The Tobacco Controversy in America

The Tobacco Controversy of 1857 Revisited

Colin Mustful

1

Contents

Abstract

Throughout the nineteenth century the issue of tobacco

smoking was an area of constant debate. In 1857 this

debate became public through the pages of the British

medical journal the Lancet in what is known as the

Tobacco Controversy of 1857. The controversy in Great

Britain initiated a thorough discussion over the effects of

tobacco smoking in America. The debate was vibrant, but

at the time it led to no significant results. However, the

controversy created public awareness about the possible

effects of tobacco smoking and laid an important

foundation for future discussion, research, and legislation.

Essay – 2

Appendix – 33

Excerpt from Samuel Solly, “Clinical Lectures on

Paralysis.”

Bibliography – 34

2

During the American Civil War cigarettes were

issued as a ration in the United States Navy and as a ration

to men enlisted in the Confederate Army.1 At the time

cigarettes were rare, but they were a perfect fit for the

soldier because they were small, easy to carry, and quick to

smoke.2 In addition to the convenience of cigarettes, they

also provided soldiers with a distraction from the hardships,

fear, and horrors of war.3 To soldiers, tobacco became a

1 According to Jerome E. Brooks, “tobacco was an

established ration issued in the United States Navy and it

was, by Act of the Confederate Congress, provided to

enlisted men.” Jerome E. Brooks, The Mighty Leaf:

Tobacco Through the Centuries (Boston: Little, Brown

and Company, 1952), 221. 2 Historian Eric Burns noted that to the soldiers,

“cigarettes seemed so tailor-made for battle that they might

have been designed by a quartermaster.” Eric Burns, The

Smoke of Gods: a social history of tobacco (Philadelphia:

Temple University Press, 2007), 131. 3 Burns commented that, “commanding officers

wanted their men to smoke, knowing that they needed

distraction from the ennui and horrors around them.” Ibid.,

125.

3

necessity of battle. However, despite the popularity of

cigarettes among soldiers in the Civil War, the habit failed

to attract the appeal of the general public. Men who

returned from battle did not carry the cigarette home with

them. Rather, most soldiers returned to the unhurried

comfort of the pipe or cigar.4

Though cigarettes were slow to gain public

popularity, tobacco was not. Before, during, and following

the American Civil War tobacco consumption was

constantly on the rise.5 By the 1860s, tobacco smoking had

become a much more public and widely practiced habit.

4 Here historian Burns wrote, “rather than bringing

the habit home with them, many soldiers seemed to believe

that they had now earned the right to return to their cigars

or pipes, to smoke unhurriedly again in safe, familiar

surroundings.” Ibid., 132. 5 Historian Jerome E. Brooks reported that, “the

value of manufactured tobacco products which had been

estimated at 30.9 millions in 1860 had, by 1880, risen to

116.8 millions.” Brooks, The Mighty Leaf, 235.

4

Due to its increased notoriety, smoking had also become

more widely discussed. Particularly, people sought to

discuss the effects of tobacco smoking. As more people

consumed tobacco, its effects became recognized and, at

times, thoroughly debated.

In the mid-nineteenth century opposition to tobacco

was not an entirely new phenomenon. Criticism of tobacco

goes as far back as 1604 when King James of England

produced his Counterblaste to Tobacco in which he

strongly denounced the use of tobacco.6 Despite spurts of

opposition over the centuries, it was not until the nineteenth

century that genuine discussion over the effects of tobacco

smoke emerged. In 1857 the most significant discussion

occurred in the British medical journal Lancet. The Lancet

posed the question, “Is Tobacco Smoking Injurious?” The

6 King James I, A Counterblaste to Tobacco (New

York: De Capo Press, 1604, 1969).

5

question provoked a multitude of responses from those both

for and against the use of tobacco. The debate represented

the first notable discussion in regards to the effects of

tobacco smoking. As noted by historian Eric Burns, the

“Lancet became the most reputable source yet to make

specific charges against tobacco.”7

The unique and extensive nature of the 1857

Tobacco Controversy presented in the pages of the Lancet

encouraged further debate about the effects of tobacco

smoking. Although the attack on tobacco resulted in

delayed reform, its immediate effect was quite minimal.

