This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.
.

Mask resistance during a pandemic isn’t new – in 1918 many Americans were ‘slackers’

J. Alexander Navarro, University of Michigan

We have all seen the alarming headlines: Coronavirus cases are surging in 40 states, with new cases and hospitalization rates climbing at an alarming rate. Health officials have warned that the U.S. must act quickly to halt the spread – or we risk losing control over the pandemic.

There’s a clear consensus that Americans should wear masks in public and continue to practice proper social distancing. While a majority of Americans support wearing masks, widespread and consistent compliance has proven difficult to maintain in communities across the country. Demonstrators gathered outside city halls in Scottsdale, Arizona; Austin, Texas; and other cities to protest local mask mandates. Several Washington state and North Carolina sheriffs have announced they will not enforce their state’s mask order.

I’ve researched the history of the 1918 pandemic extensively. At that time, with no effective vaccine or drug therapies, communities across the country instituted a host of public health measures to slow the spread of a deadly influenza epidemic: They closed schools and businesses, banned public gatherings and isolated and quarantined those who were infected. Many communities recommended or required that citizens wear face masks in public – and this, not the onerous lockdowns, drew the most ire.

In mid-October of 1918, amidst a raging epidemic in the Northeast and rapidly growing outbreaks nationwide, the United States Public Health Service circulated leaflets recommending that all citizens wear a mask. The Red Cross took out newspaper ads encouraging their use and offered instructions on how to construct masks at home using gauze and cotton string. Some state health departments launched their own initiatives, most notably California, Utah and Washington.

[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter.]

Nationwide, posters presented mask-wearing as a civic duty – social responsibility had been embedded into the social fabric by a massive wartime federal propaganda campaign launched in early 1917 when the U.S. entered the Great War. San Francisco Mayor James Rolph announced that “conscience, patriotism and self-protection demand immediate and rigid compliance” with mask wearing. In nearby Oakland, Mayor John Davie stated that “it is sensible and patriotic, no matter what our personal beliefs may be, to safeguard our fellow citizens by joining in this practice” of wearing a mask.

Health officials understood that radically changing public behavior was a difficult undertaking, especially since many found masks uncomfortable to wear. Appeals to patriotism could go only so far. As one Sacramento official noted, people “must be forced to do the things that are for their best interests.” The Red Cross bluntly stated that “the man or woman or child who will not wear a mask now is a dangerous slacker.” Numerous communities, particularly across the West, imposed mandatory ordinances. Some sentenced scofflaws to short jail terms, and fines ranged from US$5 to $200.

Passing these ordinances was frequently a contentious affair. For example, it took several attempts for Sacramento’s health officer to convince city officials to enact the order. In Los Angeles, it was scuttled. A draft resolution in Portland, Oregon led to heated city council debate, with one official declaring the measure “autocratic and unconstitutional,” adding that “under no circumstances will I be muzzled like a hydrophobic dog.” It was voted down.

Utah’s board of health considered issuing a mandatory statewide mask order but decided against it, arguing that citizens would take false security in the effectiveness of masks and relax their vigilance. As the epidemic resurged, Oakland tabled its debate over a second mask order after the mayor angrily recounted his arrest in Sacramento for not wearing a mask. A prominent physician in attendance commented that “if a cave man should appear…he would think the masked citizens all lunatics.”

In places where mask orders were successfully implemented, noncompliance and outright defiance quickly became a problem. Many businesses, unwilling to turn away shoppers, wouldn’t bar unmasked customers from their stores. Workers complained that masks were too uncomfortable to wear all day. One Denver salesperson refused because she said her “nose went to sleep” every time she put one on. Another said she believed that “an authority higher than the Denver Department of Health was looking after her well-being.” As one local newspaper put it, the order to wear masks “was almost totally ignored by the people; in fact, the order was cause of mirth.” The rule was amended to apply only to streetcar conductors – who then threatened to strike. A walkout was averted when the city watered down the order yet again. Denver endured the remainder of the epidemic without any measures protecting public health.

In Seattle, streetcar conductors refused to turn away unmasked passengers. Noncompliance was so widespread in Oakland that officials deputized 300 War Service civilian volunteers to secure the names and addresses of violators so they could be charged. When a mask order went into effect in Sacramento, the police chief instructed officers to “Go out on the streets, and whenever you see a man without a mask, bring him in or send for the wagon.” Within 20 minutes, police stations were flooded with offenders. In San Francisco, there were so many arrests that the police chief warned city officials he was running out of jail cells. Judges and officers were forced to work late nights and weekends to clear the backlog of cases.

