In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars

VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall

be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

X

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.

Read More

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public

VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been

committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Read More

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,

V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation

Read More

III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Read More

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

II

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Read More

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Read More

The United States Bill of Rights.

The United States Bill of Rights.

The Ten Original Amendments to the Constitution of the United States Passed by Congress September 25, 1789 Ratified December 15, 1791

I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the

Government for a redress of grievances.

II

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

X

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.

Read More

Part-5 > The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America

Part-5 > The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America

Nor have We been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our

emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Read More

Part-4 > The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free People.

Read More

Part-3 > The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws of Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

Read More

Part-2 > The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

Read More

Part-1 > The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to

assume, among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

Read More

The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America by Thomas Jefferson

Ebook1, Declaration, Declaration of Independence, United States, Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence of United States of America

Read More

Why Comparing Cost of Living is Hard - 1978 Edition

Right - this is the sort of thing that makes me irritable when people talk about history.  I decided to being with the truck.  I used a base of a Ford F-150 as the model remains in production and dug up, through the NADA guides, a Ford F-150 model in 1978 that came as close as I could to $6800 in 1978 bucks.

It is a base model price of $5,300 (high retail) and comes with 4 wheel drive, a 460 V8 engine (man grunting noises can be inserted here), and factory installed air conditioning.  It looks like this:

Now, I had to dig a bit to find a Ford F-150 today that actually cost $40,000 MSRP but I did find one, and it comes with some interesting features that probably aren't in the F-150 above, including:  power windows, brake assist, power door mirrors, front fog lights, a low tire pressure warning system, a security system, 6 disc CD player, remote keyless entry, speed-sensing steering, a front anti-roll bar, electronic stability control, power steering, traction control, and enough airbags to snuggle you on all sides if you hit something.

Now if we use the Consumer Price Index Inflation calculator the buying power of $6800 in 1978 translates into about $25,326.77.

For pretty close to that price you CAN get the truck pictured above, sans the boat - a base model Ford F-150 which only comes with a single-row cab, rear wheel drive, an aluminum body, and a base 2.7 liter EcoBoost V6.  If you are willing to go up to $29,000 roughly, you can get the man-grunting V8.  So comparing the man-grunting V8s you find that in reality the price difference is the man-grunting V8 costs about 14% more today than it did in 1978.  (But I'd add you still get a lot of nice features for that markup, including the snuggle-bundle of airbags.)

But, I can hear you saying, gasoline is pretty consistent and look at how much THAT has gone up in price since 1978.  Well, again gasoline is no longer gasoline, thanks to the additions of scrubbing detergents, more precision blending, and synthetics but we'll go along and say "gas is gas."  The 1978 base price per gallon:  $0.60.  Translated into today's dollars per gallon: $2.23.  (Again, Consumer Price Index Inflation calculator.)

Per CNN Money and its gas price index there are spots in the U.S. were the average price for standard octane gasoline per gallon is above $2.23 - California ($2.47), Alaska ($2.34), and Hawaii ($2.63).  Congratulations, if you live in those three states you can bitch that the price of gasoline is above inflation from 1978!  For everyone else in the United States guess what, gas is cheaper in 2017 per gallon, adjusted, than it was in 1978.  (For the record according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the actual average price of unleaded gasoline in 1978 in the U.S. ranged from $0.65 to $0.71 per gallon, which translated to modern dollars means only Hawaii can still complain.)

Yeah but the wage gap, now that is valid, he made $10 per hour in 1978 and now he makes $17 an hour, that is hardly fair.  In that our meme is correct, in 2017 dollars a wage of $10 per hour would translate to an inflation adjusted wage of $37.25.  You'd see a worker with that wage making $74,500 per year (2000 hour work year) against $34,000 at $17 per hour.  But comparing those wages isn't quite fair, so lets do minimum wage.

1978 minimum wage, per the U.S. Department of Labor (covered professions) - $2.65 per hour.  In modern buying power:  $9.87 per hour.  Current U.S. federal minimum wage:  $7.25 per hour.  (About 36% below where it should be if the minimum wage had kept up with inflation.)

But the wage he mentioned above is almost half the modern wage, so what happened?

