Guest post by Gary
According to historian Philip Jenkins, in the United States “the most controversial religious group at the start of the century was the Mormons”. However, he noted:
“The war fundamentally changed that hostile atmosphere, as the Mormons showed themselves resolutely patriotic and delivered impressively high recruitment rates to the forces. Old prejudices faded.” (1)
In contrast, of course, and at precisely the same time, Bible Students were showing themselves particularly resistant to patriotism and indifferent to military support, so much so that they “were accused of having crossed the line from anti-war sentiment to actual treason.” Jenkins noted:
“In 1918, when federal and state authorities were deeply concerned about pro-German subversion and sabotage across the United States, much of their activity focused on suppressing one densely packed theological rant, namely The Finished Mystery.” (2)
According to Jenkins “This work included a fierce denunciation of war and nationalism.” (3)
Compared to allegations of being unpatriotic, subversive and treasonable, on rare occasion Bible Students of the era even found themselves vulnerable to lesser charges made, including that they were guilty of food hoarding. How could this come about?
When food became political
Food hoarding has been beyond the means of ordinary American citizens throughout history who, living lives of subsistence, have usually lacked both the money and opportunity to stockpile. In comparison, big business manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers have been known to occasionally hoard and deliberately drive-up prices to sell them later at considerable profit.
Concerned that the war would encourage unscrupulous opportunists who might be intent on making a ‘quick buck’, in August 1917 the US Government created the United States Food Administration, headed by Herbert Hoover, and gave it powers to control the production, distribution, and conservation of food. It was also responsible for preventing monopolies and hoarding and so attempted to control the importation, manufacture, storage, and distribution of foodstuffs.
Like it or not, food became political. But whereas European nations embroiled in conflict resorted to rationing policies, this would not be tolerated by Americans unused to feeling the pinch of wartime hunger. Having joined the war in April 1917, the American plan was to increase food production while decreasing consumption. Consequently, the US Food Administration appealed to the patriotism of citizens by promoting copious news articles, lectures and posters containing slogans such as ‘God Bless the Household That Boils Potatoes with the Skins On’. People were exhorted to plant victory gardens, to forgo wheat (which could be easily shipped abroad), to substitute fish for meat (which was expensive to produce) and to avoid wasting food. As a result, many observed Meatless Tuesdays and Wheatless Wednesdays. And, of course, the making of ‘liberty bread’ was encouraged, making use of corn, oat, and barley flour instead of wheat.
As one commentator noted:
“Modern warfare demands ... the armed forces in the field and the arming-and-supporting force at home: it is impossible to predict which is more important in securing ultimate victory.” (4)
Evidently, therefore, to many the degree to which citizens adhered to these food measures was seen also as a monitor to gauge their patriotism and support for the American commitment to war.
Hoover could later report that the United
States had been able to ship far more food to Europe than had been expected,
and that this “could not have been accomplished without effort and sacrifice
and it is a matter for further satisfaction that it has been accomplished
voluntarily and individually.” (5)
Against such sacrifices on behalf of the national goal, the idea of wealthy individuals hoarding valuable foodstuffs for personal use seems greedy to an extreme. Consequently, is it any wonder that, using the American Protective League, citizens are known to have spied on and reported their wealthy near neighbors who were presumed to be food hoarders?
Two unlikely food hoarders
Two unlikely people who notoriously fell afoul of the US government’s laws on food hoarding in 1918 were Francis Smith Nash, US Navy Medical Director, and his wife Caroline Ryan Nash, who on May 29, 1918, became the first people indicted on a charge of violating Section 6 of the Food Control Act involving food hoarding at their Washington DC home. (6) It was a serious charge and punishable, it is said, by a two-year stint in a penitentiary or a fine of $5,000. The case attracted considerable attention since Dr. Nash and his wife were among the prominent in both naval and social circles. Caroline and her daughter Miss Caroline (sometimes spelt ‘Carolyn’) were frequently mentioned in the Society columns of the Washington press and lived and dined among the capital’s social elite, President Wilson and his wife included. (7)
In an interview with the Washington Times published on the following day, Caroline is recorded to have said that the store of food found in the Nash home at 1723 Q street, northwest, and which was valued by the Food Administrator at $1,924:16, was only the regular order of things and the result of her usual policy of providing liberally in advance for her table.
She maintained that the “long and honored reputation of this family should be sufficient answer to this absurd and ridiculous charge” and insisted “that we should be charged with such an unpatriotic act as deliberately hoarding food is unthinkable.” (8)
Despite this, the authorities insisted upon pursuing hoarders regardless of their social standing. Besides, the Food Administration reasoned, if this wasn’t an example of food hoarding, what was?