Historian Eric Burns observed that “the British citizenry

could not have been less alarmed by the Lancet

conclusions.”8 Furthermore, legislative action against

smoking in Great Britain was not taken for an entire half

7 Eric Burns, The Smoke of Gods, 190.

8 Ibid.

6

century following the 1857 Tobacco Controversy.

Although it may not have immediately influenced public

attitudes or legislative action, the debate began the process

of gathering data, evaluating information, and publicizing

conclusions.

In the United States during the mid nineteenth-

century a public debate about smoking as direct as that

found in the Lancet did not occur. However, as a result of

the 1857 Tobacco Controversy in Great Britain, American

periodicals and newspapers introduced the issue. But,

similar to the smoking debate in Great Britain, the

controversy in the United States produced few immediate

results or clear answers. Instead, there was continual

argument made for and against tobacco without reaching a

significant conclusion. Despite a lack of results the

American Tobacco Controversy remained important.

7

One notable consensus emerged from the American

Tobacco Controversy. All sides agreed that the effects of

tobacco smoking needed to be discussed. Although

physicians could hardly agree on the repercussions of

smoking, they knew it was important and that it could not

be ignored. While writing in the Lancet, physician David

Johnson noted that a discussion on the effects of tobacco

would indeed add a valuable contribution to medical

science.9 Though Johnson made an important observation,

he was not the first to make such a remark. As early as

1846, eleven years prior to the Tobacco Controversy, an

American, Reverend Benjamin Lane published the book,

Responses on the Use of Tobacco.10

In his work, Lane

invited responses from both clergy and physicians

9 David Johnson, “Is Smoking Inurious?” The

Lancet, i (3 Jan. 1857), 22. 10

Benjamin Ingersol Lane, Responses on the Use of

Tobacco (New York: Wiley and Putnam, 1846).

8

regarding their opinions and observations on the use of

tobacco. Lane sought to call attention to the use of tobacco

and to obtain facts from those who had them. Lane

suggested that “very few have turned their attention to the

subject of tobacco.”11

In an essay written nine years after Benjamin

Lane’s work, American physician S.A. Ogier expressed the

same opinion and argued that the effects of tobacco

smoking needed to be discussed. Although Ogier wrote his

essay two years prior to the 1857 Tobacco Controversy, he

noted that some physicians at the time believed the tobacco

question to be fully determined.12

Therefore, as early as

11

Ibid., 8. Supporting Lane, British clergyman

Beman suggested that the negative effects of tobacco are

endless and stated, “I wonder physicians keep silent as they

do.” Ibid., 155. 12

Ogier wrote that “to some this may appear a

useless consumption of time, regarding the question of its

being injurious as settled beyond dispute; such, would

9

1855, some held that the effects of tobacco smoking were

indisputably injurious. However, Ogier challenged this

notion and suggested that there is a diversity of opinion

regarding the effects of tobacco smoking throughout the

medical profession.13

In the conclusion of his essay, Ogier

added his hope of drawing attention to the subject of

tobacco smoking which he believed had not been

thoroughly discussed.14

In 1861 physician Dan King wrote an intensive

discourse on the use of tobacco in which he also stated that

certainly seem to be a rational view of the subject.” S.A.

Ogier, “Essay on the Use of Tobacco.” The Medical

Reporter, ii, no. 3 (Jan. 1855), 66. 13

Ibid. 14

Toward the end of his essay, Ogier wrote,

“enough has been said, I conceive to draw the attention of

the society to the subject, which I think has not received

that attention which its importance merits.” Ibid., 75.

10

the subject of tobacco smoking deserved attention.15

Furthermore, King referred to the comments made in the

Lancet by Samuel Solly and David Johnson during the

1857 Tobacco Controversy. This demonstrated, that

although King was aware of the previous debate concerning

the tobacco question, he still contended that it needed to be

discussed to a greater degree. Moreover, King showed here

that despite the somewhat limited scope of the 1857

Tobacco Controversy, it reached the attention of the

American medical profession.

If it had not been determined already, as late as

1867 contributors to local American periodicals still

suggested that the use of tobacco was a subject that

deserved attention. One physician, after having diagnosed

15

King stated, “the more the subject is examined,

the greater its importance appears, and the constantly

increasing consumption of tobacco, certainly deserves

attention.” Dan King, Tobacco; what it is, and what it does

(New York: S.S. & W. Wood, 1861), 11.

