Birth Control – "...a vice upon which relentless war shall be declared." The Society for the Suppression of Vice and the Comstock Act
The Comstock Act (or Law), enacted on March 3, 1873, was formally titled "Act for the Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use" thereby, according to the Britannica.com., criminalizing:
...the use of the U.S. Postal Service to send 'any obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile article, matter, thing, device, or substance' or any 'article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use.'
While these laws endured for the next 98 years, in 1971 Congress removed provisions concerning contraception presumably a belated correction in response to the 1965 Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut which determined that outlawing contraception denied the privacy rights of married couples.
In 1973, the Court issued its decision in Roe v. Wade, which established a constitutional right to abortion. Technically, the Comstock Act, while still in the books, became moot.
The decision to overturn Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court in 2022 has, for some, awakened the dormant 1873 act. Today, government officials in several states are considering using the Comstock Act to thwart access to contraception.
These actions have prompted an examination of Anthony Comstock's career - the eponym of the law in question.
Who was Anthony Comstock?
He was eager to tell us many times over. He courted the press to impart his mission and promote himself. An article, which appeared on July 26,1908 in the Plain Dealer of Cleveland serves as an example.
Consider the headline and sub headlines:
Comstock Talks About the Sheath Gown, Vice, the Nude in Art, and Himself.
Thrilling Experiences, Adventures and Struggles of a New England Country Boy, Who Has Become the Champion Vice Fighter in the World.
What He is Doing to Protect Those Persons Whose Minds Are Open to Degrading and Corrupting Influences.
Although Comstock was widely admired, from the outset, he was derided by some in the press and public. On April 11, 1874, Pomeroy's Democrat of New York City published a devastating estimation of his character and his mission as enacted in the Comstock Laws:
We do not know of a meaner, more contemptable, low lived, marrowless sneak-thief, forger, imposter and swindler than the aforesaid Anthony Comstock, who makes his living by lying, swindling and deceiving the people in the name of the God and morality party, whose back-scraper he for the time is… At all events, the law in his appointment opened to him a chance for the exercise of that peculiar genius which is lower in the scale of manhood and morality than would be required to start a sheep-thief in profitable business. It gives to Comstock, as an agent of the post-office department, the right to open the letters going through the mails, and a chance to take from the mails letters addressed to any persons whom he even suspects of being engaged in the business of sending medical works or surgical instruments.
Late in 1874, Comstock was attacked by one of his detractors wielding a knife. He was seriously injured and bore scars on his face for the rest of his life.
Officer of the Law?
Comstock's legal authority stemmed from his role as a postal inspector, but he did not waste time in expanding his remit.
On February 27, 1875, an article appeared in the Portsmouth Journal of Literature and Politics of New Hampshire under the headline "Mr. Anthony Comstock; Performed; New York: Locked."
Mr. Anthony Comstock says the Can Can [sic] can't be performed in New York. He shut up the Metropolitan Theatre in the Bowery Wednesday night and locked up the proprietor and his employees. Good.
Of greater concern to the crusader than saucy French dances were the lotteries which operated in the region. In March 1877, he rounded up "large numbers of lottery agents" in a coordinated raid reported by the New Bedford Mercury.
It seems no detail escaped Comstock's offended eye. His next targets were purveyors of "sleeve-buttons containing improper representations."
Comstock deliberately inserted himself into court proceedings. A letter to the editor in the New York Tribune on January 26, 1878, took issue with his account of his heroism interfering with a trial in New Canaan, Connecticut concerning liquor laws. It begins:
Sir: I wish to take exception to some of the so-called facts given by Anthony Comstock in a letter of to-day to THE TRIBUNE. Which is characteristic, to say the least, if not true… I cannot see how even the inflamed zeal of Mr. Comstock can be an excuse for his conduct at the trial to which he refers in his letter. The picture which he draws of Justice Bliss leaving his court in session, and his witnesses in peril of violence at the hands of a mob, and fleeing, is a fitting companion picture to that which he presents of himself, when he writes: 'I sprang upon the platform between the officer and prisoner, and ordered the mob back.' Neither picture is true to the facts.
The letter writer, a citizen of New-Canaan, asserts the facts of the situation as he understands them, which conflicts with Comstock's. He concludes:
I hope the readers of THE TRIBUNE will not believe that justice is administered in New-Canaan as Mr. Comstock represents it, or that he is needed to protect either the witnesses or the morals of the town, for our quiet town is not only a peaceful, orderly, well-officered place, but it is also entirely capable of its courts and attendants… Mr. Comstock should not be allowed to traduce an honorable and fair justice of the peace to cover his own misconduct.
Anthony Comstock vs. Female Physicians
Madame Restell became notorious for advertising herself as a "Female Physician" on 5th Avenue in New York City.
The National Police Gazette, which reported on assorted crimes including abortion, alleged in addition to performing countless abortions, Madame Restell was responsible for "most of the abandoned infants found almost daily throughout the city… "
Her arrest in February of 1878 was a cause célèbres. The Augusta Chronicle (Georgia) reported the story on February 16th:
The woman known as Madame Restell, who was arrested in New York the other day, was doubtless engaged in an infamous business, and if guilty of any crime should be dealt with for it with due severity, but in all times the character of a common spy and informer, like that which Anthony Comstock glories in, has been most contemptable.
