A Tudor Story – Part Two

Dear Readers,

Three years ago, I began a series of posts about the Tudor dynasty of England – one of my favorite subjects of historical study. However, due to tragic circumstances (namely, high school), I never actually got around to writing more than one post.

Now that I have so much free time, I have decided to continue the series. Without further ado, I present to you… 


It is a question many people, both historians and non-historians, have asked throughout the years: which of his six wives did Henry love the most?

The answer, frankly, is probably something along the lines of “None of them, because he was a hedonistic, egotistical hippopotamus* who didn’t actually care much about anything” – but that isn’t particularly pleasing, isn’t it?

So instead, a lot of people argue that it’s either Wife #1, Catherine of Aragon… or Wife #2, Anne Boleyn. Since my last post was rather terse, I’m going to take some time to provide a backstory for each woman.


The Infanta Catalina of Aragon was, from the moment of her birth, destined for greatness. Her mother, Isabella of Castile, had eloped with Ferdinand of Aragon, thus joining their two kingdoms. They then proceeded to:

a) Drive the Moors, or Muslims, out of Spain


b) Have a whole bunch of kids

One of those children was Catalina of Aragon, born in 1485 (incidentally, the same year in which the House of Lancaster, led by Henry Tudor, vanquished the House of York, led by the then-monarch Richard III). As a young woman, she was betrothed to Arthur Tudor, Prince of Wales – son of Henry VII – and sent across the sea to meet her new husband. In the months after their marriage, Catalina – renamed the anglicized “Catherine” – reportedly sat in on Arthur’s meetings, and helped her husband with his affairs of state (Henry VII, who was frankly quite misogynistic, was not very pleased about this).

All in all, it seemed like a fairly decent royal marriage. The Princess was a foreigner, yes; but she was quite pretty, and smart to boot. Everything was going swimmingly-

Until Arthur, who had never been the healthiest of teenagers, kicked the bucket, and Catherine was suddenly bereft of everything. Literally bereft – King Henry wouldn’t pay her an allowance, and she couldn’t work (for obvious reasons), so all she really had left was the dowry her father had given her for Henry. Resultantly, she wore old, tattered clothes while eating stale, meager food… off of valuable solid-gold plates – which she couldn’t sell unless she wanted a furious former father-in-law breathing down her neck.

HOWEVER, her life was about to undergo another drastic change. King Henry VII was getting on in years, and his health was consequently taking a bit of a nosedive – something which his current heir, Arthur’s younger brother Henry, knew all too well. Prince Henry also knew full well about his brother’s widow’s unpleasant situation – and decided that, despite her being seven years older than him, he was going to wed her, thus pulling her out of her misery and restoring her to her intended position.

And when Henry VII hopped the twig** in the year 1509, that is exactly what the new King Henry VIII did. The new English royal couple was a breathtaking sight: he was a tall, fiery-haired seventeen-year-old with a “face like an angel”, and she was a petite, curvaceous twenty-three-year-old with a cloud of strawberry blonde hair and big blue eyes. Where Henry VII had been dour and miserly, Henry VIII was (seemingly) generous and fun-loving. He participated in jousts, held frequent banquets, and was hopelessly in love with his pretty Spanish wife.

 A few months after the marriage, Catherine fell pregnant***. However, this pregnancy ended in a miscarriage. However, she did manage to carry her next pregnancy to term, resulting in the birth of a son – Prince Henry of Wales. Henry VIII was overjoyed, for he had been gifted with his greatest dream, a son to carry on the Tudor name.

Less than two months later, that gift was rudely snatched away from him when Prince Henry, a sickly baby, cashed in his chips. Thus began a long chain of stillbirths and miscarriages. Only one healthy infant – the Princess Mary – was born, in 1516.

Faced with this barrage of failed pregnancies, King Henry’s love for his wife began to crumble like a piece of termite-infested wood****. Where he had once ignored the six-year age difference between himself and his wife, he now looked upon it as the root of all his problems: his wife was simply too old to give birth to the sons he desired.

And so he began to ponder the idea of an annulment, which would erase his marriage to Catherine and allow him to seek a younger, more fertile bride. Initially, his closest advisor, Cardinal Thomas Wolsey, approved of this plan, and set about researching good marital prospects for the still-young King.

But in 1526, the Cardinal’s dream – of King Henry marrying a nice Catholic princess – turned up its toes – because of a twenty-five-year-old lady-in-waiting named Anne Boleyn.

Thus concludes Part II of A Tudor Story! (I hope that was a suitable enough cliffhanger…)

*No offense intended; I’m sure hippopotamuses are lovely creatures. Highly aggressive and capable of lethal violence, yes – but lovely nonetheless.

**Challenge: How many folksy euphemisms for “died” are present in this post?

***This site is an awesome resource on all things Tudor, and it’s great for brushing up my memory on Catherine’s list of pregnancies: http://www.theanneboleynfiles.com/the-pregnancies-of-anne-boleyn-and-catherine-of-aragon/ 

****This would not be a History Hacker post without at least one ludicrous simile.

The Keystone XL Pipeline: Congress, PLEASE Vote “No”!

Dear Readers,

I haven’t written too much about politics in the past – but with the Keystone XL vote looming up on Friday, I had to dig up one of my old pieces about it and post it. This issue is just way too important to ignore.

For those of you who aren’t sure what I’m talking about, here’s a quick recap: the Keystone Pipeline runs from Alberta, Canada, to Illinois, Texas and Oklahoma. It already exists. What DOESN’T currently exist is Phase IV of it, the Keystone XL Pipeline extension, which would run through a good deal of the Midwest – including the Sandhills region of Nebraska, a prairie ecosystem and American National Natural Landmark. I am strongly opposed to it, due to the severely negative impact it could have on the environment, as well as its failure to create many permanent jobs.

Here goes:

The green energy sector is not simply important. It is our future, and our children’s future. As I have mentioned in previous posts, oil is running out at an alarming rate, and coal – while plentiful – poses far too many dangers to the environment to be used in large quantities. The Ivanpah Solar Plant in California marks the beginning of a new, sustainable era… and I believe that we must – pardon the pun – focus our energies on cultivating a strong green energy sector.

In regards to the Keystone Pipeline project’s job creation capabilities: we must ask ourselves how realistic our current expectations are. The Trans-Alaskan Pipeline was expected to create an enormous number of permanent jobs for Alaskans; however, “The Wall Street Journal concluded in September 1979 that the “capital intensive” oil industry had failed to create a significant number of permanent jobs for Alaska.  After the pipeline was completed, unemployment grew, reaching 15% by June 1977.  By September 1979 it had dropped to 11%, but private industry failed to expand substantially.  40% of Alaska’s workforce remained on the public payroll.” So when that Nebraska judge struck down the Keystone Pipeline, it was for the best. 

You know, the development of green energy can create jobs, too. In fact, it may even create more jobs – for, in order to create an efficient green energy industry, we need entrepreneurs: confident, intelligent thinkers and doers. Let us give our future generations a chance to excel; a chance to breathe cleaner air and live healthier lives.


The History Hacker

The Civil War – A Lecture (Part Three)

It’s been nearly a year since I’ve had time to continue this series. Some of you may be under the impression that I have given it up – but trust me, I have not. I would never give up a chance to write about the Civil War. So, without further ado, here it is!


