the tobacco controversy in america: the tobacco controversy of 1857 revisited
DESCRIPTION
Throughout the nineteenth century the issue of tobacco smoking was an area of constant debate. In 1857 this debate became public through the pages of the British medical journal the Lancet in what is known as the Tobacco Controversy of 1857. The controversy in Great Britain initiated a thorough discussion over the effects of tobacco smoking in America. The debate was vibrant, but at the time it led to no significant results. However, the controversy created public awareness about the possible effects of tobacco smoking and laid an important foundation for future discussion, research, and legislation.TRANSCRIPT
The Tobacco Controversy in America
The Tobacco Controversy of 1857 Revisited
Colin Mustful
1
Contents
Abstract
Throughout the nineteenth century the issue of tobacco
smoking was an area of constant debate. In 1857 this
debate became public through the pages of the British
medical journal the Lancet in what is known as the
Tobacco Controversy of 1857. The controversy in Great
Britain initiated a thorough discussion over the effects of
tobacco smoking in America. The debate was vibrant, but
at the time it led to no significant results. However, the
controversy created public awareness about the possible
effects of tobacco smoking and laid an important
foundation for future discussion, research, and legislation.
Essay – 2
Appendix – 33
Excerpt from Samuel Solly, “Clinical Lectures on
Paralysis.”
Bibliography – 34
2
During the American Civil War cigarettes were
issued as a ration in the United States Navy and as a ration
to men enlisted in the Confederate Army.1 At the time
cigarettes were rare, but they were a perfect fit for the
soldier because they were small, easy to carry, and quick to
smoke.2 In addition to the convenience of cigarettes, they
also provided soldiers with a distraction from the hardships,
fear, and horrors of war.3 To soldiers, tobacco became a
1 According to Jerome E. Brooks, “tobacco was an
established ration issued in the United States Navy and it
was, by Act of the Confederate Congress, provided to
enlisted men.” Jerome E. Brooks, The Mighty Leaf:
Tobacco Through the Centuries (Boston: Little, Brown
and Company, 1952), 221. 2 Historian Eric Burns noted that to the soldiers,
“cigarettes seemed so tailor-made for battle that they might
have been designed by a quartermaster.” Eric Burns, The
Smoke of Gods: a social history of tobacco (Philadelphia:
Temple University Press, 2007), 131. 3 Burns commented that, “commanding officers
wanted their men to smoke, knowing that they needed
distraction from the ennui and horrors around them.” Ibid.,
125.
3
necessity of battle. However, despite the popularity of
cigarettes among soldiers in the Civil War, the habit failed
to attract the appeal of the general public. Men who
returned from battle did not carry the cigarette home with
them. Rather, most soldiers returned to the unhurried
comfort of the pipe or cigar.4
Though cigarettes were slow to gain public
popularity, tobacco was not. Before, during, and following
the American Civil War tobacco consumption was
constantly on the rise.5 By the 1860s, tobacco smoking had
become a much more public and widely practiced habit.
4 Here historian Burns wrote, “rather than bringing
the habit home with them, many soldiers seemed to believe
that they had now earned the right to return to their cigars
or pipes, to smoke unhurriedly again in safe, familiar
surroundings.” Ibid., 132. 5 Historian Jerome E. Brooks reported that, “the
value of manufactured tobacco products which had been
estimated at 30.9 millions in 1860 had, by 1880, risen to
116.8 millions.” Brooks, The Mighty Leaf, 235.
4
Due to its increased notoriety, smoking had also become
more widely discussed. Particularly, people sought to
discuss the effects of tobacco smoking. As more people
consumed tobacco, its effects became recognized and, at
times, thoroughly debated.
In the mid-nineteenth century opposition to tobacco
was not an entirely new phenomenon. Criticism of tobacco
goes as far back as 1604 when King James of England
produced his Counterblaste to Tobacco in which he
strongly denounced the use of tobacco.6 Despite spurts of
opposition over the centuries, it was not until the nineteenth
century that genuine discussion over the effects of tobacco
smoke emerged. In 1857 the most significant discussion
occurred in the British medical journal Lancet. The Lancet
posed the question, “Is Tobacco Smoking Injurious?” The
6 King James I, A Counterblaste to Tobacco (New
York: De Capo Press, 1604, 1969).