An account of Restell's appearance in court was published by the Sunday Mercury of New York City on February 24, 1878. The reporter dwelled on her clothing, her deportment, and facial expressions:
The diamond earrings and ornaments were left at home, and the lady, for the first time in many years, appeared attired plainly in a black silk dress, trimmed with lace and beads, under a velvet [illegible] trimmed in a similar manner, and dark-colored gloves. In the front seat, right opposite the judge, she seated herself, and for quite a time seemed to be deeply buried in thought. Her head was bent down, presumably for the purpose of evading scrutiny. At length she seemed to wake up to the fact that she was sitting in close proximity to two colored women. This caused her eyes to flash fire. She gathered up her dress closely around her and scowled at the colored occupants for some time and then squeezed herself up against the end of the seat to get away as far as possible from them… she was fidgety and ill at ease, becoming at times ghastly pale and at others purple red. She clasped her hands together, and slightly raising her head, gazed steadfastly at the windows behind the judge's seat.
Two months later, she was dead.
Sarah B. Chase was a physician who advocated for making birth control available to women. In May of 1878, Comstock arrested her for selling an instrument that "was unlawful if sold to be used for unlawful purposes."
Chase immediately sued Comstock for false arrest. She lost that case but remained an outspoken opponent of him and his methods.
Questionable Conduct
It seems probable that Comstock's pursuit of Restell and Chase prompted an editorial published by the New York Tribune on July 11, 1878, warning the Society for the Suppression of Vice that they needed to reel in their employee.
According to an editorial published in the Cincinnati Daily Gazette on November 7, 1878, Comstock "goes beyond his province" when "he orders the proprietor of a candy shop to remove from his window a picture, by an eminent artist, which has been previously displayed without objection in the principal art store of Broadway…"
Indeed, nowhere in the reporting of this story is reference made to the postal service being involved. For the crusader, the offense was the depiction of nudes in the painting.
Confirmation of artist Makart's eminence was published in the Times-Picayune of New Orleans on January 16, 1879.
Mr. Comstock painted a dire picture of the degradation of children he alleges are beset by predators every day as quoted by the Cincinnati Daily Gazette on June 3, 1879:
There are weekly publications which contain sensational and indecent tales, the perusal of which can not but train the youth to way of crime. There are many daily newspapers, which, on account of their contents, should never be allowed to cross the threshold of the home. Then there are to be mentioned the books printed by the advocates of free love, which are pernicious to the worst degree. The effect of these sensational and other publications is to be observed almost daily in the accounts of boys who run away from their homes to become Indian fighter, or highway men, incidents which may be even amusing in themselves, but which taken in the aggregate evince a most dangerous tendency in the minds of the youth.
"I wish to protest"
Someone signing himself as "A New-York Pastor" created storm when the New York Tribune printed his letter to the editor on March 1, 1880, which began: "As a citizen, a taxpayer and a clergyman, having a numerous parish, I wish to protest against the work of Anthony Comstock and his associates."
He details his protestations:
I protest against the law and the proceedings under them of Anthony Comstock, wherein he attempts to regulate and prohibit the sale of certain things hitherto commended by prudent physicians as harmless and yet invaluable to sickly and overburdened mothers… Finally, I protest against the obscene, so-called, 'exhibitions' given by the said Comstock. Hundreds of clergymen, deacons and other men have been invited to see the tools, pictures and such things that this man has forcibly taken from the owners… These shows have been given frequently for years. 'The elect' behold them! The pretence [sic] is that this will awaken public opinion against them. Very well. Let us hold the line. If gathering men to look at them will make them hate them let us have them on sale for men everywhere. I deem the whole thing impertinent folly; as a remedy, shabby; in the light of justice, dishonesty and fraud; in the line of government, the setting up of a dangerous precedent and the establishing of principles that undermine our liberty and put us back to despotism.
A month later, the same newspaper printed a second letter from the "New-York Pastor" revealing his identity and clarifying his assertions applied to the law and not to any individual.
It was not unusual for those who publicly chastised Comstock for his methods to speak well of his intentions. This short item appeared in the Trenton State Gazette of New Jersey on April 30, 1880.
A similar paragraph ran in the Kansas City Times of Missouri on May 1, 1886.
Anecdotes and Generalizations
Researching Comstock reveals that he relied on anecdotal accounts and broad, unproven generalizations in his speeches and interviews throughout his career. A lecture delivered in Portland, Maine, and reported by the Portland Daily Press on May 17, 1880, is an example.
He attacks the print media in general and "boys and girls papers… that are published cheap, for five cents." He concluded, "We must get our news cleaner and more respectable."