11

tobacco as a cause of amaurosis, suggested that his

discovery merited serious attention from the medical

profession.16

Another contributor, also writing in 1867,

strongly noted his belief that not only had the effects of

tobacco smoking been neglected, but that they had been

intentionally overlooked by those in the medical

profession.17

This may be because some physicians

disregarded the effects of tobacco smoking in order to

avoid conflict.18

Due to the popularity smoking had

16

Here the physician stated that “the circumstantial

evidence tending to connect the disease with the use of

tobacco as a cause deserves the serious attention of the

profession.” “Amaurosis Caused by Tobacco Smoking,”

Bangor Daily Whig and Courier (Bangor, ME), Nov. 7,

1867. 17

The author stated, “on the score of selfishness or

ignorance, the main body of the profession are mournfully

derelict in duty touching the ruinous effects of this great

and fashionable narcotic.” “Injurious Effects of Tobacco,”

The Christian Recorder (Philadelphia, PA), Aug. 3, 1867.

12

achieved, it was a delicate subject, and one which many

physicians avoided. One author, a supporter of smoking,

reasoned that the subject had not been completely discussed

because the effects of smoking are limited and few.19

Therefore, he believed that topic had been ignored because

it was irrelevant. Whether ignored or unnoticed,

contenders in the Tobacco Controversy recognized that the

effects of tobacco smoking needed to be discussed.

Those who did not ignore the subject of tobacco

smoking contrived a huge array of arguments both for and

18

In an article written in the Atlantic Monthly in

1860, the author states that “whichever side of the question

we may assume, as the most popular, or most right, the

feelings of so large and respectable minority are to be

consulted, that it behooves the critic or reviewer to move

cautiously.” “Tobacco,” Atlantic Monthly, 6 (Aug., 1860),

187. 19

The author asks the question, “How is it that the

great majority of men in every country can daily ‘poison’

themselves, and yet the effects of this imprudence escape

our notice?” “The Dangers and Delights of Tobacco,”

Every Saturday, 6 (Nov. 28, 1868), 679.

13

against the habit. For instance, tobacco opponents cited

physical disease, mental lethargy, and national

degeneration as negative effects of tobacco smoking.

Meanwhile, proponents cited mental stability, relaxation,

and comfort as positive effects of tobacco smoking.

Despite numerous arguments put forth during the 1857

Tobacco Controversy, there remained almost countless

other claims regarding the effects of tobacco smoking.

Though what was known was little, what was argued was

considerable.20

In the years surrounding the 1857 Tobacco

Controversy, tobacco opponents in the United States

aggressively publicized their arguments.21

Opponents

20

In an article about the effects of tobacco the

author stated that “what is absolutely known is very little.”

“Tobacco,” Atlantic Monthly, 195. 21

Writing in 1860 one author concluded, in regards

to the controversy, that “the reformers have hitherto had the

14

presented a vast amount of evidence and hearsay critical of

smoking, but their suggested reforms were ignored. The

critics contended that smoking caused, as well as

aggravated disease.22

Opponents recognized and argued

that smoking was the cause of disease.23

Opponents also contended that smoking weakened

the intellect. They argued that smoking slowed and

depressed the mind’s ability to think. They believed that

smoking hindered the mind so that it could no longer

function properly.24

better of it in point of argument, and have pushed the attack

with most vigor, yet but with trifling results.” Ibid., 187. 22

One author noted that “several forms of disease . . .

are greatly aggravated and often rendered fatal by the use

of tobacco.” “May I Use Tobacco?” The Christian

Recorder, (April 4, 1863). 23

Physician S.A. Ogier reported that “gesture

derangement is probably the most common, if not constant

attendant upon its use.” Ogier, “Essay on the Use of

Tobacc,” 71.

15

There were, of course, less popular arguments made

against tobacco smoking. One such argument was that

tobacco smoking made a man poor. In this case, opponents

recognized the effect of tobacco on the material well-being

of a man rather than on his physical or mental well-being.

One author noted that money spent on tobacco was, in

some cases, greater than the money spent on bread.25

Opponents considered it deplorable that a man use his

money on such a harmful habit, which only acted to make a

man poor.26

24

In one such case, physician Dan King remarked

that while smoking, “the mind is in a state of dreamy

repose so long as the stimulus lasts, and when that is

discontinued it sinks into a state of relapse, and in process

of time its powers become permanently enfeebled and

depraved.” King, Tobacco, 46. 25

In an 1863 article the author reported that “the

city of New York consumes $16,000 a day for cigars, and

$12,000 for bread – one fourth more everyday for the

pledge of a premature death than for the staff of life!”