5
question provoked a multitude of responses from those both
for and against the use of tobacco. The debate represented
the first notable discussion in regards to the effects of
tobacco smoking. As noted by historian Eric Burns, the
“Lancet became the most reputable source yet to make
specific charges against tobacco.”7
The unique and extensive nature of the 1857
Tobacco Controversy presented in the pages of the Lancet
encouraged further debate about the effects of tobacco
smoking. Although the attack on tobacco resulted in
delayed reform, its immediate effect was quite minimal.
Historian Eric Burns observed that “the British citizenry
could not have been less alarmed by the Lancet
conclusions.”8 Furthermore, legislative action against
smoking in Great Britain was not taken for an entire half
7 Eric Burns, The Smoke of Gods, 190.
8 Ibid.
6
century following the 1857 Tobacco Controversy.
Although it may not have immediately influenced public
attitudes or legislative action, the debate began the process
of gathering data, evaluating information, and publicizing
conclusions.
In the United States during the mid nineteenth-
century a public debate about smoking as direct as that
found in the Lancet did not occur. However, as a result of
the 1857 Tobacco Controversy in Great Britain, American
periodicals and newspapers introduced the issue. But,
similar to the smoking debate in Great Britain, the
controversy in the United States produced few immediate
results or clear answers. Instead, there was continual
argument made for and against tobacco without reaching a
significant conclusion. Despite a lack of results the
American Tobacco Controversy remained important.
7
One notable consensus emerged from the American
Tobacco Controversy. All sides agreed that the effects of
tobacco smoking needed to be discussed. Although
physicians could hardly agree on the repercussions of
smoking, they knew it was important and that it could not
be ignored. While writing in the Lancet, physician David
Johnson noted that a discussion on the effects of tobacco
would indeed add a valuable contribution to medical
science.9 Though Johnson made an important observation,
he was not the first to make such a remark. As early as
1846, eleven years prior to the Tobacco Controversy, an
American, Reverend Benjamin Lane published the book,
Responses on the Use of Tobacco.10
In his work, Lane
invited responses from both clergy and physicians
9 David Johnson, “Is Smoking Inurious?” The
Lancet, i (3 Jan. 1857), 22. 10
Benjamin Ingersol Lane, Responses on the Use of
Tobacco (New York: Wiley and Putnam, 1846).
8
regarding their opinions and observations on the use of
tobacco. Lane sought to call attention to the use of tobacco
and to obtain facts from those who had them. Lane
suggested that “very few have turned their attention to the
subject of tobacco.”11
In an essay written nine years after Benjamin
Lane’s work, American physician S.A. Ogier expressed the
same opinion and argued that the effects of tobacco
smoking needed to be discussed. Although Ogier wrote his
essay two years prior to the 1857 Tobacco Controversy, he
noted that some physicians at the time believed the tobacco
question to be fully determined.12
Therefore, as early as
11
Ibid., 8. Supporting Lane, British clergyman
Beman suggested that the negative effects of tobacco are
endless and stated, “I wonder physicians keep silent as they
do.” Ibid., 155. 12
Ogier wrote that “to some this may appear a
useless consumption of time, regarding the question of its
being injurious as settled beyond dispute; such, would
9
1855, some held that the effects of tobacco smoking were
indisputably injurious. However, Ogier challenged this
notion and suggested that there is a diversity of opinion
regarding the effects of tobacco smoking throughout the
medical profession.13
In the conclusion of his essay, Ogier
added his hope of drawing attention to the subject of
tobacco smoking which he believed had not been
thoroughly discussed.14
In 1861 physician Dan King wrote an intensive
discourse on the use of tobacco in which he also stated that
certainly seem to be a rational view of the subject.” S.A.
Ogier, “Essay on the Use of Tobacco.” The Medical
Reporter, ii, no. 3 (Jan. 1855), 66. 13
Ibid. 14
Toward the end of his essay, Ogier wrote,
“enough has been said, I conceive to draw the attention of
the society to the subject, which I think has not received
that attention which its importance merits.” Ibid., 75.
10
the subject of tobacco smoking deserved attention.15
Furthermore, King referred to the comments made in the
Lancet by Samuel Solly and David Johnson during the
1857 Tobacco Controversy. This demonstrated, that
although King was aware of the previous debate concerning
the tobacco question, he still contended that it needed to be
discussed to a greater degree. Moreover, King showed here
that despite the somewhat limited scope of the 1857
Tobacco Controversy, it reached the attention of the
American medical profession.