To really understand we need a product that is not limited by shipping/spoilage issues, that requires relatively low-skill to assemble, is non-capital equipment heavy to produce, and has remained relatively consistent in design since 1978.  Meet Wrangler Jeans, made by the same company, to roughly the same quality specifications, since 1978.

Price of one pair of Men's Wrangler Jeans circa 1978:  $5.98 per pair
Price of one pair of Men's Wrangler Jeans circa 2017 adjusting 1978 bucks for inflation:  $22.27
Actual price per Walmart 2017:  $16.77

The difference is about 33% and that difference covers several sins:  higher corporate profits, transportation for foreign assembly, and cheaper labor.

See since the 1980s onward the United States has pretty much embraced the idea that consumers don't want to pay the level of costs for goods necessary to ensure that low-skill factory workers could afford nice three bedroom homes and shiny new Ford F-150 trucks.

You may not agree with it, you may not like it, and I've been reading up recently on why it has happened in several different books, but that cornerstone lesson seems in place.  If you want a United States where a guy who sews jeans can afford a 3 bedroom house and a nice truck, you are going to be spending about 32% per unit for that pair of lovely jeans you see above you.

Sources:  Consumer Price Index inflation adjuster (US Department of Labor), NADA guides entry on 1978 Ford F-150, 2013 TED Economics presentation on gasoline prices, U.S. Department of Labor table of minimum wage rates, 1978 guide to prices by the Morris County library, Wikipedia entry on Wrangler Jeans (timeline of corporate events)

Read More

Trump's Address, Lincoln, and Protectionism

After reading President Trump's full address to the United States Congress on 28 February 2017, I was struck by a particular quote he included:

"abandonment of the protective policy by the American Government [will] produce want and ruin among our people."  President Trump was quoting President Abraham Lincoln, who he described as "the first Republican President."  What is interesting about this is that both are technically correct, Lincoln did indeed pen that quote, and Lincoln was the first Republican President of the United States.  However linking those two made it sound like that quote was representing a policy of President Lincoln in office, and that is not exactly the case.

President Lincoln in the 1860s did support a higher United States tariff, however the quote was taken from his writing on the subject in 1846, when he was about to enter Congress.  During his election for the Presidency Lincoln was a great deal more circumspect on the issue of the tariff, due to regional political issues and also the rising tension with the southern states, which remained broadly opposed to tariff protections.  More critically though, although the tariff was a means of protecting domestic United States industry at the time, it played a more critical role to the federal government in the early to mid 19th century - mainly as the primary source of revenue for the United States government.

Meet Hiram Barney, the Collector of the Port of New York from 1861 to 1864, President Lincoln's appointee to handle one of the key revenue points in the United States' federal revenue stream.  Prior to the legalization of direct income tax one of the key sources of non-borrowing revenue for the United States was tariff revenues, which were broadly collected across all goods imported into the United States.  The various tariff bills in the 1850s onward were oriented towards collecting uniform revenues whose purpose was to fund the federal government without favoring one area of the economy over another.

To put it more bluntly, the kind of tariff system designed to generate federal revenue, not to shield the United States economy from foreign competitive trade.  Because the economy of the United States in the 1860s was very different than the United States economy of the 1840s, when the quote President Trump is citing was written.

The debate on United States trade policy and the value of tariffs is a fine topic for debate and discussion, economists around the world have varying positions on the subject.  But it certainly should not be justified by a quote from 1840s Abraham Lincoln, talking about a fundamentally different way to organize the United States economy and its sources of federal revenue.

Sources:  Wikipedia entries on Hiram Barney and U.S. Tariff policy, Abraham Lincoln classroom on Lincoln and the Tariff, the University of Michigan library collected works of Abraham Lincoln (and quote source), and the transcript of President Trump's speech

Read More

Cold War 1958 - the Second Taiwan Crisis and a possible Nuclear War

Some of the more common known flash points of the Cold War in the United States are the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 and the Berlin Crisis of 1958, well known because they directly impacted the United States or involved a European nation.  However I was surprised to learn in 1958 there was another major Cold War flash point in Asia, specifically the Second Taiwan Straits Crisis.  Furthermore in some ways this particular crisis point appears to have been one of the closest ones to sparking an actual use of atomic weapons by the United States in a conventional conflict.