153 years after the crack of cannons at Fort Sumter signaled the start of America’s bloodiest conflict, Abraham Lincoln’s public image has undergone a drastic change. In the eyes of many Americans, he was not only a President, but also a Jedi, a Time Lord, and Zeus all rolled into one*. In our country’s popular opinion, the deep-voiced and stately Lincoln singlehandedly stormed the Confederacy, spreading freedom and equality by reciting the Gettysburg Address at his enemies, and/or whapping them in the cranium with a large flagpole.

Actually, this is fairly inaccurate, and not just because Lincoln never whapped anyone’s cranium with anything (‘though a certain politician did – more on that later). Contemporaries describe our sixteenth president as very tall and somewhat ugly, with a squeaky voice and distinct Kentucky twang. (He also shared his birthday – February 12, 1809 – with Charles Darwin. Coincidence? WE THINK NOT!**) And – most importantly – he exactly didn’t start out as an abolitionist. (Okay, well, technically, no one started out as an abolitionist, because – generally speaking – newborn infants do not tend to embrace any particular political ideologies***.) But even as a budding lawyer and Congressman, he didn’t voice outright support of abolitionism****. Instead, he was a free-soiler: someone who believed that slavery should stay contained in the South, and not spread to any new territories America might acquire. He believed that African-Americans had the right to live their own lives – but, for the most part, he also believed that they were naturally inferior to whites, and didn’t seem to be in a hurry to end slavery anytime soon. During the famed Lincoln-Douglas debates, he voiced the opinion that “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races….”*****

Given all this, the South shouldn’t have been too worried. However, Lincoln’s moderately anti-slavery viewpoint set alarm bells ringing in the state of South Carolina. Actually, for that matter, many things set alarm bells ringing in South Carolina, prompting bizarre and often drastic overreactions. In 1859, for example New York Senator Charles Sumner****** gave a rather incendiary anti-slavery speech, insulting a senior senator from South Carolina in the process. Senator Preston Brooks of South Carolina, who happened to be related to Sumner’s target, took offense – so, after the session had adjourned, Senator Brooks calmly confronted Senator Sumner and explained his grievances in detail.

HAHAHAHA no. That is far too sane a route for any politician, especially a nineteenth-century one, to take. Instead, Senator Brooks decided to brain Senator Sumner with his cane in front of a large group of aghast Congressmen (following this scene, all of them immediately quit and joined the circus instead, voicing the opinion that “at least it’s more logical than bloody Congress”).

Unsurprisingly, this event proved to be extremely polarizing – even more so than the publication of Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Northerners immediately accused Senator Brooks of being unnecessarily violent and foul-tempered – while many Southerners sprang to his defense, claiming that Sumner deserved it all, dammit, because no one badmouths a Southerner’s relatives without getting concussed!

The end result: the Brooks-Sumner debacle, combined with a Northern, Republican, free-soiler presidential candidate, had prompted South Carolina to wake up and smell the foul, conspiracy-laden coffee. The government was out to get them – or, more accurately, out to get their slaves. There was only one thing left to do: threaten secession.

Now, this was pretty old territory for South Carolina: back in 1828, when tariffs were too high for their taste, South Carolinians banded together and claimed that if the hated taxes weren’t lowered, they would secede from the country. At that point, they ended up backing away from their claim, and the Union was saved.

This time, however, they would not be so lenient.

Months passed, and the presidential campaign continued. Due to a feud over slavery, the once-mighty Democratic party had split into Northern and Southern sections, with each running a separate candidate. This greatly weakened their chances of winning the election – and, accordingly, when November rolled around, Abe Lincoln, the fledgling Republican Party candidate, claimed victory.

On December 20, 1860, in a move that shocked many citizens, the state of South Carolina voted unanimously to secede from the United States of America. All eyes turned to the then-president, James Buchanan, who was nearing his last few weeks in office. According to the historical records, President Buchanan’s reaction to South Carolina’s secession was a resigned shrug and a deep swig of whisky.

(Needless to say, President Buchanan was not particularly popular.)

All throughout the winter and spring of 1861, just as Lincoln’s first term began, other Deep South states followed in South Carolina’s wake: Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas, in that order. Those seven states then banded together to form a new country: the Confederate States of America. Its capital was in Montgomery, Alabama;  its first President was Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, and its Vice President was Alexander Stephens of Georgia. (Incidentally, President Davis was only one or two years older than President Lincoln, and had been born just a few miles away from Lincoln’s birthplace*******.)

Then, until April 12, the two countries – USA and CSA – proceeded to have a staring contest of epic proportions. States caught in the middle, such as Virginia and Tennessee, squirmed in their seats and hoped that they wouldn’t be driven to take sides. No actual battles had happened yet, so perhaps there was a chance of peaceful reconciliation-

Oh, who are we kidding? There was about as much chance of peaceful reconciliation as there was when Senator Brooks first pulled his Cane of Doom on Senator Sumner. And sure enough, on April 12, 1861, tensions exploded – in the form of the First Battle of Fort Sumter.

Fort Sumter is located in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina. When that state seceded, it claimed all the Federal forts located inside its borders, including Sumter. If Lincoln dared to send troops to defend Sumter, the Confederacy warned, there would be hell to pay.

Lincoln didn’t send troops to defend Sumter. But, in April, he did send troops to supply the soldiers already in the fort. Immediately, the Confederates (commanded by a charismatic Louisianan general named Maria Josepha Johanna von- sorry, I mean Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard) opened fire – and, by the next day, had taken the fort. (Although there were no human casualties during the fight, two men did die during the Union artillery salute…)

This was nothing short of an act of war. Therefore, Lincoln called out for 75,000 volunteers for the army – especially pleading with the states of the Upper South. This, unfortunately, proved to be somewhat of a mistake: four Upper Southern states (Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee) were so incensed by Lincoln’s request that they, too, withdrew from the Union.

As a popular song from the era, “The Bonnie Blue Flag”, put it: “The single star of our bonnie blue flag has grown to be eleven!” The secessionists no longer comprised a tiny percentage of the population. A third of the United States had broken off and formed a new, hostile country, one which had already fired on Federal property and was currently building up an army as fast as it could.

It looked like war was inevitable. 


*Some noted historians also believe he may have been Batman.

**Sorry, Watson/Holmes fans, but Abe Lincoln and Charles Darwin would be the most BADASS crime-fighting team ever.

***With the exception of certain politicians: I can totally see Michele Bachmann screaming about 2nd Amendment rights a split second after emerging from the womb, can’t you?

****Someone who was much more outspoken on the topic of racial equality was Thaddeus Stevens, a radical Republican Senator from Pennsylvania (we will touch upon him in a later post). But, from what I have gathered, no one actually seems to know who he is, apart from “that wig dude in Lincoln“.

*****Source: http://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation

******No, they were not long-lost brothers. Even though they kinda-sorta-maybe looked alike, just a little bit.


Dear Readers,

It has been approximately six months since I last posted on my blog. There are many reasons for this: the six AP courses I was foolhardy enough to take in my senior year, an extended trip to England and India during the summer, etc. The main reason, however, is that, once college decisions season ended, I was swiftly and brutally walloped with an attack of advanced senioritis, and spent the next half a year doing nothing but listening to banjo music and reading alternate-universe stories about the Tudor dynasty.