“I had no idea I was breaking the law.” Caroline claimed. “We simply meant to provide for a rainy day. I thought that one’s duty was to provide against a rainy day, and in order to defeat the high cost of living one must buy in large quantities.” (9)
The more Caroline spoke the more obvious it became that her household were indeed guilty, and the average American reader who lived day by day on a basic wage can have had little sympathy for the extravagant lifestyle of the wealthy Nash family.
As Caroline spoke carelessly to the reporters, her husband Francis acted more prudently. The report stated that he declined any statement for publication, as did his attorney. Indeed, he had already appeared before Justice Stafford and given $3,000 bonds for himself and Mrs Nash. However, in justification of the actions of the Food Administrator an official statement significantly declared:
“The medical director has admitted his violation. He said that in 1914 he inherited a legacy. With his knowledge of probable conditions that would follow a prolonged war, he foresaw a scarcity of food. So since the outbreak of war he had been investing his own and Mrs Nash’s money in foodstuffs, storing them in his house against possible years of great food shortage.” (10)
It was alleged that the food stored was sufficient to maintain the family of Nash for more than a year and far in excess of the requirements for thirty days, the period recognized by the national Food Administration. At the trial Dr. Nash entered a plea of “nolo contendere”, meaning that he neither admitted or disputed the charge and did not wish to make a defence. Effectively he was neither pleading guilty or not guilty. Much was made of the fact that 80% of the food products found at Dr. Nash’s house had been purchased prior to the declaration of war with Germany and practically all of the remaining 20% had been purchased prior to the passing of the food conservation act. Even so, Dr. Nash was indicted by the grand jury for food hoarding and, as a result, he was fined $1,000. Further the hoarded foods were to be seized and sold accordingly at a public auction on July 9, 1918, with the profits used to defray the legal costs and whatever cash remained thereafter returned to Dr. Nash. Since Dr. Nash was found solely responsible for the hoard, the charges against Mrs Nash were withdrawn accordingly. (11)
The “hoarding of food supplies and the doctrine of the International Bible Students’ Association”
By now you may be wondering what has this episode, interesting though it is, got to do with Bible Students? The Washington Evening Star later reported further details concerning the charges against the Nash family. Under the heading ‘Nash Food Hoard for War Haters’ it revealed that some of the hoard “was intended for distribution among members of the Washington branch of the International Bible Students’ Association as was learned during the investigation that led up to the seizure”.(12) Much was made of the fact that some of store was used to assist Bible Students, while nothing was said, of course, about food supplied in the lavish soirées which Caroline Nash had become famous for in the society columns of Washington press.
The District Food Administrator, Clarence R. Wilson was quoted as having said that Dr Nash had sent six barrels of flour to “a man in Brooklyn, named Haskins, an IBSA member and that the garage to which the barrels had been sent was to a man named Selin, a Finn, also a member of the International Bible Students’ Association.” Wilson pondered that “there may or may not be a relation between the hoarding of food supplies and the doctrine of the International Bible Students’ Association”, although he acknowledged that “whether Dr. Nash is a member of that association I do not know.” (13)
Nash himself wisely declined to comment, while later reports appear to distance him from any Bible Student connection. His attorney, Prescott Gatley, for instance, spoke on his behalf in court saying that his client had made application to the Navy Department to be sent abroad and that he was anxious to do active service, but he had been informed he was too old. The Washington Times commented that in this manner Gatley “made an effort to dissipate the impression that Dr. Nash may subscribe to the doctrines of the International Bible Students’ Association.” (14)
So, was Dr. Nash ever actually a Bible Student or was he just sympathetic to their teachings and helpful to them? On the one hand, it seems unlikely that a Bible Student would be so closely allied to the Navy. On the other, Nash’s role was that of a medical officer whose service was one of healing rather than combat, and Bible Student teaching at this time did not entirely preclude such a role. (15) Consequently, it is presently impossible to say.
What then of the suggestion that “there may … be a relation between the hoarding of food supplies and the doctrine of the International Bible Students’ Association”? Under what circumstances might wealthy Bible Students or their sympathisers somehow find themselves in danger of being labelled a ‘food hoarder’?
Coming as it did during the height of national hysteria involving Bible Students in the Spring and early Summer of 1918, there was no way Nash’s reputation could entirely survive this accusation. But given his connection, could there possibly have been a motive other than simple avarice to explain his actions? Was he simply planning on making a quick profit by selling his hoard at an inflated cost when opportunity arose? Or might there have been another reason?
Russell’s prudent foresight
To understand why a well-off Bible Student, or even a well-to-do Watch Tower subscriber sympathetic to Bible Student teachings, might collect such a food store we must consider the words of Pastor Russell in late 1914, made long before America entered the war. Believing that the Gentile Times had recently ended, Russell reasoned that the near future would be extremely difficult for all, including Bible Students. His Watch Tower article of November 1914, entitled ‘The Prudent Hideth Himself’ was based on Proverbs 22:3 and started:
“Let no one suppose that it will be possible to escape the difficulties and trials of the great time of trouble, whose shadow is now clouding the earth.” (16)
Russell encouraged readers to heed four valuable lessons which might enable the wise to ameliorate future difficulties. Firstly, application of Christ’s Golden Rule to treat others..., secondly to show mercy, compassion, sympathy and helpfulness, thirdly to display meekness, gentleness, patience and long-suffering, and finally, the “fourth lesson should be economy in everything - avoidance of waste - the realization that what he does not need, someone else does need.”