Many who were caught without masks thought they might get away with running an errand or commuting to work without being nabbed. In San Francisco, however, initial noncompliance turned to large-scale defiance when the city enacted a second mask ordinance in January 1919 as the epidemic spiked anew. Many decried what they viewed as an unconstitutional infringement of their civil liberties. On January 25, 1919, approximately 2,000 members of the “Anti-Mask League” packed the city’s old Dreamland Rink for a rally denouncing the mask ordinance and proposing ways to defeat it. Attendees included several prominent physicians and a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

It is difficult to ascertain the effectiveness of the masks used in 1918. Today, we have a growing body of evidence that well-constructed cloth face coverings are an effective tool in slowing the spread of COVID-19. It remains to be seen, however, whether Americans will maintain the widespread use of face masks as our current pandemic continues to unfold. Deeply entrenched ideals of individual freedom, the lack of cohesive messaging and leadership on mask wearing, and pervasive misinformation have proven to be major hindrances thus far, precisely when the crisis demands consensus and widespread compliance. This was certainly the case in many communities during the fall of 1918. That pandemic ultimately killed about 675,000 people in the U.S. Hopefully, history is not in the process of repeating itself today.

This article was updated to correct the location of sheriffs mentioned.

J. Alexander Navarro, Assistant Director, Center for the History of Medicine, University of Michigan

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Originally posted on American Civil War Chronicles.

New Orleans. Monday, July 9, 1860

The schooner Clotilde, with 124 Africans on board arrived in Mobile Bay to-day. A steamboat immediately took the negroes up the river.

_____________

The short notice above, buried on page 5 of the July 11, 1860, issue of The New York Times, fails to convey the historical significance of Clotilda’s delivery of African captives into American slavery.

The importation of slaves had been illegal in the United States since January 1, 1808. The arrival of Clotilda marked the last known slave cargo delivered to the antebellum South.

Clotilda was a two-masted schooner, built and licensed in Mobile, eighty-six feet long by twenty-three feet wide. With white oak framing and planking of northern yellow pine, she had a copper-sheathed hull and measured 120 tons. Destroyed to get rid of the evidence of her illicit cargo, no known image of the Clotilda exists—a generic image of a similar ship is provided above.

Local Alabama lore holds that wealthy Mobile shipyard owner and shipper Timothy Meaher had bet some “northern gentlemen” that he could get around the prohibition on importing slaves without being caught. Whether the bet was true or not, Meaher dispatched the sleek and swift schooner, Clotilda, to the notorious slave port of Ouidah in the Kingdom of Dahomey—now the Republic of Benin.

The Kingdom of Dahomey was a powerful military and commercial empire that dominated the slave trade on the African Slave Coast until the late 19th century. It was largely based on conquest and slave labor, international slave trading with Europeans, a centralized administration, a system of taxes, and an organized military, including units of women soldiers—called Dahomey Amazons by European observers—who fought in its wars and in slave raids. Captives taken during war and raids were enslaved for labor in the kingdom and sale to traders. The fate of many was human sacrifice.

With $9,000 in gold plus a cargo of merchandise, Captain William Foster purchased over 100 men, women and children from the Dahomey officials. They were primarily Tarkbar people taken from near Tamale, present-day Ghana. Captain Foster wrote, “from thence I went to see the King of Dahomey. Having agreeably transacted affairs with the Prince we went to the warehouse where they had in confinement four thousand captives in a state of nudity from which they gave me liberty to select one hundred and twenty-five as mine offering to brand them for me, from which I preemptorily [sic] forbid; commenced taking on cargo of negroes [sic], successfully securing on board one hundred and ten.”

According to Foster, Clotilda set sail out of Mobile on March 4, 1860, and arrived on the slave coast of Dahomey in the Bight of Benin on May 15. Anchored offshore, the naked human cargo bought by Foster was ferried through the surf in small boats.

From an 1890 account by Captain Foster:

“Early in the morning, I went on board, and left the first mate on shore to tally them aboard; after securing 75 aboard, we had an alarming surprise when man aloft with glass sang out “Sail ho,” steamer leeward ten miles. I looked and, behold black and white flags, signals of distress, interspersed the coast for fifteen miles, and two steamers hove in sight for purpose of capture.”