Now my senioritis has been thoroughly cured, and I have deferred my admission to university for a year**, I have plenty of time to do whatever I want. Namely, self-study Physics and Calculus, teach myself Latin, read the dictionary, and write plenty of odd blog entries***.

So get ready, Readers, to be inundated with weird historical facts and an abundance of extremely bad jokes – for The History Hacker is ALIVE!
(dramatic and uplifting music begins to play)

*As far as I know

**Why, you ask? Well, I say: why not?

***As you can see, I have a very rich and diverse social life

My (Your) History Buddy!

Last year, I made my first app. It’s called MyHistoryBuddy. I wanted to name it Hip Historical Hotspots, but my dad told me that my name sounded like a bad disco song, so I went with MyHistoryBuddy instead: http://myhistorybuddy.appspot.com. 

At first glance, MyHistoryBuddy looks like a map. However, it is far more than that. It is a Super Map. A map to overshadow all maps. It’s a map that determines your location, then puts big red markers on every historical landmark within a certain radius*. And if you click on one of the aforementioned big red markers, a little pin-slash-speech-bubble pops up, with the name of the historical landmark, as well as its Wikipedia page and an automatic Google search.

History + technology cannot get cooler than this. It just can’t. 

Except, that is, for my new app, which creates – drumroll please – short MOVIES on every Civil War battle, complete with little sparkly flags and lots of cursive. It’s as yet unnamed, and about 40% of the way done. I’m hoping to release it very soon – preferably sometime during the summer!


*This value is confidential. If I told you, I’d have to steal Harry Potter’s wand and perform an “Obliviate” spell on you immediately afterward.

…just kidding, I forgot it, and if I wanted to write it down I’d have to dig through all my old code, which I don’t feel like doing at the moment.

Macbeth: Internet Style (Part 3)

Part 3. It gets intense, people. There’s even a dagger named Bartholomew.



duncan: cawdors dead rite?

malcolm: yep… he practiced for it, apparently

duncan: weirdo

duncan: oh hey macbeth

macbeth: hey

duncan: ur thane of cawdor!!!!!!11!

macbeth: ya ross told me

duncan: oh yeah by the way im coming 2 dinner @ ur castle & staying da night

macbeth: ya, ross sed that 2

duncan: :-) 😉 good fella

macbeth: ya… kk writin to wife

duncan: didnt u do that b4 u came??

macbeth: DUUDE >.<

macbeth: i do *not* bring my laptop to battle….

macbeth: hey, can i use urs

duncan: yeah sure room on left

macbeth: kk thanx



lady macbeth: WOOOOO!!11! hubby=thane of cawdor!! yeah! ‘n witches say hes gonna be king!!!!!! 

lady macbeth: that’s it, imma stop bein a woman RIGHT NOW.



macbeth: O____________________O

lady macbeth: dude you gonna be KIIING


macbeth: D:

lady macbeth: _what_ did u say?

macbeth: im *not* gonna be king

lady macbeth: but youd make a gret king!!!1!!!

macbeth: honey, we have a king. his name is DUNCAN.

lady macbeth: honey, we have a weapon. its name is *DAGGER*

macbeth: actually, i recently christened it Bartholomew- WAIT, WHAT RU SAYIN?!

lady macbeth: let’s kill duncan!

macbeth: HELL no!!!!!!!!!!!1111

macbeth: whats WRONG wit u

lady macbeth: DO IT

macbeth: nooooo you joking ill get in big trouble

lady macbeth: >:-(

lady macbeth: well, i guess i’m more of a man than you EVER were

macbeth: WHAT

macbeth: THAT’S NOT TRUE

macbeth: x-( x-( x-(

macbeth: m(>_<)^

macbeth: ….

lady macbeth: 😉

macbeth: ok ok ill do it… jeez, woman

lady macbeth: 😀 😀 😀 😀

lady macbeth: come here, you <(^_^)> *hug*


The Civil War – A Lecture (Part Two)

Here I am again, with Part Two! This is the part that I didn’t actually script beforehand. It’s also the part during which I explain the lecture’s tagline – “How Hollywood Almost Became Part of Colorado.”



So, to recap the last episode of the Great Soap Opera of the American Nineteenth Century: Thomas Jefferson’s daughter, Martha, walked in on her father with- WAIT! SORRY! WRONG EPISODE! To recap the last episode, the Compromise of 1850 was passed – California was admitted as free, and Utah and New Mexico could choose their status – free or slave.

Oh yes, I almost forgot. The Compromise of 1850 had just one more part to it: a tiny little thing, really, called the “Fugitive Slave Act.” The Fugitive Slave Act decreed that any enslaved people who escaped to the free states wouldn’t be free – they’d be labeled “contraband” and shipped back to their Southern owners ASAP. Given the increase of abolitionist sentiments in the North, it was only natural that Northerners bitterly resented the Fugitive Slave Act, and resisted it as much as they could – something that the Southerners whose slaves were escaping did not take kindly. Thus, the so-called Compromise of 1850 only served to deepen the gap between the South and the rest of the country.

The event that really, truly sealed the divide, though, wasn’t a law. It wasn’t a riot. Nope, it was a book. A book that was published in 1852… a book named Uncle Bob’s Cabin.

JUST KIDDING! Its real name was Uncle Tom’s Cabin. It’s a pretty famous book… so let’s see how much YOU, dear reader, know about it:


True or false:

1) Harriet Tubman, the author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin had never been to the Deep South.

2) Two main characters – a slave and a slave-owner – were both named George.

3) The main antagonist was a Southerner named Simon Legree.










1) False. The author’s name was Harriet Beecher Stowe. Harriet Tubman was an escaped slave who helped run the Underground Railroad.

2) True. George Harris is a slave and the husband of Eliza Harris – and George Shelby is the son of Uncle Tom’s owner.

3) False. Simon Legree was a Northerner, from Vermont (although he did move to Louisiana).


How’d you do? If you’ve discovered that you need a refresher, here’s a quick summary of the book:

Uncle Tom, a middle-aged slave, belongs to the Shelby family of Kentucky. The Shelbys are decent people, and Tom leads a relatively peaceful life with his wife and children. However, one day, the Shelby patriarch realizes that he’s in debt, and decides to sell some slaves. He settles on two: Tom and a toddler named Harry Harris. Harry’s mother, Eliza, finds out about her son’s pending sale – and decides to run away. After a protracted struggle, Eliza, Harry, and Eliza’s husband George manage to escape the slave-catchers and reach the safety of Canada.

Meanwhile, Uncle Tom gets sold “down the river” in Louisiana – originally as a house servant to a kind family in New Orleans, and later (when pretty much everyone in the aforementioned kind family kicks the bucket in a plethora of horrible ways) as a field hand to the dreaded Simon Legree. Legree hates Tom’s Christian attitude, and eventually orders him to be beaten to death. 

 Uncle Tom’s Cabin quickly became one of America’s greatest bestsellers, beaten only by the Bible. Millions of people across the country purchased copies, and, touched by the horrific ordeals of Uncle Tom and the Harris family, began to question the institution of slavery.