If it had not been determined already, as late as
1867 contributors to local American periodicals still
suggested that the use of tobacco was a subject that
deserved attention. One physician, after having diagnosed
15
King stated, “the more the subject is examined,
the greater its importance appears, and the constantly
increasing consumption of tobacco, certainly deserves
attention.” Dan King, Tobacco; what it is, and what it does
(New York: S.S. & W. Wood, 1861), 11.
11
tobacco as a cause of amaurosis, suggested that his
discovery merited serious attention from the medical
profession.16
Another contributor, also writing in 1867,
strongly noted his belief that not only had the effects of
tobacco smoking been neglected, but that they had been
intentionally overlooked by those in the medical
profession.17
This may be because some physicians
disregarded the effects of tobacco smoking in order to
avoid conflict.18
Due to the popularity smoking had
16
Here the physician stated that “the circumstantial
evidence tending to connect the disease with the use of
tobacco as a cause deserves the serious attention of the
profession.” “Amaurosis Caused by Tobacco Smoking,”
Bangor Daily Whig and Courier (Bangor, ME), Nov. 7,
1867. 17
The author stated, “on the score of selfishness or
ignorance, the main body of the profession are mournfully
derelict in duty touching the ruinous effects of this great
and fashionable narcotic.” “Injurious Effects of Tobacco,”
The Christian Recorder (Philadelphia, PA), Aug. 3, 1867.
12
achieved, it was a delicate subject, and one which many
physicians avoided. One author, a supporter of smoking,
reasoned that the subject had not been completely discussed
because the effects of smoking are limited and few.19
Therefore, he believed that topic had been ignored because
it was irrelevant. Whether ignored or unnoticed,
contenders in the Tobacco Controversy recognized that the
effects of tobacco smoking needed to be discussed.
Those who did not ignore the subject of tobacco
smoking contrived a huge array of arguments both for and
18
In an article written in the Atlantic Monthly in
1860, the author states that “whichever side of the question
we may assume, as the most popular, or most right, the
feelings of so large and respectable minority are to be
consulted, that it behooves the critic or reviewer to move
cautiously.” “Tobacco,” Atlantic Monthly, 6 (Aug., 1860),
187. 19
The author asks the question, “How is it that the
great majority of men in every country can daily ‘poison’
themselves, and yet the effects of this imprudence escape
our notice?” “The Dangers and Delights of Tobacco,”
Every Saturday, 6 (Nov. 28, 1868), 679.
13
against the habit. For instance, tobacco opponents cited
physical disease, mental lethargy, and national
degeneration as negative effects of tobacco smoking.
Meanwhile, proponents cited mental stability, relaxation,
and comfort as positive effects of tobacco smoking.
Despite numerous arguments put forth during the 1857
Tobacco Controversy, there remained almost countless
other claims regarding the effects of tobacco smoking.
Though what was known was little, what was argued was
considerable.20
In the years surrounding the 1857 Tobacco
Controversy, tobacco opponents in the United States
aggressively publicized their arguments.21
Opponents
20
In an article about the effects of tobacco the
author stated that “what is absolutely known is very little.”
“Tobacco,” Atlantic Monthly, 195. 21
Writing in 1860 one author concluded, in regards
to the controversy, that “the reformers have hitherto had the
14
presented a vast amount of evidence and hearsay critical of
smoking, but their suggested reforms were ignored. The
critics contended that smoking caused, as well as
aggravated disease.22
Opponents recognized and argued
that smoking was the cause of disease.23
Opponents also contended that smoking weakened
the intellect. They argued that smoking slowed and
depressed the mind’s ability to think. They believed that
smoking hindered the mind so that it could no longer
function properly.24
better of it in point of argument, and have pushed the attack
with most vigor, yet but with trifling results.” Ibid., 187. 22
One author noted that “several forms of disease . . .
are greatly aggravated and often rendered fatal by the use
of tobacco.” “May I Use Tobacco?” The Christian
Recorder, (April 4, 1863). 23
Physician S.A. Ogier reported that “gesture
derangement is probably the most common, if not constant
attendant upon its use.” Ogier, “Essay on the Use of
Tobacc,” 71.
15
There were, of course, less popular arguments made
against tobacco smoking. One such argument was that
tobacco smoking made a man poor. In this case, opponents
recognized the effect of tobacco on the material well-being
of a man rather than on his physical or mental well-being.