“May I Use Tobaccco?” The Christian Recorder.

16

Another interesting, but less common argument of

opponents, had been that smoking was a cause of infidelity.

Writing in 1861, physician Dan King concluded that

“wherever tobacco is most used, infidelity is most

prevalent.”27

In fact, women seen smoking were often

assumed to be unchaste.28

Another commenter suggested

that smoking actually worked to separate men from women.

Smoking, he argued, “impairs virility” and leads men away

from women and toward the companionship of men.29

26

Physician Dan King argued that, “it is obvious

that all the money expended for tobacco is so much lost,

and as almost every one expends more or less in his way a

large portion of the people are made poorer by it.” King,

Tobacco, 60-61. 27

Ibid., 128. 28

Historian Jerome E. Brooks commented that “it

was a forgone conclusion with the reforming element that a

female who indulged in the new vice tacitly admitted that

she had relinquished her chastity.” Brooks, The Mighty

Leaf, 231.

17

Furthermore, the same author remarked that smoking had

the effect of making a man impolite. He stated that

“smoking dulls a man’s sense of the rights of others.”30

Though these effects had no physical consequences, they

still served as a warning against the habit of smoking.

In addition to these, opponents claimed numerous

other ill effects of smoking. Some denounced smoking as

the cause of deafness, blindness, and even insanity.

Opponents also argued that smoking acted to stunt growth

and cause a man to be a dwarf. Smoking was claimed as

bad for the heart which in turn shortened life. Also, it was

contended that smoking promoted drinking and therefore

29

The author argued that “tobacco, by disturbing

and impairing virility, tends to vitiate the relations between

the sexes, tends to lessen man’s interest in women and his

enjoyment of their society, and enables him to endure and

be contented with, and finally even to prefer, the

companionship of men.” An Old Smoker, “Does it Pay to

Smoke?” Atlantic Monthly, 21 (1868), 137. 30

Ibid., 138.

18

led to drunkenness. Others claimed that tobacco impaired

the appetite. Smoking was also noted to produce languor

and even fretfulness. Altogether, opponents viewed

tobacco as a torment whose effects were negative in every

sense. They sought as many reasons as possible to speak

out against the habit. Physician T.L. Wright properly

summarized the perspective of opponents when he wrote,

“the habitual use of tobacco, even when its most distressing

effects are not reached, is merely a slow but certain process

of dwarfing, or belittling, a man, both in an intellectual and

moral sense.”31

But, no matter the arguments expressed by

opponents, the effects of tobacco smoking were unclear to

physicians and the general public alike.32

Regardless,

31

T.L. Wright, “The Use of Tobacco,” Cincinnati

Lancet and Observer, 15 (1872), 283.

32 For instance, upon attending his patient in 1862,

Dr. P.J. Farnsworth wrote, “I questioned him now about his

smoking, and found that he had considered it so small a

matter as not to mention it.” P.J. Farnsworth, “Some of the

19

opponents were determined to make their viewpoint known

as shown through their near endless arguments.

The appeals of tobacco supporters were also

numerous, but did not compare to those of the tobacco

opponents. Those who spoke in favor of the use of tobacco

could not match the variety and multitude of opinions set

forth by opponents. However, proponents strongly

defended their case throughout the controversy. Arguments

made by proponents generally appealed to their affection

and fondness of tobacco smoking. Although they

occasionally questioned the accusations of opponents, most

proponents sought to exalt the use of tobacco rather than

deny its negative effects. The most popular argument

contended that tobacco soothed the working classes. This

argument was evident in the original Lancet debate and

continued in the comments of U.S. proponents. They

Effects of Tobacco,” American Medical Times, 5 (Oct. 4,

1862), 190.