Naturally, the Southern aristocrats, whose fortunes and livelihoods depended on their slaves, didn’t take too kindly to this. They absolutely panned Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and denied that there was any truth in it – claiming that, since the Southernmost state Stowe had visited was Kentucky, she had no right to write about Deep Southern slavery. The book caused such violent arguments that, when he finally met her, Lincoln addressed Stowe as “the little woman who started the big war”.

From then on, the 1850s were one enormous sectionalist disaster. In 1857, Dred Scott – a Missouri slave – sued for his freedom, on the grounds that he and his master had been living on free soil for a few years. The chief justice of the Supreme Court, a Marylander by the name of Robert Taney, struck down the case, declaring that slaves were not American citizens, and therefore Scott had no right to file a lawsuit. Taney’s decision outraged the abolitionists, and drove another wedge into the widening gap between the North and the South.

Let’s take a short interlude here and travel west – to the state of California, far removed from all of this political turmoil.

Or was it? Although the slavery issue wasn’t hotly debated in California, a free state, the situation was far from idyllic. For one thing, the southernmost part of California – including Los Angeles and San Diego – believed that, as they were too dissimilar from the northern part, they should secede and form a new state, Colorado. This was actually their second attempt at secession – the first took place in 1854, and was almost approved; the President rejected it at the last minute. Now, in 1859, what with the dramatic rise in tensions between the North and the South, California absolutely could not be allowed to split up – so SoCal grudgingly agreed to stick with its northern half.

Aaaaand that’s how Hollywood almost ended up in Colorado. Wrap your mind around that for a minute.

Returning to the East: one of the most momentous incidents of the decade took place in 1859, when John Brown, a fervent abolitionist who vaguely resembled an electrocuted hawk, decided to incite a slave uprising in Harpers Ferry, Virginia (now part of West Virginia). Harpers Ferry was a thriving factory town; Brown’s successfully capturing it would pose a serious threat to Virginia and the rest of the South.

Unfortunately for him, most slaves didn’t dare take part in the armed rebellion, and Brown’s group was quickly captured – by none other than then-Colonel Robert E. Lee. Brown was hanged in Charleston, Virginia; his execution was guarded by Thomas Jonathan Jackson and his cadets from the Virginia Military Institute.

The death of John Brown served as another blow to the country’s already crumbling foundation – but the straw that really broke the camel’s back came in the form of a tall, gangling, rail-splitting lawyer from Illinois.

His name was Abraham Lincoln.




A Proposal to Officially Legalize the Secession of States from the Union

That’s right. I did it. I wrote this. (But, uh, to you nice folks from the CIA out there, I’d just like to say that I am not plotting anything. Really. Please believe me.)

So the question arises: why did I do this? Well, after months of reading up extensively on the Civil War, and after perusing my pocket copy of the Declaration of Independence/the Constitution, I suddenly realized that secession isn’t quite as illegal as the North made it out to be during Reconstruction.

In fact… it’s legal.

What follows is a short proposal I drafted, which lists out the reasons for my conclusion. Enjoy.




Ever since the American Civil War (1861-1865), the idea of States seceding from the Union has been called into question – and, in Texas v. White, declared unconstitutional. However, as proved by the arguments below, the secession of States is not, and never was, unconstitutional. The purpose of this piece is to overturn the ruling that secession is unconstitutional, and officially make it legal.



NOTE: We will hereby adhere to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, so that we may better understand and support the arguments presented below, as well as refrain from making unconstitutional decisions.


I. Why Secession is Already Constitutional


a.) The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America states that our          country aims for a “more perfect Union.” This does not entail a larger union, especially if this larger union is fraught with internal strife. A perfect union implies a union in which all associated States share similar ideals and interests. If a State wants to secede from our union on the basis of differing ideals, our union is clearly not perfect. Letting that State secede is indeed a step toward perfection. The Preamble also mentions a wish to “insure domestic tranquility.” A union wherein each State has vastly differing ideals, and is often driven to violence with other States due to those ideals, would be in direct conflict with this line in the Constitution.


b.) Amendment X states that: “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.” Since the federal government does not have the express right to remove states from the union, it can naturally be assumed that this power has been transferred to the States, and therefore it is the States who have the power to remove themselves from the union. And since the people of that State are the ones proposing secession, Amendment X can be reapplied in this situation as well, as it delegates these rights to both the States and their people.


c.) I conclude with a short statement regarding the part of the Constitution that states that Congress holds sovereignty over certain territories. Section III of Article IV states that The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State. While some may take this to mean that the federal government has the power to regulate each State, and therefore prevent them from leaving the Union, the latter part of this quote disproves this idea. When the quote talks of ‘any particular State,’ it is automatically isolating the States from the aforementioned ‘Territory or other Property.’ Therefore, it can be assumed that this ‘Territory’ refers to areas that have applied for statehood but have not actually become States – thus ruling out this particular section as proof of the unconstitutionality of secession.



Texas v. White was an 1869 Supreme Court case that, originally, had to do with the recovery of some bonds that the federal government had paid to Texas in 1850. When Texas seceded, the Confederacy used these bonds to buy materiel during the Civil War. In 1869, the current government of Texas – Unionist men who had been placed in charge during Reconstruction – filed a lawsuit in order to regain these bonds from the private citizens who held them. 

These citizens, naturally, did not want to part with the money, and claimed that since they had been paid after Texas seceded from the United States, Texas could not use federal laws to reclaim the money.

Texas’ Reconstruction government, however, had other ideas. Secession, according to them, was impossible: “The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to “be perpetual.” And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained “to form a more perfect Union.” It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?”

Of course, Texas won the case – and its money. And as a result of Texas v. White, secession from the Union was declared unconstitutional.

However, the arguments Texas used to win are fatally flawed. The original thirteen colonies were vastly different in every way – the religions and ethnic backgrounds of their inhabitants, their economies, their population sizes. Only just before the Revolutionary War did they temporarily set aside their differences and band together to fight the British. Almost immediately afterward, the newly formed States began squabbling again. Compromises, such as a bicameral legislature – which incorporated both the Virginia and New Jersey plans – and the Three-Fifths Compromise- which sought to appease the South on the slavery issue – abounded. The early nineteenth century only brought more compromises; desperate efforts to hold the already shaky Union together, such as the Missouri Compromise and Compromise of 1850. In the end, none of these could work – the differences between the states were too great to be bridged with a few hasty compromises. Secession by itself might have worked to solve this problem, and ensure peace in America: instead, it was declared illegal and the Civil War was fought, causing the – completely unnecessary – deaths of over six hundred thousand men.

Texas v. White also cites the Articles of Confederation as a document that strengthened the ties between states, and invested power in the country as a whole. However, the Articles of Confederation themselves seem to have a different view. It created a Confederacy, wherein the federal government was weak and the States were free to pursue their own, mostly unregulated courses of action. “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled,” Section II of the Articles – the section on states’ rights – declares. Since nowhere in the Articles does it state that the United States had the power to expel States from the Union, it may be understood that States have the power to expel themselvesin other words, the right to secession.