The Boston Journal published an item revealing Comstock's "new work" on January 3, 1887:
Anthony Comstock has found that most of the detective stories of the juvenile papers and cheap 'libraries' are hurtful to their youthful readers, and he has given notice to the publishers that he will proceed against them. His claim is that the depiction of crimes in this class of fiction is immoral, and therefore to be legally excluded from the mails. Two leading houses turning out these detective yarns are seeking to meet the difficulty by carefully revising the pernicious matter and cutting out the more objectionable passages. In one instance long stretches from Charles Dickens's 'Oliver Twist,' descriptive of Bill Sykes, Fagan and criminal life in London, are being dovetailed into the New York novels, with the slightest feasible alterations of names and places. The calculation is that Mr. Comstock will hardly dare to attack Dickens, and that the material thus protected will serve the purpose of that which is discarded.
A November 12, 1887, headline in the New York Tribune informed its readers that; "A Well-known Art dealer Arrested. Anthony Comstock charges Mr. Knoedler with Selling Improper Pictures."
Anthony Comstock, of the Society for the Suppression of Vice, yesterday caused the arrest of Edmund Knoedler, of the firm of Knoedler & Co., the well-known art dealers of Fifth-ave. and Twenty-third-st., for alleged selling of improper pictures… One of the pictures seized was a copy of the well known 'Birth of Venus,' with which everybody who has ever visited a well-stocked art store is familiar.
An uproar ensued.
On the 13th, Comstock gave an interview to the New York Herald:
Mr. Comstock, who while in the city yesterday was not overanxious to communicate his views on the raid he had just made, was last seen by a Herald reporter after business hours at his residence in summit, N.J.
The residence is an excellent one, and in perfect accord with the owner's objection to all kinds of bareness, as the well furnished parlor, reception and library room, replete with comfortable furniture, bric-a-brac and all sorts of coverings that hide nudity, amply testify.
He provides a remarkable argument for seizing reproductions of the painting but not the original itself:
… the very fact of the great cost of an original work of art precludes it from being gaped at – stared at by the masses, who have no conception of the grandeur of the merits of such a work – and would, if they had a chance, merely admire the very form, the bare nudity if you so call it, without letting their minds or their eyes, even if they could, rest upon the grand surroundings; in fact, upon the work of art as an entirety.
It is entertaining and instructive to read the article published the next day in the Herald under this headline:
What is Immoral? Critics Ridicule Anthony Comstock's Theory that the Human Form Is of Itself Unchaste. General Di Cesnola Laughs. Inspector Williams denies that Children are Often Purchasers of Photographs of the Nude. Modistes' Confections in Art.
Di Cesnola was the director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
The Trenton Evening Times enjoyed poking fun at Comstock. A paragraph which ran on December 22, 1887, concluded that "There occasions when Comstock becomes even more nauseating than the literature he talks of suppressing."
Comstock's renown is indicated by the fact that on August 13, 1890, the Wheeling Register of West Virginia reported on an incident that occurred in New York City:
A pointed comment upon the impertinent censorship of literature undertaken by Mr. Anthony Comstock and other superviceable [sic] gentlemen was the admission of Mr. Comstock before a police justice in New York the other day that he had not read 'The Kreutzer Sonata' of Tolstoi, although at that moment several officers were bringing into Court the copies of that book which they had seized from some street venders. Mr. Comstock had glanced only at some marked passages, which he considered 'perfectly shocking,' although he kindly added, that 'one person may be shocked and another may not… a censorship of this sort, inspired by motives however worthy, has an irresistible tendency to descend to the plane of low farce.
Comstock did not relent in his pursuit of literature and by 1894 had his sights on Fielding, Rabelais, and Ouida, as well as the Decameron and the Heptameron as reported by the Kansas City Star of Missouri on June 22, 1894.
Comstock fancied he had grown wise after more than twenty-three years plying his peculiar trade. The New York Herald published a lengthy article signed by him on April 14, 1895.
Included in his self-regarding account of human nature is his assertion "Immoral Imaginationalism…" is his:
…new name for an old and malignant mental disorder. It is a disease of the mind, arising from corrupting or poisoning the reimaging faculties of the mind by evil and degrading matters which find entrance through eye or ear. Commonly speaking, it is called 'disordered fancy' or 'debauched imagination.'
He has a lot to say about "moral leprosy" and "moral effect, worse than the viper's sting or adder's bite."
The man became swollen with self-estimation. The Kalamazoo Gazette reported on April 10, 1897, that he had seized all the copies of Guy de Maupassant's 'Mme. Teller's Girl's [sic]':
… when the publisher protested and offered to show that the work was commended by the best American writers, Mr. Comstock said: 'The work shocks me. I represent the average people. I do not comprehend your literary subtleties. There may have been a reason for this book in France: there is none here.'
Comstock's War Continues
Comstock battled on until his death in 1915.
He interfered with the World's Fair because the native people on exhibit from the Philippines were scantily clad.
He savaged G. B. Shaw's play Mrs. Warren's Profession.
He raided the Art Student's League and immersed himself in the Stanford White murder.
He attacked women's fashions, notably the sheath skirt, and much, much more.
After Comstock's death, John S. Summer, his successor, reminds us of the Comstock Act's chilling intention - gaining traction today - that birth control is "…a vice upon which relentless war shall be declared."