“The crew thinking our capture inevitable, refused duty and wanted to take any boats from the vessel and go on shore but could not have landed with our boats owing to the surf. While getting underway two more boats came along side with thirty five more negroes, making in all one hundred and ten; left fifteen on the beach having to leave in haste. All under headway, both steamers changed their course to intercept us, the wind being favourable; in a short time we knew we were outsailing them; then my crew showed their appreciation for not letting them take my boats to go on shore; in four hours were out of sight of land and steamers.”

Clotilda departed Africa on about May 24, 1860 and arrived in Mobile Bay in early July. One girl reportedly died during the six-week brutal crossing.

Purchased for $9,000 in gold as well as merchandise cargo, the imported slaves were worth more than $180,000 in 1860 Alabama.

Articles and books relating the story of Clotilda and her cargo differ widely in some of their information. The date of arrival in Mobile Bay is given as several different days in July 1860 as well as autumn of 1859; The number of slaves varies from 103 up to 160; and the owner of the ship is given as Timothy Meaher, the ship’s captain, William Foster, or is not named.

The snippet from The New York Times of July 11, 1860, citing the arrival as July 9, solidly establishes Clotilda’s arrival in the second week of July. Records from the Mobile U.S. District Court identify the date of arrival in Mobile Bay as July 7, 1860. Captain Foster’s 1890 accounting has the ship anchored off Point of Pines, Grand Bay, Mississippi before July 9. He then writes:

July 9^th. went ashore, gave a resident twenty-five dollars for horse and buggy to take me to Mobile. There I got a steam tug to tow schr (schooner) up Spanish river into the Ala. River at “Twelve Mile Island.” I transferred my Slaves to a river steamboat, and sent them up into the canebrake to hide them until further disposal. I then burned my schr. to the water’s edge and sunk her.

July 9^th. When anchored off “P. of P.” Miss. The mates and crew did not want me to leave the vessel until they were paid for voyage and said they would kill me if I attempted to take the negroes ashore without their money. Capt. Tim Meaher and party were to have met me there for the purpose of landing negroes, and pay the crew off, and I had made arrangements with the mates and crew, to take the vessel to Tampico and change her name and get clearance for New Orleans – the parties failing to meet me in time, compelled me to come up to Mobile. I hired a tug and went to the vessel to tow her up to Mobile into Spanish River and crew refused to let me have her because I didn’t have time to get the money to pay them. I came back to Mobile and took on board the tug five men and $8,000 dollars, landed [I think] at vessel 9 p.m. Went aboard and settled with them according to my first arrangement in Mobile.

We put the mates and crew on steamer and sent them to Montgomery on their way to the northern states.

Licensed in December 1855, Clotilda’s first record of carrying cargo lists William Foster as Shipper/Owner and Captain Russell as Master of the ship. Foster was to later lament the burning and scuttling of his ship, saying that it was worth far more than the 10 slaves he received as payment. However, without a crew and with the government searching for Clotilda, his choices were limited.

The U.S. government first searched for Clotilda shortly after learning of her illicit voyage, but the endeavor proved fruitless. However, enough information was known for authorities to take legal actions. The Mobile District Court records show that Clotilda entered Mobile Bay with 103 slaves “more or less.”

The cargo was distributed to a number of individuals, including Timothy Meaher, Burns Meaher, James Meaher, John Dabney, Thomas Buford, and Captain William Foster.

On August 7, A. J. Requier, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, informed Judge William G. Jones that “William Foster, master or commander of the Schooner Clotilda … wholly failed to report the arrival of the said schooner Clotilda to the Collector of the said port within the time prescribed by law.” The court wasn’t after Foster for the crime of importing slaves. He hadn’t paid the required fees on his cargo and had not provided information that was required to be inserted in a manifest under oath. He was fined $1000. Without the evidence of the Clotilda to tell the tale, the only charge that could stick was a minor one.

In Mobile, Federal Judge William G. Jones issued orders for Burns Meaher and John Dabner to appear in his court on the second Monday in December. However, the U.S. Marshall didn’t inform them until December 17 and then only verbally. Three days later the Marshall informed the court that the “named negroes” could not be found in his district. Without the Africans, no crime could be found and, on January 10, federal charges against Meaher and Dabney were dismissed.

Also on January 10, 1861, probably because there was money to be collected and his case was easy to prove, an order was issued that the case, The United States vs. William Foster, be continued.

The next day, Alabama seceded from the Union.

Hector Posset, the ambassador of the Republic of Benin and a descendant of the Dahomey royal family visited the site of the recently found Clotilda in 2018. “I am just begging them to forgive us, because we sold them. Our forefathers sold their brothers and sisters. I am not the person to talk to them. No! May their souls rest in peace, perfect peace. They should forgive us. They should,” Posset said, wiping tears from his cheeks. “Qualified people will come and talk to them in due time. I feel so sad.” The qualified people Posset spoke of would be priests of Benin’s traditional religion, Vodun.