The final argument Texas v. White makes in order to prove the idea that secession is unconstitutional relates to the Preamble of the Constitution – namely, the phrase “more perfect Union.” Texas v. White claims that “it is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words.” However, Texas v. White does not even bother to explain how, exactly, “more perfect Union” means “indissoluble Union.” This implies that perfection is not about how peaceful or prosperous a country is, but how large it is. Therefore, a large conglomeration of States, characterized by frequent violence, rioting and disagreement between States, is, according to Texas v. White, a perfect Union.



 I conclude by repeating that Texas v. White took place in 1869, barely four years after the Civil War ended, and many Northerners were still sore about the South’s secession. It is quite possible that secession was declared illegal precisely because of this. An interesting paradox can be found here, during Reconstruction – the Southern states that had seceded were not readmitted back into the Union until they had ratified the 13th Amendment; and yet the North was vehement in declaring that the South had never properly seceded. This raises the question: how can a State that has not seceded be readmitted to the Union?



 1. U.S. Constitution. Preamble

2. U.S. Constitution. Amend. 10.

3. U.S. Constitution. Article IV. Section III.

4. Texas v. White – Supreme Court Case.

5. U.S. Articles of Confederation

6. “Texas v. White”. Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2013. Web. 11 Aug. 2013 <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/589367/Texas-v-White>.

7. Woods, Thomas. “State Nullification: What Is It?” Tom Woods’s LibertyClassroom. LibertyClassroom, 2013. Web. 11 Aug. 2013. <http://www.libertyclassroom.com/ nullification/>.


Also known as The Paper With The Really Long Title. 


“Then this guy comes up to me and says he’s got something that’ll give me a wonderful kick… then he says, ‘You’re a good sport, ain’t you?… A good sport’ll try anything once…’” These words were spoken by Toughie Reed, a Californian teenager in the 1920s. Despite his tender age, Toughie was a murderer and a robber, sentenced to hang for his crimes. He was also a heroin addict. The boy’s interviewer, Lyman Beecher Stowe, describes how a drug peddler’s jabs at Toughie put him on the road to addiction and, eventually, crime in order to support his habit.

 Toughie’s story is not the only one of its kind. In 1918, a paper published in a journal of criminology studied 100 criminals brought into California’s San Quentin Penitentiary on drug-related charges, and revealed some shocking statistics:

  • 75% had gotten addicted before their 25th birthday.
  • 45% developed addictions between 16-20 years of age.
  • 82% took 5+ grams of morphine a day.

The drugs these men used – mainly opiates – were unavailable for legal purchase. Therefore, they had to turn to illegal methods to obtain the drugs. Since many earned far too little to pay what illegal drug dealers demanded, they often had to turn to thievery to acquire enough money for their drugs.

Yet opiates were not always illegal, and the users not always desperate criminals. In 1914, the drug trade had been mostly unregulated. People could easily secure opiates through physicians’ prescriptions or patent medicines such as Mrs. Winslow’s Soothing Syrup, which contained one grain of morphine per ounce.

Among whites, the largest population of opiate addicts was comprised of middle-class women who developed addictions when physicians prescribed opiates as painkillers. There is no evidence to prove that these women posed any danger under the influence of drugs.

Most opium smokers were Chinese immigrants, who showed little evidence of criminal behavior. “… the Chinese constituted 8.8% of… all arrests while they were not less than 14% of the total adult male population of the city…” reported Mary Roberts Coolidge in her book on Chinese immigration at the time. “…Their offenses have always been gambling… and violation of fire and health ordinances…” Coolidge added. Thus, Chinese immigrants were not violent offenders.

What, then, sparked the events that led to Toughie’s tale? To the situation of the 100 criminals in San Quentin? The answer lies in a piece of legislation, passed in December 1914, that single-handedly changed the face of the American drug trade: the Harrison Act.



The Harrison Act’s foundations were laid by a Canadian transplant to America – the Reverend Charles Brent. In 1901, Brent was elected Bishop of the newly acquired Philippines. At the time, the Chinese population in Philippines was just under 1% of the total population: and with that 1% came opium. The Spanish had placed a tax on opium and restricted natives from purchasing it. However, many natives were flouting the rules and used opium as medicine – leading to addiction. This situation alarmed Brent, and, a year after he arrived, he joined a commission to investigate the use of opium in many Asian places, including the Philippines.

“In the Philippine Islands the practice of smoking opium… [was] imported by the Chinese…” the commission wrote. Despite Spanish law, the commission added, “[natives] were contaminated by the vice in all the provinces…” The report spurred President Roosevelt to commit to antinarcotic action. In 1909 an American delegation, headed by Brent, met with 13 other nations at the Shanghai Opium Commission.

One of Brent’s fellow commissioners was Dr. Hamilton Wright. Wright, an ambitious doctor married to the daughter of a powerful senator, was eager to embark on a political career. His opportunity came when he was asked to join the Shanghai Commission. As he put it, “I saw at a glance that it was bound to be a large… bit of work and I said that certainly I would like to be a member.”

For the rest of his life, Wright was a fervent crusader against narcotics and used any means possible to prove his case.

Immediately after joining the delegation, he began conducting surveys to deduce the extent of opium use in America. In 1908, he told the New York Times that there were 6,000 opium addicts in New York City, of which 5,000 were white. Considering that New York City had a population of 4.5 million at the time, 6,000 opium addicts – 0.1% of the population – hardly posed a serious problem. However, Wright pressed the issue, claiming that the Shanghai Commission would create a plan to combat addiction, both domestic and international.

Despite Wright’s promises, however, the Shanghai Commission achieved very little. Wright did his best to make other nations promise to enact drug control measures, but only China agreed. He also tried to propagate an investigation into anti-opium remedies, but this, too, was thwarted.

Dauntless, Wright returned to America and began pushing for a comprehensive piece of domestic drug-regulation legislation. His main motivation was geopolitical; he planned to coordinate another opium conference soon, and wanted to shape American policy into an example to inspire the rest of the world. After receiving approval from Secretary of State Knox, Wright drafted and found a sponsor for the Foster Bill, which was introduced in 1910.

Wright played on American fears of drugs in order to get the bill passed. Even though his own studies showed just 0.2% of the population was addicted to opiates, Wright alleged that physicians and pharmacists were liberally dispensing drugs to get people addicted. He also used drugs to exploit racial tensions in order to gain support. 

Due to opposition from pharmacists, the Foster Bill ultimately collapsed. Wright’s second political sojourn had been as unsuccessful as the first; but he didn’t give up. “Uncle Sam is the worst drug fiend in the world,” he claimed, saying that the American opium was placed under less restriction, and was therefore more dangerous.

In 1911, Wright attended the First International Opium Convention, where he made more headway than the last time in getting countries to promise domestic drug regulations. However, during the proceedings, Germany challenged the lack of American domestic legislation. This fueled Wright’s determination to get his antinarcotic bill passed – and, when the conference ended in January 1912, Wright returned to America ready to continue his efforts.

Since the Democrats were in control of the House, Wright asked a Democrat – Francis Burton Harrison, who had been present during the debate over the Foster Bill – to sponsor the new bill.