In 1958 Mao Zedong, China's leader, remained determined to bring the Republic of China, located on Taiwan island, under the control of the People's Republic of China.  Previously Mao had launched attacks on small islands controlled by Taiwan, usually through naval shelling, and in 1958 he made a second attempt to do so.  However in 1958 the United States was in a unique position to threaten excessive belligerence in response - in 1954 the United States and the Republic of China had signed a defensive agreement, binding the United States to come to the aid of Taiwan if attacked.  Furthermore in 1955 Eisenhower had persuaded Congress to pass the "Formosan Resolution" - an authorizing agreement allowing Eisenhower to use whatever force he deemed necessary to defend Taiwan without further consulting Congress.

Eisenhower initially responded to Mao's actions with traditional forces, deploying naval units to the Taiwan Straits and ordering protection of convoys bringing supplies to Taiwan.  However the Soviet Union, wanting to avoid an actual conflict between the United States and China, sent diplomats to negotiate a settlement to the crisis.  They were horrified to find that Mao, and other top Communist Chinese leaders, were ready for a conflict with the United States and appeared ready to accept possible nuclear weapons attacks against China.  Eisenhower, in turn, had accepted defending Taiwan from Communist China would require the use of nuclear weapons and had accepted a United States military plan to use nuclear weapons if needed.  Eisenhower even authorized deploying additional nuclear weapons to the region to ensure if they were required they were ready for immediate deployment.

Nikita Khrushchev, leader of the Soviet Union, added to the crisis further on 19 September 1958 when he sent a letter to Eisenhower stating that the Soviet Union had "nuclear and hydrogen bombs as well" and strongly implying if China was attacked, the Soviet Union would respond.  The United States at this time though had a massive strategic lead in atomic weapons, in both number and delivery capacity over the Soviet Union, and Eisenhower and the United States military were comfortable with this risk.  Eisenhower kept the nuclear forces in Taiwan and refused to back down.

The crisis was ultimately defused by Mao backing down and simply allowing the situation to deescalate.  Communist and Republic Chinese forces ended up exchanging shells with each other, filled with propaganda, on alternating days for several months.  Communist China kept up its shelling of propaganda shells until 1979 due to this confrontation.

What was surprising to me though was this crisis seemed MUCH more likely to lead to the use of nuclear weapons, Eisenhower and the United States Congress were comfortable with it, China was apparently fine with it, and the Soviet Union would probably have let the exchange take place.  Although the Cuban Missile Crisis was closer to an actual launch, this seems more terrifying because the participants seemed far more comfortable with it breaking loose than other crisis points in the Cold War.

Sources:  Wikipedia articles on the Second Taiwan Straits Crisis and Eisenhower, and The Cold War - A Very Short Introduction by Robert J. McMahon

Read More

Cold War 1958 - the Second Taiwan Crisis and a possible Nuclear War

Some of the more common known flash points of the Cold War in the United States are the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 and the Berlin Crisis of 1958, well known because they directly impacted the United States or involved a European nation.  However I was surprised to learn in 1958 there was another major Cold War flash point in Asia, specifically the Second Taiwan Straits Crisis.  Furthermore in some ways this particular crisis point appears to have been one of the closest ones to sparking an actual use of atomic weapons by the United States in a conventional conflict.

In 1958 Mao Zedong, China's leader, remained determined to bring the Republic of China, located on Taiwan island, under the control of the People's Republic of China.  Previously Mao had launched attacks on small islands controlled by Taiwan, usually through naval shelling, and in 1958 he made a second attempt to do so.  However in 1958 the United States was in a unique position to threaten excessive belligerence in response - in 1954 the United States and the Republic of China had signed a defensive agreement, binding the United States to come to the aid of Taiwan if attacked.  Furthermore in 1955 Eisenhower had persuaded Congress to pass the "Formosan Resolution" - an authorizing agreement allowing Eisenhower to use whatever force he deemed necessary to defend Taiwan without further consulting Congress.

