The first witness they brought in was Dr. David Inglis, recently elected as chairman of the American Federation of Scientists. In his statement, Dr. Inglis focused on Strauss’ tenure as chair of the AEC. Claiming to speak for the majority of the Federation of Scientists, Inglis criticized Strauss’ approach to nuclear weapons.

“We are marching almost blindly into an intolerably dangerous situation, and our odds for surviving as a recognizable nation through many decades seem rather small.”

Read more

Ronald Reagan has that classic Hollywood style. He wins.

1984

Mondale’s hair is respectable, but it’s just a bit too straight. Reagan’s hair is slightly more wavy and has more volume. Reagan wins.

1988

This is a pretty easy decision. Bush’s hairline just looks weird. The Duke’s thick, swooped over look carries him to an easy victory.

1992

At this point you can probably tell that I’m a sucker for volume. Bill Clinton’s hair is full and alive while Bush and Perot’s are flat and dead.

1996

Bill Clinton does have the volume, but something about Dole’s look just speaks to me. I give him the slight edge over Clinton. Perot never had a chance.

2000

Another tough one. Both Bush and Gore have good hair, but Gore has the better color.

Also, what is Gore’s skincare routine? Does he keep his products in a lockbox?

2004

John Kerry looks like an older movie star who is cast as the President. His hair is so thick and voluminous. The intellectual, liberal weiner with three purple hearts wins easily.

2008

As the first African-American to be nominated by a major party, Barack Obama gives us a look we have not seen before. His hair is neat and presidential. McCain’s hair is thin and flat. Obama wins.

2012

Like John Kerry, Mitt Romney just looks like a president. The graying temples make him look distinguished and experienced. Obama’s hair is great, but Romney takes this one.

2016

This is the first election in which a woman was a major party nominee. As a man, I do not feel qualified to judge a woman’s hair, so I will abstain from making a choice in this election.

2020

Trump’s hair is polarizing, almost as polarizing as he is. I think his hair is iconic. Not good, but iconic. Biden’s hair is generic and old. Trump wins.

This was happening while people in American cities were going hungry.

It wasn’t sabotage, and it wasn’t incompetence. It was deliberate federal policy, run by one of FDR’s most committed New Deal reformers, and it was built on an economic logic that made sense on paper. Understanding why the government destroyed food during a hunger crisis requires understanding just how badly the 1920s had broken American agriculture.

How farming collapsed before the Depression even started

The Roaring Twenties are remembered as a decade of prosperity, but that prosperity was almost entirely urban. Rural America spent the decade in a slow-motion collapse that preceded the nationwide collapse of the Great Depression

The seeds of that collapse were planted during World War One. The war cut off European food production, and global prices spiked. The U.S. government, eager to meet that demand, encouraged farmers to expand: the 1916 Federal Farm Loan Act gave them access to long-term, low-interest loans to buy land and equipment. Farmers, betting that wartime prices would hold, took the bait. After the U.S. entered the war in 1917, forty million acres of previously uncultivated land were plowed under, most of it in the corn and wheat belt of the Midwest.

Read more

In this election, we move past the era of great beards. In this battle of clean shaven men with neatly combed hair, Harding’s eyebrows are the tiebreaker. Harding wins.

1924

Another three-way race. Coolidge is eliminated because hair looks a bit greasy. Davis is neat but bland. Robert La Follette’s hair is thick with great volume. He wins easily.

1928

More neat but bland hairstyles. Hoover has more hair so he prevails.

1932

Read more

Read more

Read more

In researching this series, I read the entire official transcript of the hearings before the Senate Commerce Committee, as well as dozens of newspaper articles documenting the nomination. From these sources, it is clear that Strauss’ nomination was doomed from the start for three reasons. First, Strauss was a lifelong Republican nominated to serve in the cabinet of a Republican president while a Democratic supermajority controlled the Senate. Second, Strauss had made many controversial decisions as AEC chairman and was, frankly, a stubborn, arrogant, self-righteous jerk — one who, instead of handling criticism diplomatically, always went on the attack. This resulted in long-running feuds with several senators, particularly Clinton Anderson of New Mexico and Estes Kefauver of Tennessee. Third, Strauss advocated for a stay-ahead-of-the-Soviets-at-all-costs approach to nuclear weapons, a position that was growing increasingly unpopular in both government circles and the public at large.