Pharmaceutical companies opposed the proposed measure. In October 1912, they created the National Drug Trade Conference (NDTC) and invited Harrison and Wright to discuss the bill. The meeting was disastrous, with Harrison leaving early for the theater and Wright storming out in a fury, refusing to listen to NDTC demands. Eventually, Harrison mediated the dispute and, in 1914, the Harrison Act – the first piece of American federal drug legislation – was approved by Congress and signed into action by President Wilson.



The Harrison Act was greeted with enthusiasm by the antinarcotic movement driven by fears of foreign vices permeating American society. In 1875, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that “there are now existing… eight opium-smoking establishments kept by Chinese, for the exclusive use of white men and women… these places are… nightly resorted to by young men and women of respectable parentage… unless this most dangerous… dissipation can be stopped… there is great danger that it will become one of the prevalent vices of the city…”

The article clearly mentions that the dens catered to white Americans, and were run by Chinese – the implication is that drug use is an alien custom and therefore cannot be allowed to corrupt pure Americans.

This view extended not only to immigrants, but to blacks as well. The free availability of cheap drugs was distasteful to some Americans, who were afraid of the consequences of drug usage by blacks. Dr. Edward Huntington Williams played on these fears when he published an article on the matter in the New York Times. Cocaine-crazed blacks were terrorizing the South, he declared – according to him, cocaine made them superhumanly strong and invincible to bullets. These drug-crazed blacks would then, Williams said, indulge in killing sprees or rape helpless white women.

So when the Harrison Act was passed, it was seen not just as a simple regulation, but as a moralistic breakthrough – a shield against the foreign menaces that threatened American society.

The Harrison Act was, declared the preamble, “… an Act to provide for the registration of… and to impose a special tax on all persons who… deal in… opium or… their… derivatives…”.

The Harrison Act also included another section that would prove extremely important in the years following its passage. “To the dispensing… of any… drugs… by a physician… registered under this Act in the course of his professional practice only: That the physician… shall keep a record of all such drugs dispensed or distributed…” The intent of this passage was to force physicians to carefully write down each drug they prescribed, so that officials could keep track of the drug trade. However, the wording was interpreted in a radically different manner: “[a physician’s] professional practice only” was taken to imply that drugs could only be administered to patients to treat illness – not addiction. Therefore, it was illegal to give addicts opium purely for the purpose of alleviating withdrawal symptoms.

The Harrison Act then added another measure: “The… distributing of… drugs by a dealer to a consumer under… a written prescription issued by a physician… registered under this Act… such prescription shall be dated… and… signed by the physician… who shall have issued the same.” In other words, where a patient was once freely able to purchase drugs, they now had to have permission to do so. For addicts who had been denied permission due to the preceding clause, it was impossible to buy drugs legally.

Patent medicines were given special exemptions to appease pharmaceutical companies. Toward the end of the bill, an extra amendment was tacked on: “That the provisions of this Act shall not be construed to apply to the… distribution… of preparations… which do not contain more than 2 grains of opium, or more than 0.25… a grain of morphine, or more than 0.125… grain of heroin.”



The Harrison Act was intended to curb addiction rates and stop the spread of drug-related crime. However, it ended up doing the exact opposite by creating a vicious cycle between addicts and dealers, with innocent citizens being caught in the middle.

As mentioned earlier, addicts could no longer obtain their fixes from their doctors; therefore, they went into withdrawal, a painful condition characterized by insomnia, stomach cramps and vomiting. The only thing on these addicts’ minds was getting their drug by any means possible. This was corroborated by the New York Medical Journal, which, in 1915, wrote that “…The immediate effects of the Harrison… law were… sporadic crimes of violence… due… to desperate efforts by addicts to obtain drugs, but occasionally to… sudden withdrawal…”


The addicts were becoming violent in order to obtain drugs; but who was supplying them? On June 22, 1915, the New York Times published an article on the arrest of Louis Fournier, an infirmary worker, on drug-peddling charges. Fournier had stolen cocaine and heroin, which were used legally as medicines, and planned to sell them. His motivation: “My friend told me that I could make a lot of money that way.”

 Like Fournier, others realized that they could easily benefit from the helpless addicts. If a drug is legal, its prices can be regulated – but once it becomes illegal, criminals can easily exploit addicts’ desperation with exorbitant prices. Another 1915 New York Times article mentions that “… whereas the trade price of heroin was $6.50 an ounce,” criminals had started selling it for $96 an ounce. Most addicts could not afford such prices, and had to turn criminal to pay their suppliers.

The situation worsened when the Mafia got into drug dealing. A New York Times article detailing the arrest of Mafia leader “Lucky” Luciano mentioned that “… [Luciano] was arrested… [in] 1923 for a drug law violation…” Eight years after the Harrison Act was passed, the Mafia was starting to enter the illicit drug business. Today, according to the FBI, “[One of] the major threats to American society posed by [the Mafia is] drug trafficking… They have been involved in heroin trafficking for decades.”

 In 2010, it was reported that American organized crime institutions make around $64 billion yearly from the illegal drug trade. America’s legal drug trade was barely worth more at $78 billion in 2010.

The vicious cycle between addicts and dealers was completed when criminals realized that in order to grow their profits, they must create more addicts, who would then depend on their illicit drug supplies. To do this, they latched onto victims, usually teenagers, and offered them free samples of drugs in order to get them addicted.

The Harrison Act also inadvertently helped create more addicts. The act stated that medicines with 0.125 grains of heroin would not be subject to regulation. 0.125 grains are equal to approximately 64.7 mg of heroin. Nowadays, people take 5-1500 mg to get high.

 Regular doses of a patent medicine containing 64.7 mg of heroin could easily create an addiction. Once this addiction strengthened, the user would need increasing amounts of heroin to achieve the same high. Patent medicines contained too little heroin for a hardened addict, and since heroin, under the Harrison Act, could not be prescribed to addicts, users had to resort to illegal methods to obtain it. Thus, the Harrison Act’s failure to address the matter of patent medicines was key to the creating a steady stream of customers for illegal drugs.



The architects of the Harrison Act intended to rid America of the drug vice; to ensure that Americans would not be governed by un-American influences such as Chinese opium and German heroin. Yet, they achieved something completely unintended – they created problems where there were none. The act spawned a vicious, self-reinforcing cycle of addicts and dealers whose violent crimes impact ordinary citizens every single day. In the decades since its passage, Americans have taken to drugs in larger numbers than ever before. Many of these drug addicts resort to crimes of all types to pay for their drug needs, and multibillion-dollar criminal enterprises based on these needs have sprung up. To combat the gang warfare that ensues between these syndicates, American taxpayers have coughed up $1 trillion dollars to pay for the “War on Drugs.”

The makers of the Harrison Act had good intentions. However, the piece of legislation they created became the single most important turning point in the history of American drugs. It is truly the law of unintended consequences.






*Note: Since I used the Schaffer Library of Drug Policy many times, as both a primary and secondary source, I will list its sponsoring organization here: it is sponsored by the DRCNet Online Library of Drug Policy, which is the largest compilation of drug-related resources on the Internet.

*Also used frequently is the New York Times, which is sponsored by none other than the New York Times.


1. Stowe, Lyman Beecher. Heroin Use in the 1920s. Opiates. Ed. Nancy Harris. Farmington Hills: Bonnie Szumki (Greenhaven), 2005. Print. History of Drugs.

