmacist a handy source of booze — not to mention an ideal front for bootlegging operations. Religious congregations were allowed to purchase communion wine, which led to an increase in church enrollment. Winemakers, meanwhile, began selling “wine bricks,” rectangular packages of entirely legal concentrated grape juice that could be used to make wine at home. The packaging even came with a handy “warning”: “After dissolving the brick in a gallon of water, do not place the liquid in a jug away in the cupboard for twenty days, because then it would turn into wine.”
The main source of liquor during Prohibition was industrial alcohol, the kind of stuff used to make ink, perfume, and camp stove fuel. Bootleggers could make about 3 gallons of barely drinkable — and dangerous — “gin” or “whiskey” from 1 gallon of industrial alcohol. But industrial alcohol was denatured, meaning it had additives to make it foul-smelling, awful-tasting, and poisonous. And while bootleggers found a way to recondition the denatured alcohol into cheap booze — colloquially known as “rotgut” — that was drinkable, it was still capable of causing blindness or death. On average, about 1,000 Americans died every year during the Prohibition era from drinking tainted liquor. Many estimates put the number even higher, with up to 50,000 total deaths from unsafe alcohol during Prohibition.
Like thousands of other Americans, congresspeople and senators, including many of those who had voted in favor of Prohibition, often sought out illegal alcohol. One of their main suppliers was a bootlegger named George Cassiday, who started off supplying hooch to two House of Representatives members. Demand for his services soon increased, and before long he was making 25 deliveries a day to House and Senate offices. A dapper gentleman, Cassiday was easily recognized by his emerald fedora, and soon became known as the “man in the green hat.” He was arrested in 1930 and sentenced to 18 months in prison, but was allowed to sign out every night and return the next morning during his time in jail. The same year he was arrested, Cassiday wrote a series of articles for The Washington Post in which he estimated that 80% of Congress drank illegally.
Al Capone’s Oldest Brother Was a Prohibition Enforcement Agent
Al Capone was the most famous of all the gangsters who came to prominence during the Prohibition era. Capone’s brothers Frank and Ralph were also mobsters. Then there was James Vincenzo Capone, the oldest of the Capone brothers, who later changed his name to Richard James Hart. He took a decidedly different path than his siblings: He became a Prohibition agent. He was, by most accounts, a daring and effective law enforcer, whose tendency to carry two ivory-handled pistols earned him the nickname “Two-Gun” Hart.
The End of Prohibition Made U.S. Constitutional History
Prohibition was, ultimately, a failure. At least half of the adult population wanted to carry on drinking, the policing of Prohibition was marred by contradictions and corruption, and with no actual ban on consumption, the whole thing became untenable. So, on December 5, 1933, the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment, bringing about the end of the Prohibition era. The 18th Amendment made constitutional history, becoming the first — and, to this day, only — constitutional amendment to be repealed in its entirety.
If for some reason you yearn for the days of Prohibition, you can always vote for the Prohibition Party. Yes, the anti-alcohol party, formed in 1869, still exists. Not only has it championed the cause of temperance for more than 150 years, but it’s also the oldest existing third party in the United States. And while the Democrats have their donkey and the Republicans their elephant, the Prohibition Party’s mascot is the camel — an animal that can survive without drinking for almost seven months.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Another History Pick for You
Today in History
Get a daily dose of history’s most fascinating headlines — straight from Britannica’s editors.