This series will consist of four parts. Part One will cover the decade leading up to the nomination, providing context for the hearings. Part Two will examine the testimonies of Senator Kefauver and Senator Anderson. Part Three will document the testimonies of American scientists. Part Four will tie everything together and show how each of these factors contributed to Strauss’ defeat. Part One will be linked below; expect the rest in the coming weeks.

This series will be available exclusively to paid subscribers. Paid subscribers also get access to everything else I write, mostly on U.S. history. I have a lot of great content (besides this series) scheduled to be posted over the next several weeks, so this is a great time to upgrade!

Read more

1796

As a balding-at-25 man, I gotta support John Adams completely embracing his hairline, especially because he could have simply worn a wig.

1800

Same

1804

These are both pretty mid to be honest. Jefferson’s hair frames his face better so he wins.

1808

Again, both are mid. I really don’t like hairstyles from this time period. I’ll go with Madison because his hair looks neater.

1812

Finally! We got a genuinely good head of hair. DeWitt Clinton has the color, the waves, and the volume to easily win this election.

1816

As a balding man myself, I want to support Rufus King. But, unlike John Adams, he simply isn’t doing enough with the hair he has. Monroe wins.

1820

James Monroe is literally the only candidate. He wins by default.

1824

This is a very complicated election, and the diversity of hairstyles reflects that. We got JQA timidly following his father’s example, Andrew Jackson’s wavy, gray chaos, William H. Crawford slicking back a few strands, and Henry Clay hiding his hairline by combing it forward. This is quite the selection to choose from. Crawford is instantly eliminated (those strands are disgusting). Henry Clay loses points because he is insecure about his hairline. JQA loses points for lack of creativity. Andrew Jackson wins.

1828

A rematch between Jackson and JQA. Jackson wins again.

1832

Another election with several options, but John Floyd has a mullet. Instant winner!

1836

1836 was one of the most complicated elections in American history. Martin Van Buren is rocking the bald top with chops! Some might say that he is chopped, but I strongly disagree. His hair is glorious! He wins easily.

1840

Another rematch! This time between Harrison and Van Buren. Van Buren wins again. See above.

1844

Last fall I observed a teacher who told his class that Henry Clay is the ugliest person in US History. At this stage in his life, I am inclined to agree. Also, Polk has the double cul-de-sac, slicked back style. He wins.

1848

Martin Van Buren returns!! Unfortunately, he is older and more disheveled this time around. Cass’ slicked over hair is an abomination. Taylor has the “I’m a badass general who told Santa Anna to go to hell and my hair is wavy and cool” look. I’m giving this election to Taylor.

1852

Franklin Pierce versus Winfield Scott. I’m not sure what Pierce is doing in this picture, but at least he isn’t combing over like Scott is. Pierce wins a close one.

1856

We finally have a candidate with a full beard!! John C. Fremont looks great with the bro-flow with beard combo. He wins easily.

Brannan’s Early Involvement With the Latter-day Saint Movement

A printer by trade, Sam Brannan joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1842. In 1844, he was called on a mission to start a Latter-day Saint newspaper in Connecticut with William Smith, the brother of Latter-day Saint founder and prophet Joseph Smith. Shortly after the newspaper started, Brannan and William Smith learned that Joseph Smith had been assassinated and that Brigham Young had taken his position as prophet. As Joseph’s brother, William believed that he should be the new prophet. Brannan allied with William and advocated for him to be the prophet instead of Brigham Young. Both men were disfellowshipped from the church for their opposition to Brigham Young’s succession. A year later, Brannan pleaded with the Quorum of the Twelve for reinstatement in the church; his request was granted in 1845.