One author noted that money spent on tobacco was, in
some cases, greater than the money spent on bread.25
Opponents considered it deplorable that a man use his
money on such a harmful habit, which only acted to make a
man poor.26
24
In one such case, physician Dan King remarked
that while smoking, “the mind is in a state of dreamy
repose so long as the stimulus lasts, and when that is
discontinued it sinks into a state of relapse, and in process
of time its powers become permanently enfeebled and
depraved.” King, Tobacco, 46. 25
In an 1863 article the author reported that “the
city of New York consumes $16,000 a day for cigars, and
$12,000 for bread – one fourth more everyday for the
pledge of a premature death than for the staff of life!”
“May I Use Tobaccco?” The Christian Recorder.
16
Another interesting, but less common argument of
opponents, had been that smoking was a cause of infidelity.
Writing in 1861, physician Dan King concluded that
“wherever tobacco is most used, infidelity is most
prevalent.”27
In fact, women seen smoking were often
assumed to be unchaste.28
Another commenter suggested
that smoking actually worked to separate men from women.
Smoking, he argued, “impairs virility” and leads men away
from women and toward the companionship of men.29
26
Physician Dan King argued that, “it is obvious
that all the money expended for tobacco is so much lost,
and as almost every one expends more or less in his way a
large portion of the people are made poorer by it.” King,
Tobacco, 60-61. 27
Ibid., 128. 28
Historian Jerome E. Brooks commented that “it
was a forgone conclusion with the reforming element that a
female who indulged in the new vice tacitly admitted that
she had relinquished her chastity.” Brooks, The Mighty
Leaf, 231.
17
Furthermore, the same author remarked that smoking had
the effect of making a man impolite. He stated that
“smoking dulls a man’s sense of the rights of others.”30
Though these effects had no physical consequences, they
still served as a warning against the habit of smoking.
In addition to these, opponents claimed numerous
other ill effects of smoking. Some denounced smoking as
the cause of deafness, blindness, and even insanity.
Opponents also argued that smoking acted to stunt growth
and cause a man to be a dwarf. Smoking was claimed as
bad for the heart which in turn shortened life. Also, it was
contended that smoking promoted drinking and therefore
29
The author argued that “tobacco, by disturbing
and impairing virility, tends to vitiate the relations between
the sexes, tends to lessen man’s interest in women and his
enjoyment of their society, and enables him to endure and
be contented with, and finally even to prefer, the
companionship of men.” An Old Smoker, “Does it Pay to
Smoke?” Atlantic Monthly, 21 (1868), 137. 30
Ibid., 138.
18
led to drunkenness. Others claimed that tobacco impaired
the appetite. Smoking was also noted to produce languor
and even fretfulness. Altogether, opponents viewed
tobacco as a torment whose effects were negative in every
sense. They sought as many reasons as possible to speak
out against the habit. Physician T.L. Wright properly
summarized the perspective of opponents when he wrote,
“the habitual use of tobacco, even when its most distressing
effects are not reached, is merely a slow but certain process
of dwarfing, or belittling, a man, both in an intellectual and
moral sense.”31
But, no matter the arguments expressed by
opponents, the effects of tobacco smoking were unclear to
physicians and the general public alike.32
Regardless,
31
T.L. Wright, “The Use of Tobacco,” Cincinnati
Lancet and Observer, 15 (1872), 283.
32 For instance, upon attending his patient in 1862,
Dr. P.J. Farnsworth wrote, “I questioned him now about his
smoking, and found that he had considered it so small a
matter as not to mention it.” P.J. Farnsworth, “Some of the
19
opponents were determined to make their viewpoint known
as shown through their near endless arguments.
The appeals of tobacco supporters were also
numerous, but did not compare to those of the tobacco
opponents. Those who spoke in favor of the use of tobacco
could not match the variety and multitude of opinions set
forth by opponents. However, proponents strongly
defended their case throughout the controversy. Arguments
made by proponents generally appealed to their affection
and fondness of tobacco smoking. Although they
occasionally questioned the accusations of opponents, most
proponents sought to exalt the use of tobacco rather than
deny its negative effects. The most popular argument
contended that tobacco soothed the working classes. This
argument was evident in the original Lancet debate and
continued in the comments of U.S. proponents. They
Effects of Tobacco,” American Medical Times, 5 (Oct. 4,
1862), 190.