The book cited – Opiates – is a collection of essays on the history of opiates, written by various professors and other authorities. I used an example from this paper, written in the 1920s by Harriet Beecher Stowe’s grandson, to illustrate the havoc drugs wreaked after the Harrison Act.


2. Stanley, L. L. “Morphinism and Crime.” Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 8 Jan. 1918, 749-56. Reproduced in the Schaffer Library of Drug Policy. Web. 31 Mar. 2013.


This is an article published in 1918 that details the situation and background of a group of drug addicts in the San Quentin Penitentiary. I used statistics from this source to show how serious drug crime was after the Harrison Act.


3. Coolidge, Mary Roberts. Chinese Immigration. : Holt, 1909. Print.

This is a book on Chinese immigration to the United States. I used this source in order to learn more about crime rates among Chinese immigrants in the US, so that I could compare those levels to opium-smoking levels, and see if there is a correlation.


4. “CAREER OF THE REV. C. H. BRENT: Sketch of the Man Nominated as Missionary Bishop in the Philippines.” New York Times [New York City] 13 Oct. 1901: Print (accessed from the NY Times archives).


This is a newspaper article that describes Charles Henry Brent after his election as Bishop of the Philippines. I used this to learn more about Reverend Brent and any possible attitudes he might have held toward morality – since drugs were usually considered immoral.


5. Carter, Major E. C., Jose Albert, and Right Reverend Charles H. Brent. Report of the Committee Appointed by the Philippine Commission to Investigate the Use of Opium and the Traffic Therein. Washington DC: Bureau of Insular Affairs, War Department, 1905. Print.

This is the report given by Brent, Carter and Albert on the opium situation in the Philippines. I read this report in order to understand how widespread opium addiction in the Philippines was, and how exactly the Philippine Commissioners reacted to this opium use.


6. “6,000 OPIUM USERS HERE: Dr. Hamilton Wright Thinks Five-Sixths of Them Are White.” New York Times [New York City] 1 Aug. 1908: Print (accessed from the NY Times archives).


This is a newspaper article describing the results of one of Wright’s drug studies. I use this article in order to understand Wright’s argument as well as to illustrate his penchant for exaggeration regarding statistics.


7. “Report of the International opium commission, Shanghai, China, February 1 to February 26, 1909.” Feb. 1909. MS. Internet Archive.


This source is the full text of the report from the Shanghai Opium Commission. I read this source in order to understand Wright’s role in the conference, and what the conference’s outcomes were.


8. Marshall, Edward. “UNCLE SAM IS THE WORST DRUG FIEND IN THE WORLD.” New York Times [New York City] 12 Mar. 1911: Print (accessed from the NY Times archives).


This article was a special in the New York Times that discussed Harrison’s view of opiates and his solution to the supposed problem they posed. I used this source to illustrate both this view and solution. I also used a photo of Dr. Wright that was taken from this source.


9. “The Proceedings Of The International Opium Conference At The Hague. I.” The British Medical Journal 2.2696 (1912): 503-05. Print.

This source is the full text of the First International Opium Conference at the Hague. I used this source in order to fully understand what happened during this conference, how it differed from the Shanghai Commission, and how much Wright’s role had changed between the two.


10. Fisher, George. MARRIED TO ALCOHOL: The Drug War‘s Moral Roots. 2007. Print.

This source describes how the War on Drugs originated. Although the book itself is a secondary source, I used a primary source quote (regarding Chinese opium dens and the influence they had on whites) that was reprinted in it.

11. Williams, Edward Huntington. “NEGRO COCAINE ‘FIENDS’ ARE A NEW SOUTHERN MENACE.” New York Times [New York City] 8 Feb. 1914: Print (accessed from the NY Times archives).


This source is an article describing the supposed effects of cocaine on southern blacks. I used this source in order to show some of the common antinarcotic arguments of the time, and to illustrate the morality behind the passage of the Harrison Act.


12. Sixty-third Congress of the United States. “Harrison Narcotics Tax Act, 1914.” Drug Library. Schaffer Library of Drug Policy, Web. 24 Mar. 2013.


This source is the full text of the Harrison Act. I used this source in order to understand what exactly the act intended to accomplish, as well as to highlight some of the sections in the act that would later prove harmful to its intent.


 13. Perez, Eric. “Opiate withdrawal.” Ed. David R. Eltz and David Zieve. MedLine Plus. US National Library of Medicine, 23 Jan 2012. Web. 24 Mar. 2013.


This source describes the symptoms of opiate withdrawal. I used this source in order to understand what motivation addicts had for behaving the way they did after the passage of the Harrison Act. This website is sponsored by the US National Library of Medicine.


14. Brecher, Edward M. “The Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs: Chapter 8. The Harrison Narcotics Act.” Drug Library. Schaffer Library of Drug Policy, Web. 17 Mar. 2013.


This source describes the Harrison Act, especially its effects. Although this paper itself is a secondary source, I used a primary-source quote – on the behavior of drug addicts after they had been deprived of drugs by the Harrison Act – that had been reprinted in it.


15. “SHOT DOWN IN DRUG ARREST – Prisoner Says He Got Cocaine As Infirmary Employee. New York Times [New York City] 22 June 1915: Print (accessed from the NY Times archives).


This source describes an arrest made about six months after the Harrison Act passed; the defendant was attempting to sell stolen, illegal drugs to people. I used this source to show how and why many criminals got started in the drug business.


16. “POORER DRUG USERS IN PITIFUL PLIGHT.” New York Times [New York City] 15 Apr 1915: Print (accessed from the NY Times archives).


This source describes what problems impoverished addicts faced after the Harrison Act was passed. I used this source in order to corroborate the idea that drug prices increased dramatically, thus forcing addicts to become criminals in order to pay them.


17. “Italian Organized Crime: Overview.” FBI. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Web. 7 Apr. 2013.


This source is an article that discusses the Italian Mafia and the activities it engages in. I used this source to support the claim that, even today, the Mafia runs much of the drug trafficking business in the United States. This website is sponsored by the FBI.


18. “Estimating illicit financial flows resulting from drug trafficking and other transnational organized crimes.” United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Web. 6 Apr. 2013.


This source describes how and in what industries illegal money circulates the globe. I used this source in order to find reliable estimates on how much the illegal drug industry made in the US in 2010, so that I could compare this figure to the revenue generated by the legal drug industry in America. This report was created by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.


19. “The Pharmaceutical Industry in the United States.” SelectUSA. SelectUSA, Web. 6 Apr. 2013.


This source describes the legal drug trade in the US. I used this source in order to find out how much revenue this trade generated in 2010, so I could compare it to the revenue generated by the illegal drug trade. This source is powered by SelectUSA, a federal association that promotes creating businesses in the US.


20. Metric Conversions. Metric Conversions, Web. 24 Mar. 2013.


This source is a conversions calculator, which I used to figure out how many milligrams 0.125 grains of heroin are equal to. It is powered by Wight Hat Ltd, a British company.


21. “Morphine (And Heroin).” Drugs and Human Performance Fact Sheets. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Web. 24 Mar. 2013.