Sources used:

1. Last American Slave Ship is Discovered in Alabama—National Geographic
2. The ‘Clotilda,’ the Last Known Slave Ship to Arrive in the U.S., Is Found—Smithsonian Magazine
3. Clotilda (slave ship)—Wikipedia
4. Historic Sketches of the South—Roche, Emma Langdon. New York: Knickerbocker Press, 1914.
5. Alabama Historians: The Last Known Slave Ship Has Been Found—The New York Times
6. The Case for Clotilda—Archaeology
7. Last Slaver from U.S. to Africa. A.D. 1860; Transcription of Capt. Foster’s account of the Clotilda voyage and notes accompanying it (with suggestions in [italics]), by Valerie Ellis, Local History and Genealogy, Mobile Public Library—Mobile Public Library Digital Archives
8. The Clotilda: A Finding Aid (pdf)—National Archives at Atlanta
9. Diouf, Sylviane A. Dreams of Africa in Alabama: the Slave Ship “Clotilda” and the Story of the Last Africans Brought to America. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
10. Dahomey Amazons—Wikipedia
11. Cudjoe Kazoola Lewis, the third to last known survivor of the Atlantic slave trade between Africa and the United States, brought illegally to the United States on board the ship Clotilda in 1860—Wikipedia
12. Redoshi, second to last known survivor of the Clotilda slave cargo and the U.S. transatlantic slave trade—Wikipedia
13. Matilda McCrear, last known living survivor of the U.S. transatlantic slave trade, brought to the United States on the Clotilda—Wikipedia
14. Glele, tenth King of the Aja kingdom of Dahomey—Wikipedia
15. Ouidah, coastal city of Benin, formerly Kingdom of Dahomey—Wikipedia
16. ‘Forgive us, because we sold them,’ says African ambassador on possible slave ship find—Mobile Real-Time News

The John Hopkins University and Medicine Coronavirus Resource Center is a great resource for learning about COVID-19.

Dear Mr. Lieblong, Mr. Lamberth, Mr. Rice, Mr. East, Mr. Post, Mr. Hunter, and Mr. Landers,

As an active member of the grassroots Facebook group Pope County Majority, I try to ensure that the group has up-to-date, factual information related to the Pope County casino issue.  To do so, I have read almost all of the casino-related media articles pertinent to Pope County for the past two years as well as the greatest portion of the documents filed in all of the litigation.  I am comfortable in stating that I have no doubt that the Arkansas Racing Commission should award a casino license to Cherokee Nation Buisnesses LLC to operate Legends Resort and Casino LLC in Pope County, Arkansas, within two miles of the county seat.

Commission’s Mandate and Good Cause Shown

From the Casino Gaming Rules of the State of Arkansas

• • The Commission shall award a casino license to a casino applicant for a casino to be located in Pope County within two miles of the city limits of the county seat.
  • No applications will be accepted after the thirty (30) day period, except for good cause shown.

Watching the special meeting of the Racing Commission earlier this month, I was disappointed that there wasn’t more discussion of the “for good cause shown” application provision of the Arkansas Casino Gaming Rules. Assistant Attorney General Kat Guest discussed it and it was briefly discussed while the Commission was trying to figure out the wording for a motion, but I don’t know if it made it to the final wording of the motion that was passed.

There was an opportunity earlier on to avoid the application situation that resulted in the second lawsuit against the Commission by Citizens for a Better Pope County and James Knight and, subsequently the temporary restraining order that was placed on the Commission.

On August 15, Scott Richardson, attorney for Cherokee Nation Businesses (CNB) and Legends Resort & Casino, in a letter that accompanied their August license application, made a good case for accepting that application for good cause shown, writing:

In order to comply with Rule 2.13.4(b), and to avoid any confusion in the future, CNB requests that the Racing Commission officially accept CNB’s application “for good cause shown.” We respectfully suggest that good cause is demonstrated by the fact that in the initial thirty-day window no applications were submitted with a letter or resolution of support from the Pope County Judge or Quorum Court holding office at the time of the application as required by Amendment 100, Ark. Code Ann. § 23-117-101, and Arkansas Racing Commission Rule 2.13.5.(b). This application now comes to you with that resolution.