20
believed that no matter if tobacco was an evil, it was a
necessary luxury to the poor and working men who needed
a break from the hardships of reality.33
Proponents
perceived that the calming, soothing, and relaxing benefits
of tobacco outweighed any negative effects produced by its
use.34
Proponents also claimed that tobacco contributed to
social cooperation. They suggested that the use of tobacco
brought people together. In this way, some believed
tobacco smoking erased class lines because of its ability to
bring rich and poor together.35
It also fostered gentlemanly
33
Speaking on behalf of tobacco one author asked,
“who could wish to deny a poor man a luxury so cheap, and
so dear to him?” An Old Smoker, “Does it Pay,” 129. 34
In an 1859 New York Times article the author
appealed that “all persons who have gone through long,
solitary, disheartening exertion in the open air, know the
soothing and sustaining power of tobacco.” “The Tobacco
Question,” New York Times (New York, NY), Aug. 23,
1859.
21
domestic habits.36
Rather than making a man rude,
proponents believed that it made a man more polite and
comfortable to be with.
From the perspective of the proponents, the
widespread use of tobacco signified its harmlessness. They
noted that the product of tobacco was used in excess all
around the world and that its use was always increasing.
Because of its wide use, proponents believed that it could
not have negative effects, or, at least that its effects could
not be as deleterious as suggested by opponents. They
claimed that since tobacco was so widely used, it must
35
The author here stated that “the remarkable
circumstance was, that all the difference which naturally
exists, and naturally appears, between an educated and an
uneducated person was obliterated; and it seemed, too, that
the smoke was the common element in which the two were
blended.” An Old Smoker, “Does it Pay,” 135. 36
One author suggested that “smoking is eminently
social, and favors domestic habits.” “Tobacco,” Atlantic
Monthly, 199.
22
therefore have had an enriching quality and did not possess
any negative aspects.37
In order to further support their side of the argument,
proponents also proposed that the effects of tobacco
smoking were different for each individual. They
suggested that although the effects are negative for some,
they are positive for others. In this way, proponents did not
deny certain baneful effects, but instead suggested that each
individual must decide for himself if he chooses to
smoke.38
Because proponents could not be sure of the
37
To support this argument one author wrote, “from
these columns of consumption we may logically deduce
two prime points for argument. First, that an article so
widely used must possess some peculiar quality producing
a desirable effect. Second, that an article so widely used
cannot produce any marked deleterious effect.”
“Tobacco,” Atlantic Monthly, 192. 38
One author, writing in 1868, petitioned that, “it is
in every man’s power to answer very decidedly for himself
the very important question whether tobacco is injurious to
him.” “The Dangers,” Every Saturday, 684.
23
direct medical effects of smoking, they determined that it
ought to be left as a matter of personal choice. Though
smoking may have been injurious to some, they argued that
it could not be injurious to all. For instance, while writing
in 1862, physician P.J. Farnsworth conceded that smoking
was injurious, but that only one of five users experienced
its deleterious effects.39
And even for those who were
made ill by tobacco, he argued, smoking may still have
been considered a benefit.40
Among the numerous arguments, both sides agreed
from the earliest stages of the debate that tobacco use
among youths was deleterious and should be prohibited.41
39
P.J. Farnsworth, “Some of the Effects of
Tobacco,” 190. 40
Physician S.A. Ogier wrote, “Alas that the sweet
feeling of satisfaction and repose, must be disturbed by the
painful conviction of disease induced by the indulgence;
but so it is.” Ogier, Essay on the Use of Tobacco, 71.
24
Also, both sides pleaded that smoking among youths
should be forbidden.42
Contributors to the debate clearly
recognized smoking was detrimental to youth development
although they may not have acknowledged the same effects
among adults.
Ultimately, the lack of a consensus on the effects of
smoking during the second half of the nineteenth century
limited legislative action against smoking. In Great Britain,
legislative action was not taken against smoking until 1908,
when Parliament passed the Children’s Charter Act
41
While writing in 1860, an author who strongly
supported the use of tobacco wrote, “on one point we are
sure . . . and that is in a sincere denunciation of the habit of
smoking at a tender age.” “Tobacco,” Atlantic Monthly,
202. 42
An 1865 newspaper article wrote, “in these days
we need to increase the intellectual and bodily strength of
our youth: we therefore beg of the masters of schools, of
the fathers, mothers, and others who have charge of boys to
have no hesitation about the matter, but to put out the pipes
of the small boys at once.” The Daily Miners’ Register,
“Tobacco Smoking,” October 6, 1865.
