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