Eisenhower initially responded to Mao's actions with traditional forces, deploying naval units to the Taiwan Straits and ordering protection of convoys bringing supplies to Taiwan.  However the Soviet Union, wanting to avoid an actual conflict between the United States and China, sent diplomats to negotiate a settlement to the crisis.  They were horrified to find that Mao, and other top Communist Chinese leaders, were ready for a conflict with the United States and appeared ready to accept possible nuclear weapons attacks against China.  Eisenhower, in turn, had accepted defending Taiwan from Communist China would require the use of nuclear weapons and had accepted a United States military plan to use nuclear weapons if needed.  Eisenhower even authorized deploying additional nuclear weapons to the region to ensure if they were required they were ready for immediate deployment.

Nikita Khrushchev, leader of the Soviet Union, added to the crisis further on 19 September 1958 when he sent a letter to Eisenhower stating that the Soviet Union had "nuclear and hydrogen bombs as well" and strongly implying if China was attacked, the Soviet Union would respond.  The United States at this time though had a massive strategic lead in atomic weapons, in both number and delivery capacity over the Soviet Union, and Eisenhower and the United States military were comfortable with this risk.  Eisenhower kept the nuclear forces in Taiwan and refused to back down.

The crisis was ultimately defused by Mao backing down and simply allowing the situation to deescalate.  Communist and Republic Chinese forces ended up exchanging shells with each other, filled with propaganda, on alternating days for several months.  Communist China kept up its shelling of propaganda shells until 1979 due to this confrontation.

What was surprising to me though was this crisis seemed MUCH more likely to lead to the use of nuclear weapons, Eisenhower and the United States Congress were comfortable with it, China was apparently fine with it, and the Soviet Union would probably have let the exchange take place.  Although the Cuban Missile Crisis was closer to an actual launch, this seems more terrifying because the participants seemed far more comfortable with it breaking loose than other crisis points in the Cold War.

Sources:  Wikipedia articles on the Second Taiwan Straits Crisis and Eisenhower, and The Cold War - A Very Short Introduction by Robert J. McMahon

Read More

Independent Automakers, Post-World War II, and Labor Unrest

Within the United States for a long period of time automobile production was dominated by "The Big Three" - General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler.  This dominance led to a nearly crushing control of the United States automobile market, however with the end of World War II an unusual combination of forces came together to create a strange temporary niche for smaller automobile manufacturers to break into the domestic United States market.  This fed a short early period in the 1950s where American consumers suddenly saw a collection of unusual and innovative cars appearing in the United States marketplace, until the Big Three were able to reassert their dominance.

From 1942 to 1945 the major labor unions within the United States entered into an informal bargain with the United States government, in exchange for no sanctioned strikes the federal government would support the "closed shop" model throughout the United States.  This compromise was seen as necessary to support the war production effort and unions throughout the United States worked to keep strikes to a minimum.  Workers however did go out on strike, usually small wildcat strikes that were not approved and not supported by the unions.  With the end of World War II in 1945 however President Truman decided that the United States economy needed to get back to normal as quickly as possible.  He drastically cut federal military spending and pushed for the United States domestic economy to transition back to civilian production.

Part of this shift to a post-war economy involved ending the high wages paid to workers that had been fueled by United States military spending.  This, in turn, provoked a massive wave of strikes that roiled the United States between 1945 to 1947.  This led to a period of unprecedented federal action against striking workers, including President Truman seizing entire industries and putting them under federal control to keep the economy functioning, using special emergency powers granted to fight World War II.  Hundreds of thousands of workers left their jobs, including mass strikes by organized automobile employees and steelworkers.  This, in turn, created shortfalls of domestic automobile production right after World War II, a period in which Americans were hungry for new cars, having just lived through a three year civilian car production drought and having ample funds saved from wartime higher rates of pay.

Where there is a shortage and a high level of demand, new suppliers will appear.  During the late 1940s even smaller independent car manufacturers had trouble shifting in new models, but the Big Three faced the same challenges.  So when the early 1950s rolled around an assortment of small manufacturers could offer a car hungry public something "different" at the same time the Big Three rolled out their new lines.  Sales numbers never came close to the Big Three but for a few magical years in the late 1940s and early 1950s, small car companies began to command noticeable market share.

Even some truly new ideas appeared, like the Tucker Torpedo above, which never really got off the ground but did catch a great number of people's eye.