25
forbidding the sale of tobacco to youths age sixteen and
under. In America, legislative prohibitions occurred sooner
than in Great Britain, but those results remained limited and
temporal.
In 1864 the U.S. federal government began to tax
cigarettes.43
Though this did not restrict their sale, it may
have acted to deter their demand. In the seventeenth
century King James issued a tobacco tax for this very
reason.44
It was not until 1883 that legislative action was
taken to prohibit the sale of tobacco when New Jersey
made it illegal to sell tobacco to youths age sixteen and
under.45
Though this was not a federal law, it represented
43 Cassandra Tate, Cigarette Wars: The Triumph of
the Little White Slaver, (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1999), 12-13. 44
Burns, Smoke of Gods, 47. 45
U.S. Congressional Serial Set, 51st Cong., 2nd
sess., Serial Set Vol. No. 2821, Session Vol. No. 3.
26
substantive action against tobacco smoking. Also, it took
place twenty-five years prior to the Children’s Charter Act
in Great Britain. Numerous states followed New Jersey’s
example and by 1892 twenty-nine states had passed laws
forbidding the sale of tobacco to minors.46
The opponents of smoking gained significant
support in 1892 when the U.S. Senate Committee on
Epidemic Disease called cigarettes a public health hazard.47
The Senators apparently paid heed to an 1892 petition to
Congress by physician Prentiss D. Webster, who concluded,
“I cannot express too strongly, from a medical point of
view, my opinion of the grave, deleterious effects of the use
of tobacco – especially by cigarette smoking – by young
person.”48
Here, Webster reflected the growing judgment
46
Ibid. 47
Burns, Smoke of Gods, 156.
27
against tobacco smoking. Furthermore, historian Cassandra
Tate commented that by the 1890s, “the question was not
whether cigarettes were harmful . . . but whether it was
possible or desirable to obliterate them by law.”49
Then, in 1893, Washington became the first state to
ban the buying, selling, and manufacturing of cigarettes
altogether.50
Between 1895 and 1909 twelve other states
made it completely illegal to smoke cigarettes thereby
following the precedent set by Washington State.51
Unfortunately, such laws were not rigidly enforced. As
noted by historian Eric Burns, “a cop’s mood on a given
48
U.S. Congressional Serial Set, 51st Cong., 2nd
sess., Serial Set Vol. No. 2821, Session Vol. No. 3.
49
Tate, Cigarette Wars, 46. 50
Tate, Cigarette Wars, 46. 51
Burns, Smoke of Gods, 149.
28
day, or his own particular cravings or lack thereof for
tobacco, might be all that determined a smoker’s fate.”52
The culmination of early anti-tobacco legislation
occurred in the beginnings of the twentieth century. By
1916, every state had a law of some sort restricting the sale
of tobacco.53
But, in the same year, author William Young
observed that “there is every evidence that anti-cigarette
legislation, which a few years ago was rampant all over the
country, is rapidly dying out.”54
After 1916 legislation
against tobacco continued to diminish and by 1927 all
fourteen states that had previously banned the sale of
52
Ibid., 156. 53
William Wesley Young, The Story of the
Cigarette (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1916),
274. 54
William Wesley Young, The Story of the
Cigarette, 275.
29
cigarettes lifted their restrictions to at least a partial
degree.55
In the end, little had changed.
Throughout the latter half of the nineteenth century
the tobacco habit grew and changed, but was unaltered by
controversy. As debate over the tobacco habit rose and fell
little had been determined of its effects. By the twentieth
century legislators knew enough to say smoking was
injurious, but their laws were neither enforced nor
permanent. Instead, whether the effects of smoking were
slandered or advocated, smoking continued.56
The Tobacco Controversy, however, was not as
irrelevant as its immediate results imply. Firstly, the 1857
Tobacco Controversy put forth in the Lancet was a
55
Burns, Smoke of Gods, 168. 56
In an 1868 essay the author noted that in the
previous ten years tobacco consumption had doubled. This
just following the 1857 Tobacco Controversy. “Dangers
and Delights,” Every Saturday, 679.
30
remarkably unique catalyst for continued debate on the
effects of tobacco smoking. Never before had such a vast
array of opinion been discussed about the effects of tobacco
in such a concise time frame as it had in the Lancet. The
Lancet acted as an open forum for allegation and retort.