This source talks about the effects of morphine and heroin on people. I used this source to figure out what daily dose of heroin people take to get high, so that I could compare it to the amount in patent medicines. This website is sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.


22. “Background on Drug Abuse.” Do Something. Do Something, Web. 5 Apr. 2013.


This source talks about drug abuse, and what it is characterized by. I used this source to confirm that, as time passes, some people need higher and higher doses of a drug to get high – which I then used in my argument that the Harrison Act’s failure to address patent medicines ended up increasing the illegal drug trade. This website is sponsored by the Do Something organization, which helps provide suggestions for solutions to societal problems, especially ones that affect young people.


23. Trebach, Arnold S. Doctors Prescribe Heroin in the Early 1900s. Opiates. Ed. Nancy Harris. Farmington Hills: Bonnie Szumki (Greenhaven), 2005. Print. History of Drugs.

This source talks about the discovery of and initial reaction to heroin. I used this source in order to confirm that heroin was first used widely in German medicine, and therefore might be considered foreign by Americans.


24. Weirde. “Chinatown’s Opium Dens.” Shaping San Francisco’s Digital Archive. FoundSF, Web. 17 Mar. 2013.


This is a historical essay talking about opium dens in San Francisco’s Chinatown. I used a primary-source photo, of a Chinese opium den, as my first appendix, in order to illustrate what exactly antinarcotic forces were combatting. This source is sponsored by FoundSF, an organization that has compiled an Internet archive of photos and articles relating to San Francisco’s history.


25. “Francis Burton Harrison.” Encyclopedia Britannica (Online). Web.


This is an Encyclopedia Britannica Online entry on Francis Burton Harrison. I used a primary-source photo, of Harrison himself, as my second appendix. This is sponsored by the online Encyclopedia Britannica.


26. Sledge, Matt. “The Drug War And Mass Incarceration By The Numbers.” Huffington Post. Huffington Post, 8 Apr. 2013. Web. 8 Apr. 2013. 


This is an article from today’s Huffington Post on how much the drug war has cost us since it began. (I’m lucky I was on HuffPost this morning!) I used this source in my conclusion, in order to emphasize the detrimental effect of legislation like the Harrison Act on ordinary citizens.



1. “Patent Medicines and Miracle Cures: Original Documents from the Archives of the New York City Bar.” NYC Bar. New York City Bar, Web. 31 Mar. 2013.


This website, sponsored by the New York City bar, depicts certain fraudulent medicines on sale in America from the late 1800s to the mid-1900s. I used facts from this website about opiate-containing patent medicines in my paper.


2. Casey, Elaine. “HISTORY OF DRUG USE AND DRUG USERS IN THE UNITED STATES.” Drug Library. Schaffer Library of Drug Policy, Web. 17 Mar. 2013.


This source describes the history of drugs and drug addiction in the United States from colonial days to modern times. It is from the Schaffer Library of Drug Policy, a compilation of international drug laws and papers from throughout history. I used this paper to gather facts on women who developed opium addictions before the Harrison Act.


3. Williams, Lisa. “Morphine: A Southern Lady’s Drug.” Lisa Williams – Home. Greenville County School District, Web. 31 Mar. 2013.


This source describes the average morphine-addicted woman in the nineteenth century. I used this source to garner an understanding of what types of women became addicted and how they became addicted.


4. Courtwright, David T. Chinese Immigration Brings Opium Smoking to America in the Mid-1800s. Opiates. Ed. Nancy Harris. Farmington Hills: Bonnie Szumki (Greenhaven), 2005. Print. History of Drugs.

The book cited – Opiates – is a collection of essays on the history of opiates, written by various professors. I used this essay to learn more about the history of American opium smoking before the Harrison Act – specifically, when it started and who introduced it.


5. Chepesiuk, Ron. The War on Drugs: An International Encyclopedia. Jefferson: McFarland & Company, 1999. Digital file.

This source is a book describing the history of the war on drugs around the world. I used this source to gather information on the Philippines opium trade, especially in regard to Chinese immigration and Spanish legislation, so that I could understand exactly why the 1905 opium commission was assembled.


6. Musto, David F. The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University, 1987. Print.

This source is a book talking about America’s relationship with drugs throughout history. I used this book many times throughout my paper, as it provides valuable information on the opium conferences, Wright, and the Harrison Act – especially Wright’s motivations for pressing the latter’s cause. Although I used this primarily as a secondary source, I do have a primary-source quote from it when talking about Wright’s political aspirations.


7. “NYC Total and Foreign-born Population 1790-2000.” NYC. New York City, Web. 7 Apr. 2013.


This source shows New York City’s population, by decade, from 1790 to 2000. I use this source in order to calculate the percentage of opium addicts Wright estimated there are in New York City. This source is sponsored by the City of New York.


8. “Manhattan Municipal Building.” A View on Cities. A View on Cities, Web. 7 Apr. 2013.


This source also mentions New York City’s population in 1908. I used the former source to confirm the number given in this article. This source is sponsored by A View on Cities, which is a tourism-tips website.


9. History. “Weekend at Woodrow’s.” History, Art & Archives. US House of Representatives, 28 Dec. 2012. Web. 7 Apr. 2013.


This is a source that talks about the House of Representatives in 1912. I used this source in order to confirm that the House had a Democratic majority during this time, thus explaining the reason why Wright asked Harrison to sponsor his bill. This is sponsored by the US House of Representatives.


10. Schaffer, Clifford A. “Homicide Rates from 1900 to Present.” Drug Library. Schaffer Library of Drugs, Web. 6 Apr. 2013.


This is a graph showing the trend in homicides over the last century, with drug laws labeled. I used this graph to show the sharp rise in homicide rates that occurred just after the passage of the Harrison Act.


11. “EXTRADITION STAY IS WON BY LUCIANO.” New York Times [New York City] 7 Apr. 1936: Print (accessed from the NY Times archives).


This article discusses the trial of Mafia leader Charles “Lucky” Luciano. I used this source to provide evidence for Luciano’s involvement in the drug business. Although this is by no means a modern source, it is secondary because the drug incident it mentioned is not the main focus of the article, but a reference to something that happened thirteen years earlier.

The Paper of Unintended* All-Nighters

*Not really.


The year 2013 is many things. It’s the year after the world was supposed to end, and it’s the year I penned my first historical research paper, which basically means that I wrote a giant essay with a lot of footnotes. I really enjoyed researching and writing it – I guess that’s why I’m majoring in History! But most of all, I enjoyed writing the footnotes. This paper really opened my eyes to the awesomeness of footnotes. Footnotes make everything look classier. You can write a piece on why you love chocolate strawberry pie**, and as long as you include at least five footnotes it’ll look like the best dang paper that was ever written.

Anyway, I digress. My point is that I have decided to post my historical research paper on my blog, so as to allow the world to have access to it***. I will leave the topic of my paper**** a secret – if you wanna know, you better read it*****.


Oh dear. The “Add Media” button isn’t working, so until it starts working I’m just going to have to copy and paste the whole shebang onto this blog.

I hope to God that the footnotes work.


**Who doesn’t?

***Whether the world will take advantage of that access or not is questionable… but hey, it’s worth a shot.

****No, it is not chocolate strawberry pie.

*****Or is it?