Pope County Majority is a large grassroots Facebook group that continues to grow.  The group is representative of a much larger group of people who want our region to succeed and who favor the construction and operation of the casino and resort.  I have communicated with a number of others who are not members of Pope County Majority. Some are not active on Facebook, some are reluctant to join because of possible repercussions at work or other reasons, and some seldom or never use a computer. The greatest majority have been either supportive of the casino or not opposed to it. While some of the members of Pope County Majority don’t live in Pope County, most do and, of those who don’t, most have ties to Pope County or live in neighboring counties.

Pope County wants Legends Resort and Casino Arkansas. It will be a catalyst for change in the River Valley and a boost for the economic health and viability of the entire area.

I respectfully urge you to award the casino license to Cherokee Nation Businesses so that construction can begin on Legends Resort and Casino Arkansas.

Thank you,
Michael Goad
Dover, Arkansas

Dear Mr. Lieblong, Mr. Lamberth, Mr. Rice, Mr. East, Mr. Post, Mr. Hunter, and Mr. Landers,

The Racing Commission has a constitutional mandate under Amendment 100 to “award a casino license to a casino applicant for a casino to be located in Pope County.” However, without valid letters or resolutions of support from Pope County officials, none of the applications submitted during the May 2019 application period could be approved and the constitutional mandate could not be satisfied.

Under the Arkansas Casino Gaming Rules, as they currently stand, the Commission is not allowed to accept applications “after the thirty (30) period” established in the rules, “except for good cause shown” or if there had been no application for the casino license. The Rules are silent, though, for what actually transpired — five license applications submitted, but none approved.

With the Racing Commission’s constitutional mandate to award a Pope County casino license unfulfilled, there was “good cause shown” when the Commission was presented with a valid resolution of support by the Pope County Quorum Court for Cherokee Nations Businesses (CNB). The Commission’s subsequent acceptance of CNB’s application was legal per Rule 2.13.4(b):
“Applications for a casino license will be accepted by the Commission for a period of thirty (30) days, beginning on the date established by the Commission and published as a legal notice by the Commission. No application will be accepted after the thirty (30) day period, except for good cause shown.”

Since there is a legal basis for accepting CNB’s application, there is no need to amend the Casino Gaming Rules to authorize an additional application period. Pursuing this would unnecessarily delay awarding the casino license. It would further postpone the payment of funds specified in the Economic Development Agreement between Pope County and CNB. It will also unnecessarily prolong the wait for casino tax revenue to flow to the coffers of the local and state government. This includes the significant percentage of the tax on casino gaming receipts that will go towards purses for Oaklawn thoroughbred racing.

Cherokee Nation Businesses is proving to be a good community partner. They have demonstrated that they want to be here. Before a license is issued and ground broken for the casino, CNB’s Legends Resort and Casino Arkansas has shown they are a good fit. Without public fanfare, they are stepping up, participating in food drives, the county fair, the state fair, Russelville Fall Festival, and numerous other events and programs.

Citizens For A Better Pope County styles itself in their newest lawsuit as a “Local Option Ballot Question Committee.” That ballot question was made moot when Pope County repealed local Ordinance 2018-O-42, which unconstitutionally called for a local election before county officials could fulfill their constitutionally assigned options for providing a letter or resolution of support for a casino operator. This group has no more standing in this case than any other group of Pope County citizens.

During a local video on January 6, Pope County JP Doug Skelton stated that, as citizens have learned more about the casino resort and its economic benefits, opinions have shifted to where the majority of Pope County residents are now in favor of it. He estimated that somewhere between 60 to 70 percent favored it.

Pope County Majority is a grassroots Facebook group with around 7,150 members. Our group is representative of a much larger group of local people who favor the construction of the casino and resort. I have talked to a number of people who are not members of our Facebook group. Some are not active on Facebook, some are reluctant to join our group because of possible repercussions at work, and other reasons, and some seldom or never use a computer. Virtually all have been either supportive of the casino or not opposed to it. Also, while some of the members of our Pope County Majority group do not live in Pope County, most do live here and, of those who don’t, most have ties to Pope County or live in neighboring counties.

Pope County wants Legends Resort and Casino Arkansas. It will be a catalyst for change in the River Valley and a boost for the economic health and viability of the entire area.

I respectfully urge you to issue the casino license to Cherokee Nation Businesses so that construction can begin on Legends Resort and Casino Arkansas.

Thank you,
Michael Goad
Dover, Arkansas

Best wishes — including a casino licensed in Pope County — to everyone for the New Year 2020!

Happy New Year!

Just around the corner…

… but you’re in good company!