20

believed that no matter if tobacco was an evil, it was a

necessary luxury to the poor and working men who needed

a break from the hardships of reality.33

Proponents

perceived that the calming, soothing, and relaxing benefits

of tobacco outweighed any negative effects produced by its

use.34

Proponents also claimed that tobacco contributed to

social cooperation. They suggested that the use of tobacco

brought people together. In this way, some believed

tobacco smoking erased class lines because of its ability to

bring rich and poor together.35

It also fostered gentlemanly

33

Speaking on behalf of tobacco one author asked,

“who could wish to deny a poor man a luxury so cheap, and

so dear to him?” An Old Smoker, “Does it Pay,” 129. 34

In an 1859 New York Times article the author

appealed that “all persons who have gone through long,

solitary, disheartening exertion in the open air, know the

soothing and sustaining power of tobacco.” “The Tobacco

Question,” New York Times (New York, NY), Aug. 23,

1859.

21

domestic habits.36

Rather than making a man rude,

proponents believed that it made a man more polite and

comfortable to be with.

From the perspective of the proponents, the

widespread use of tobacco signified its harmlessness. They

noted that the product of tobacco was used in excess all

around the world and that its use was always increasing.

Because of its wide use, proponents believed that it could

not have negative effects, or, at least that its effects could

not be as deleterious as suggested by opponents. They

claimed that since tobacco was so widely used, it must

35

The author here stated that “the remarkable

circumstance was, that all the difference which naturally

exists, and naturally appears, between an educated and an

uneducated person was obliterated; and it seemed, too, that

the smoke was the common element in which the two were

blended.” An Old Smoker, “Does it Pay,” 135. 36

One author suggested that “smoking is eminently

social, and favors domestic habits.” “Tobacco,” Atlantic

Monthly, 199.

22

therefore have had an enriching quality and did not possess

any negative aspects.37

In order to further support their side of the argument,

proponents also proposed that the effects of tobacco

smoking were different for each individual. They

suggested that although the effects are negative for some,

they are positive for others. In this way, proponents did not

deny certain baneful effects, but instead suggested that each

individual must decide for himself if he chooses to

smoke.38

Because proponents could not be sure of the

37

To support this argument one author wrote, “from

these columns of consumption we may logically deduce

two prime points for argument. First, that an article so

widely used must possess some peculiar quality producing

a desirable effect. Second, that an article so widely used

cannot produce any marked deleterious effect.”

“Tobacco,” Atlantic Monthly, 192. 38

One author, writing in 1868, petitioned that, “it is

in every man’s power to answer very decidedly for himself

the very important question whether tobacco is injurious to

him.” “The Dangers,” Every Saturday, 684.

23

direct medical effects of smoking, they determined that it

ought to be left as a matter of personal choice. Though

smoking may have been injurious to some, they argued that

it could not be injurious to all. For instance, while writing

in 1862, physician P.J. Farnsworth conceded that smoking

was injurious, but that only one of five users experienced

its deleterious effects.39

And even for those who were

made ill by tobacco, he argued, smoking may still have

been considered a benefit.40

Among the numerous arguments, both sides agreed

from the earliest stages of the debate that tobacco use

among youths was deleterious and should be prohibited.41

39

P.J. Farnsworth, “Some of the Effects of

Tobacco,” 190. 40

Physician S.A. Ogier wrote, “Alas that the sweet

feeling of satisfaction and repose, must be disturbed by the

painful conviction of disease induced by the indulgence;

but so it is.” Ogier, Essay on the Use of Tobacco, 71.

24

Also, both sides pleaded that smoking among youths

should be forbidden.42

Contributors to the debate clearly

recognized smoking was detrimental to youth development

although they may not have acknowledged the same effects

among adults.

Ultimately, the lack of a consensus on the effects of

smoking during the second half of the nineteenth century

limited legislative action against smoking. In Great Britain,

legislative action was not taken against smoking until 1908,

when Parliament passed the Children’s Charter Act

41

While writing in 1860, an author who strongly

supported the use of tobacco wrote, “on one point we are

sure . . . and that is in a sincere denunciation of the habit of

smoking at a tender age.” “Tobacco,” Atlantic Monthly,

202. 42

An 1865 newspaper article wrote, “in these days

we need to increase the intellectual and bodily strength of

our youth: we therefore beg of the masters of schools, of

the fathers, mothers, and others who have charge of boys to

have no hesitation about the matter, but to put out the pipes

of the small boys at once.” The Daily Miners’ Register,

“Tobacco Smoking,” October 6, 1865.

25

forbidding the sale of tobacco to youths age sixteen and

under. In America, legislative prohibitions occurred sooner

than in Great Britain, but those results remained limited and

temporal.