A particularly odd addition to this early line-up, and a missed opportunity due to timing not being quite right, was the Nash Rambler.  This adorable little car was produced between 1950 to 1955 and captured a small segment of the American domestic market.  It occupied a new niche in the American market, fuel efficient, compact, economic cars built to high quality.  Unfortunately the majority of American car purchasers were looking for larger, more powerful, and more feature-laden automobiles at the time and the Nash Rambler didn't make the impact that was hoped.  Even after 1955, with the American Motors Corporation keeping the line alive for several more years, it just missed the mark.

That market segment didn't really explode until the 1960s, you might recognize that iconic car above as the major winner of that change in United States domestic car tastes.  Further challenges appeared in the 1970s with the oil price spikes and a shift to interest in Japanese compact cars.  It is interesting to note though that the Nash Rambler would have been ready for that market opening, if the timing had just been right. 

A niche carved out due, in large part, to the economic turmoil from 1945 to 1947 combined with a public crazy for new cars and willing to give the unusual a spin.

Sources:  Wikipedia articles on the Volkswagen Beetle, the Tucker 48 Torpedo, the Nash Rambler, the Strike Waves of 1945-1946, the Presidency of Harry S Truman, and Automotive History of the United States post-World War II, this article on World War II and post-World War II labor unrest, and American 'Independent' Automakers, AMC to Willys 1945 to 1960 part of the "Those Were The Days" series by Veloce Books.

Read More

Independent Automakers, Post-World War II, and Labor Unrest

Within the United States for a long period of time automobile production was dominated by "The Big Three" - General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler.  This dominance led to a nearly crushing control of the United States automobile market, however with the end of World War II an unusual combination of forces came together to create a strange temporary niche for smaller automobile manufacturers to break into the domestic United States market.  This fed a short early period in the 1950s where American consumers suddenly saw a collection of unusual and innovative cars appearing in the United States marketplace, until the Big Three were able to reassert their dominance.

From 1942 to 1945 the major labor unions within the United States entered into an informal bargain with the United States government, in exchange for no sanctioned strikes the federal government would support the "closed shop" model throughout the United States.  This compromise was seen as necessary to support the war production effort and unions throughout the United States worked to keep strikes to a minimum.  Workers however did go out on strike, usually small wildcat strikes that were not approved and not supported by the unions.  With the end of World War II in 1945 however President Truman decided that the United States economy needed to get back to normal as quickly as possible.  He drastically cut federal military spending and pushed for the United States domestic economy to transition back to civilian production.

Part of this shift to a post-war economy involved ending the high wages paid to workers that had been fueled by United States military spending.  This, in turn, provoked a massive wave of strikes that roiled the United States between 1945 to 1947.  This led to a period of unprecedented federal action against striking workers, including President Truman seizing entire industries and putting them under federal control to keep the economy functioning, using special emergency powers granted to fight World War II.  Hundreds of thousands of workers left their jobs, including mass strikes by organized automobile employees and steelworkers.  This, in turn, created shortfalls of domestic automobile production right after World War II, a period in which Americans were hungry for new cars, having just lived through a three year civilian car production drought and having ample funds saved from wartime higher rates of pay.

Where there is a shortage and a high level of demand, new suppliers will appear.  During the late 1940s even smaller independent car manufacturers had trouble shifting in new models, but the Big Three faced the same challenges.  So when the early 1950s rolled around an assortment of small manufacturers could offer a car hungry public something "different" at the same time the Big Three rolled out their new lines.  Sales numbers never came close to the Big Three but for a few magical years in the late 1940s and early 1950s, small car companies began to command noticeable market share.

Even some truly new ideas appeared, like the Tucker Torpedo above, which never really got off the ground but did catch a great number of people's eye.

A particularly odd addition to this early line-up, and a missed opportunity due to timing not being quite right, was the Nash Rambler.  This adorable little car was produced between 1950 to 1955 and captured a small segment of the American domestic market.  It occupied a new niche in the American market, fuel efficient, compact, economic cars built to high quality.  Unfortunately the majority of American car purchasers were looking for larger, more powerful, and more feature-laden automobiles at the time and the Nash Rambler didn't make the impact that was hoped.  Even after 1955, with the American Motors Corporation keeping the line alive for several more years, it just missed the mark.