Ultimately it incited a prolonged debate on the effects of
tobacco smoking and aroused the prolonged and vibrant
tobacco controversy in America. Though the Civil War
helped popularize smoking, the 1857 Tobacco Controversy
made it an issue. Since the question over the injurious
effects had been introduced and discussed in detail in Great
Britain, it enabled American physicians to continue and
sustain the discussion. Over time the opponents
successfully lobbied Congress and state governments. In
the early twentieth century anti-smoking legislation swept
the country, yet only a decade later they were reversed.
Thus the fate of anti-smoking legislation in the United
31
States produced the same irresolution as the original debate
in 1857 did in England. In effect the proponents won, until
better information was obtained in the 1960s.
From its beginnings, the effects of tobacco smoking
have been continually debated. But, it was not until the
mid-nineteenth century that a true, effective, and valuable
discussion about the effects of tobacco smoking started.
The smoking debate was defined in 1857 through the pages
of the Lancet and continued through American periodicals.
Throughout the latter half of the nineteenth century in
America, tobacco smoking was discussed, debated, and
revealed to be unfit for the well-being of its users. Though
the debate extended over many years and resulted in
minimal action against smoking, the American Tobacco
Controversy was real and its results were relevant. The
American Tobacco Controversy, similar to its predecessor
32
in 1857, was important and necessary toward determining
the true effects of tobacco smoking.
33
Appendix
Excerpt from Samuel Solly, “Clinical Lectures on
Paralysis”
“There was another habit, also, in which my patient
indulged, and which I cannot but regard as the curse of the
present age. I mean smoking. Now, don’t be frightened
my young friends, I am not going to give a sermon against
smoking, that is not my business; but it is my business to
point out to you all the various and insidious causes of
general paralysis, and smoking is one of them. I know of
no single vice which dose so much harm as smoking. It is a
snare and a delusion. It soothes the excited nervous system
at the time, to render it more irritable and more feeble
ultimately. It is like opium in that respect, and if you want
to know all the wretchedness which this drug can produce,
you should read the ‘Confessions of an Opium-eater.’ I can
always distinguish by his complexion a man who smokes
much, and the appearance which the fauces present is an
unerring guide to the habits of such a man. I believe that
cases of general paralysis are more frequent in England
than they used to be, and I suspect that smoking tobacco is
one of the causes of that increase.”
Solly, Samuel. “Clinical Lectures on Paralysis.” The
Lancet, December 13, 1856, 641.
34
Bibliography
Unpublished Federal Documents
U.S. Congressional Serial Set, 51st Cong., 2nd sess., Serial
Set Vol. No. 2821, Session Vol. No. 3.
Books
Brooks, Jerome E. The Mighty Leaf: Tobacco Through
the Centuries. Boston: Little, Brown and Company,
1952.
Burns, Eric. The Smoke of Gods: A Social History of
Tobacco. Philadelphia: Temple University Press,
2007.
King, Dan. Tobacco; what it is, and what it does. New
York: S.S. & W. Wood, 1861.
King James I. A Counterblaste to Tobacco. New York:
De Capoo Press, 1604, 1969.
Lane, Benjamin Ingersol. Responses on the Use of
Tobacco. New York: Wiley and Putnam, 1846.
Tate, Cassandra. Cigarette Wars: The Triumph of the
Little White Slaver. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1999.
Young, William Wesley. The Story of the Cigarette. New
York: D. Appleton and Company, 1916.
Periodicals
35
An Old Smoker. “Does it Pay to Smoke?” Atlantic
Monthly. Vol. 21. (1868).
Farnsworth, P.J. “Some of the Effects of Tobacco.”
American Medical Times. Vol. 5 (October 4, 1862).
Johnson, David. “Is Smoking Injurious?” The Lancet,
January 3, 1857, 22.
Ogier, S.A. “Essay on the Use of Tobacco.” The Medical
Reporter. Vol. 2, No. 3. (January 1855).
“The Dangers and Delights of Tobacco.” Every Saturday.
Vol. 6. (November 28, 1868).
“Tobacco.” Atlantic Monthly. Vol. 6. (August 1860).
Wright, T.L. “The Use of Tobacco.” Cincinnati Lancet
and Observer. Vol. 15 (1872).
Newspapers
Bangor Daily Whig and Courier
New York Times
The Christian Recorder
The Daily Miners’ Register