In 1864 the U.S. federal government began to tax

cigarettes.43

Though this did not restrict their sale, it may

have acted to deter their demand. In the seventeenth

century King James issued a tobacco tax for this very

reason.44

It was not until 1883 that legislative action was

taken to prohibit the sale of tobacco when New Jersey

made it illegal to sell tobacco to youths age sixteen and

under.45

Though this was not a federal law, it represented

43 Cassandra Tate, Cigarette Wars: The Triumph of

the Little White Slaver, (Oxford: Oxford University Press,

1999), 12-13. 44

Burns, Smoke of Gods, 47. 45

U.S. Congressional Serial Set, 51st Cong., 2nd

sess., Serial Set Vol. No. 2821, Session Vol. No. 3.

26

substantive action against tobacco smoking. Also, it took

place twenty-five years prior to the Children’s Charter Act

in Great Britain. Numerous states followed New Jersey’s

example and by 1892 twenty-nine states had passed laws

forbidding the sale of tobacco to minors.46

The opponents of smoking gained significant

support in 1892 when the U.S. Senate Committee on

Epidemic Disease called cigarettes a public health hazard.47

The Senators apparently paid heed to an 1892 petition to

Congress by physician Prentiss D. Webster, who concluded,

“I cannot express too strongly, from a medical point of

view, my opinion of the grave, deleterious effects of the use

of tobacco – especially by cigarette smoking – by young

person.”48

Here, Webster reflected the growing judgment

46

Ibid. 47

Burns, Smoke of Gods, 156.

27

against tobacco smoking. Furthermore, historian Cassandra

Tate commented that by the 1890s, “the question was not

whether cigarettes were harmful . . . but whether it was

possible or desirable to obliterate them by law.”49

Then, in 1893, Washington became the first state to

ban the buying, selling, and manufacturing of cigarettes

altogether.50

Between 1895 and 1909 twelve other states

made it completely illegal to smoke cigarettes thereby

following the precedent set by Washington State.51

Unfortunately, such laws were not rigidly enforced. As

noted by historian Eric Burns, “a cop’s mood on a given

48

U.S. Congressional Serial Set, 51st Cong., 2nd

sess., Serial Set Vol. No. 2821, Session Vol. No. 3.

49

Tate, Cigarette Wars, 46. 50

Tate, Cigarette Wars, 46. 51

Burns, Smoke of Gods, 149.

28

day, or his own particular cravings or lack thereof for

tobacco, might be all that determined a smoker’s fate.”52

The culmination of early anti-tobacco legislation

occurred in the beginnings of the twentieth century. By

1916, every state had a law of some sort restricting the sale

of tobacco.53

But, in the same year, author William Young

observed that “there is every evidence that anti-cigarette

legislation, which a few years ago was rampant all over the

country, is rapidly dying out.”54

After 1916 legislation

against tobacco continued to diminish and by 1927 all

fourteen states that had previously banned the sale of

52

Ibid., 156. 53

William Wesley Young, The Story of the

Cigarette (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1916),

274. 54

William Wesley Young, The Story of the

Cigarette, 275.

29

cigarettes lifted their restrictions to at least a partial

degree.55

In the end, little had changed.

Throughout the latter half of the nineteenth century

the tobacco habit grew and changed, but was unaltered by

controversy. As debate over the tobacco habit rose and fell

little had been determined of its effects. By the twentieth

century legislators knew enough to say smoking was

injurious, but their laws were neither enforced nor

permanent. Instead, whether the effects of smoking were

slandered or advocated, smoking continued.56

The Tobacco Controversy, however, was not as

irrelevant as its immediate results imply. Firstly, the 1857

Tobacco Controversy put forth in the Lancet was a

55

Burns, Smoke of Gods, 168. 56

In an 1868 essay the author noted that in the

previous ten years tobacco consumption had doubled. This

just following the 1857 Tobacco Controversy. “Dangers

and Delights,” Every Saturday, 679.

30

remarkably unique catalyst for continued debate on the

effects of tobacco smoking. Never before had such a vast

array of opinion been discussed about the effects of tobacco

in such a concise time frame as it had in the Lancet. The

Lancet acted as an open forum for allegation and retort.