The article warned that bonds, stocks and bank accounts may prove untrustworthy in the days to come but, in line with Proverbs 22:3, it recommended “those having dry, clean cellars, or other places suitable and well ventilated, to lay in a good stock of life’s necessities; for instance, a large supply of coal, of rice, dried peas, dried beans, rolled oats, wheat, barley, sugar, molasses, fish, etc. Have in mind the keeping qualities and nutritive values of foods - especially the fact that soups are economical and nourishing. Do not be afraid of having too much of such commodities as will keep well until the best of next summer begins, even if it were necessary to sell then, at a loss, to prevent spoiling.”
Significantly, the article clearly explained the reason for this recommendation:
“Think of this hoard to eat, not too selfishly, but as being a provision for any who may be in need, and who, in the Lord’s providence, may come your way - ‘that you may have to give to those who lack’ - Eph. 4:28”
At the same time as encouraging this prudent measure, Russell exhorted readers “not to make these purchases on credit if you do not have the money” and “not to sound a trumpet before you, telling of your provisions, intentions” but to inform only your close family of your planning.
Two things need be noted from this article therefore. Firstly, it was a prudent measure designed for emergency use only and not for personal profit. Secondly, its purpose was for sharing with those who might suffer need. Retrospectively we may add that it was a recommendation made nearly two and a half years before the US declared an involvement in the war.
The article closed by reminding readers “that the Golden Rule is the very lowest standard that can be recognized by the Lord’s people and that it comes in advance of any kind of charity.”
Seen in this context, Dr. Nash’s actions become more understandable. He had inherited a minor fortune and was likely a sympathetic Watch Tower subscriber with friends and contacts who were Bible Students. His actions, taken prior to American involvement in the war, may be seen as acting prudently in protecting his family’s interests and as being in keeping with principles expounded by Pastor Russell to show mercy, compassion, sympathy and helpfulness to others, appreciating that what he himself did not personally need, someone else, at some later point, likely would. Subsequently, it is not necessary to think of him as having hoarded food entirely for selfish pleasure. At the same time, it is understandable why he was charged with food hoarding and why, given the circumstances, he wisely made a plea of nolo contendere.
It is not known if Mrs Nash shared her husband’s interest in Bible Student teachings or indeed his IBSA associates. For a while she seems to have kept a slightly lower profile in the Washington society pages of the capital’s newspapers. Nothing more is known, thereafter, of the Nash’s connections to the Bible Students while Mrs Nash and her daughter Miss Caroline continued to live life in the public spotlight. A Washington newspaper report from December 1930 commented that they were taking their yearly winter visit to the capital having made their home in Paris, France, some years back. (17)
References:
(1) The Great and Holy War, Philip Jenkins, 236-237
(2) Ibid, 141
(3) “Spy Mad”? Investigating Subversion in Pennsylvania 1917-1918, 209
(4) Howard Anna Shaw, quoted in Marsha Gordon, “Onward Kitchen Soldiers: Mobilizing the Domestic during World War I” Canadian Review of American Studies 29, no.2 (1999), 61-87
(5) Hoover, July 11, 1918, report to the President
(6) The Washington Times, May 30, 1918, p1. Also, The New York Times of the same date.
(7) See, for instance, The Washington Times, December 14, 1917, 16, which mentions Mrs Francis A. Nash as being among several guests entertained by Mrs Wilson and given boxes in a recital at the National Theatre. Mrs Nash was pictured and said to “post a prominent role in Washington society.”
(8) The Washington Times, May 30, 1918, 1
(9) Ibid
(10) The New York Times, May 30, 1918
(11) The Washington Times, June 15, 1918
(12) The Washington Evening Star, dated June 16, 1918, p1
(13) Ibid. The “man in Brooklyn, named Haskins, an IBSA member” may have been Isaac Francis Hoskins, a former director of the Watch Tower Society, although he is known to have left Brooklyn on July 12, 1917
(14) Ibid, 2
(15) See Russell’s reply to an enquiry in Watch Tower, May 1, 1916, 142 [R5894]
(16) Watch Tower, November 1, 1914, 334-335 [R5571-5572]
(17) The Washington Times, December 18, 1930, 12
2 comments:
Amazing. So Bible Students, who were preparing stocks of food supplies in order to share with others, were accused of hoarding them for personal profit.
Not surprising though, considering the Wilson Administration extensive corruption, which continues to be revealed by historians.
good research Wilson will always be remember but not for good
Post a Comment