That market segment didn't really explode until the 1960s, you might recognize that iconic car above as the major winner of that change in United States domestic car tastes.  Further challenges appeared in the 1970s with the oil price spikes and a shift to interest in Japanese compact cars.  It is interesting to note though that the Nash Rambler would have been ready for that market opening, if the timing had just been right. 

A niche carved out due, in large part, to the economic turmoil from 1945 to 1947 combined with a public crazy for new cars and willing to give the unusual a spin.

Sources:  Wikipedia articles on the Volkswagen Beetle, the Tucker 48 Torpedo, the Nash Rambler, the Strike Waves of 1945-1946, the Presidency of Harry S Truman, and Automotive History of the United States post-World War II, this article on World War II and post-World War II labor unrest, and American 'Independent' Automakers, AMC to Willys 1945 to 1960 part of the "Those Were The Days" series by Veloce Books.

Read More

1920 National Defense Act, Tank Developments, and World War II (Why U.S. WW II tanks kind of sucked)

One of the unusual stories from the interwar period (1919 - 1941 for the United States) is the passing of the National Defense Act of 1920.  Sponsored by Julius Kahn this piece of legislation reorganized the United States Army and modified the rules on procurement and acquisitions, aiming to decentralize the process.  The National Defense Act of 1920, to my eye, has its greatest impact in how it influenced the development of tanks in the United States between World War I and World War II, due to a key technical requirement of the bill, that tanks were to be subordinated to the needs of the Army.  During World War I the United States had played with the idea of a separate Tanks Corps but after the war decided to focus in on tanks serving in an infantry support roll.

This, frankly, annoyed two leading United States military figures, Patton and Eisenhower, because it would strip tanks of their mobility potential and instead put them on the path of being rolling infantry support vehicles.  Congress however was firm on this point and also reduced the available budget for tank development to a bare minimum, forcing the army to pour its development dollars in the 1920s into vehicles like the one pictured above, the M2, a slow, under armed, mobile gun platform with an emphasis on machine guns to cut down advancing infantry over heavy cannons to destroy other tanks.

However Douglas MacArthur was made Chief of Staff of the United States Army and MacArthur wanted the United States Army to focus on being a faster, more mobile, and more nimble force.  He also wanted to develop tanks that focused on mobility and anti-tank capacity over lumbering along behind the infantry with a wad of machine guns.  But Congress had forbidden any development of tanks except by the Army, so what was a newly appointed general to do?

As it turns out, engage in some legal trickery.  The top image, and the one just above, are of respectively the T7 Combat Car and the M1 Combat Car.  Nearly identical to tanks they were developed by the United States Cavalry and use of development dollars was permitted because MacArthur told the Congress, with a straight face, that these weren't tanks.  No, these were "combat cars" - use they had armor, they had treads, and they had guns, but they were "cars" not tanks.  In fact the T7 Combat Car pictured at the top was built so it could be converted from treads to rubber tires, so it could flexibly roll along paved roads and then switch to an off-road tracked configuration.

This focus by Congress on cost-savings, and pinching military development funds during the interwar period, did help reduce the federal budget but it also led to the United States entering World War II with some, speaking frankly, really shitty tanks.  What you see above is the M3 Medium Tank, the Grant, which was obsolete at the start of the war and featured the terrible design flaw of many western tanks of the period, putting the heavy armament in a fixed side turret because fully rotating top turrets were hard to make work well.  The problem with this design is if your enemy happens to have a tank with a moving turret they have a better chance of lining up your non-cannon side for a kill shot.  (Note the awesome side mounted machine guns though.)

The United States did eventually hammer the issues out, with the design of the M4 Sherman, but it was made under pressure of war.  The United States also never really got into the business of real heavy tanks until World War II was nearly over, leading to some very lopsided tank engagements in 1944 through 1945 with the German army.

But I remain convinced it all hinges on the 1920 National Defense Act and how Congress shifted the focus of the United States military towards a fun-sized cost-saving military plan.

Sources:  Wikipedia articles on U.S. Tank Development History, the 1920 National Defense Act, the T7 Combat Car, the M1 Combat Car, and U.S. Army Military history journal entry on the Birth of the Armored Forces

Read More