Ultimately it incited a prolonged debate on the effects of

tobacco smoking and aroused the prolonged and vibrant

tobacco controversy in America. Though the Civil War

helped popularize smoking, the 1857 Tobacco Controversy

made it an issue. Since the question over the injurious

effects had been introduced and discussed in detail in Great

Britain, it enabled American physicians to continue and

sustain the discussion. Over time the opponents

successfully lobbied Congress and state governments. In

the early twentieth century anti-smoking legislation swept

the country, yet only a decade later they were reversed.

Thus the fate of anti-smoking legislation in the United

31

States produced the same irresolution as the original debate

in 1857 did in England. In effect the proponents won, until

better information was obtained in the 1960s.

From its beginnings, the effects of tobacco smoking

have been continually debated. But, it was not until the

mid-nineteenth century that a true, effective, and valuable

discussion about the effects of tobacco smoking started.

The smoking debate was defined in 1857 through the pages

of the Lancet and continued through American periodicals.

Throughout the latter half of the nineteenth century in

America, tobacco smoking was discussed, debated, and

revealed to be unfit for the well-being of its users. Though

the debate extended over many years and resulted in

minimal action against smoking, the American Tobacco

Controversy was real and its results were relevant. The

American Tobacco Controversy, similar to its predecessor

32

in 1857, was important and necessary toward determining

the true effects of tobacco smoking.

33

Appendix

Excerpt from Samuel Solly, “Clinical Lectures on

Paralysis”

“There was another habit, also, in which my patient

indulged, and which I cannot but regard as the curse of the

present age. I mean smoking. Now, don’t be frightened

my young friends, I am not going to give a sermon against

smoking, that is not my business; but it is my business to

point out to you all the various and insidious causes of

general paralysis, and smoking is one of them. I know of

no single vice which dose so much harm as smoking. It is a

snare and a delusion. It soothes the excited nervous system

at the time, to render it more irritable and more feeble

ultimately. It is like opium in that respect, and if you want

to know all the wretchedness which this drug can produce,

you should read the ‘Confessions of an Opium-eater.’ I can

always distinguish by his complexion a man who smokes

much, and the appearance which the fauces present is an

unerring guide to the habits of such a man. I believe that

cases of general paralysis are more frequent in England

than they used to be, and I suspect that smoking tobacco is

one of the causes of that increase.”

Solly, Samuel. “Clinical Lectures on Paralysis.” The

Lancet, December 13, 1856, 641.

34

Bibliography

Unpublished Federal Documents

U.S. Congressional Serial Set, 51st Cong., 2nd sess., Serial

Set Vol. No. 2821, Session Vol. No. 3.

Books

Brooks, Jerome E. The Mighty Leaf: Tobacco Through

the Centuries. Boston: Little, Brown and Company,

1952.

Burns, Eric. The Smoke of Gods: A Social History of

Tobacco. Philadelphia: Temple University Press,

2007.

King, Dan. Tobacco; what it is, and what it does. New

York: S.S. & W. Wood, 1861.

King James I. A Counterblaste to Tobacco. New York:

De Capoo Press, 1604, 1969.

Lane, Benjamin Ingersol. Responses on the Use of

Tobacco. New York: Wiley and Putnam, 1846.

Tate, Cassandra. Cigarette Wars: The Triumph of the

Little White Slaver. Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 1999.

Young, William Wesley. The Story of the Cigarette. New

York: D. Appleton and Company, 1916.

Periodicals

35

An Old Smoker. “Does it Pay to Smoke?” Atlantic

Monthly. Vol. 21. (1868).

Farnsworth, P.J. “Some of the Effects of Tobacco.”

American Medical Times. Vol. 5 (October 4, 1862).

Johnson, David. “Is Smoking Injurious?” The Lancet,

January 3, 1857, 22.

Ogier, S.A. “Essay on the Use of Tobacco.” The Medical

Reporter. Vol. 2, No. 3. (January 1855).

“The Dangers and Delights of Tobacco.” Every Saturday.

Vol. 6. (November 28, 1868).

“Tobacco.” Atlantic Monthly. Vol. 6. (August 1860).

Wright, T.L. “The Use of Tobacco.” Cincinnati Lancet

and Observer. Vol. 15 (1872).

Newspapers

Bangor Daily Whig and Courier

New York Times

The Christian Recorder

The Daily Miners’ Register