The Westward Exodus

As hostility toward the church grew after Joseph Smith’s assassination and state and federal governments proved indifferent to the church’s plight, Brigham Young and the Quorum of the Twelve decided to move the church’s headquarters from Nauvoo, Illinois to the unsettled western lands outside the United States. As the presiding leader of the Latter-day Saints in New York, Brannan was tasked with evacuating them to the west. In early 1846, Brannan chartered the ship Brooklyn and sailed with more than two hundred Latter-day Saints to California. Brannan wrote to Brigham Young that he planned to establish a city at San Francisco Bay where the church could gather and settle.

When the Brooklyn arrived in San Francisco six months later, Brannan learned that California had been seized from Mexico by the United States. Although he was disappointed that it now belonged to the United States, Brannan was enamored by California’s mild climate and rich soil. He believed it was the perfect place for the church to gather.

In April 1847, Brannan traveled east to find Brigham Young, who was leading a party west along the California trail. Along the way he discovered the remains of the Donner Party in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Continuing his journey east, Brannan found Brigham Young’s camp near Green River, Wyoming. Brannan’s description of California’s soil and climate excited the party. He advised Young to establish a permanent settlement for the church in the San Francisco Bay area before other settlers claimed the land.

Young was skeptical of the proposal, fearing that the church would eventually be driven out of California like it had in Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois. He wanted to establish a permanent refuge in a place fertile enough to support agriculture, yet undesirable enough that it would not be coveted by other settlers. Based on advice he had received from Jim Bridger, Young planned to settle in the Salt Lake Valley and rejected Brannan’s proposal. Disappointed, Brannan returned to California with a letter from Brigham Young urging the church there to gather with the rest of the church in Salt Lake City.

The Gold Rush

After returning to California, Brannan opened a store at Sutter’s Fort. In early 1848, employees at Sutter’s Mill began paying for Brannan’s goods with gold they had found in the American River. Brannan visited the river himself and observed someone pull eight dollars’ worth of gold out of the river in five minutes. He gathered some gold dust in a small glass bottle and returned to San Francisco. When he arrived in San Francisco, Brannan ran through the streets shouting “Gold! Gold! Gold from the American River!” This phrase helped spark the famous California Gold Rush.

Brannan acted quickly to profit from the frenzy. Since he owned the only store between San Francisco and the gold fields, he bought up all the picks, shovels, and pans he could find and sold them to miners for massive profits. He also leveraged his position in the church to convince fellow Latter-day Saints mining at a place called Mormon Island to give him 30 percent of all the gold they discovered. Supposedly, the gold was to be used to purchase livestock for the new settlement in the Salt Lake Valley but no record exists of such a purchase. Many church members also alleged that Brannan embezzled the tithing money he had been tasked with collecting from the California church members and used it to fund his business ventures.

According to a later story, Brigham Young sent the apostle Amasa Lyman to collect the tithing money from Brannan. Brannan was unable to account for the money and said “You go back and tell Brgham Young that I’ll give up the Lord’s money when he sends me a receipt signed by the Lord.” However, some historians have concluded that this story is likely just legend. In any case, Brannan’s involvement with the church soon came to an end. He disavowed his affiliation with the church in 1850 and was officially disfellowshipped from the church the next year.

Brannan’s Later Career and Legacy

Through his many business ventures, Brannan became California’s first millionaire and played a prominent role in the development of the state. His contributions include leading the San Francisco Committee of Vigilance, serving in the state Senate, establishing settlement in the Napa Valley, and funding various infrastructure and transportation projects.

In his involvement with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Samuel Brannan illustrates the tension often found between religious conviction and economic opportunity. Brannan was an active Latter-day Saint who responded to a call to bring his congregation west. After settling in California, opportunities to enrich himself stole his attention away from his ecclesiastical responsibilities. He even abused his position within the church to enrich himself. Ultimately, Brannan’s pursuit of wealth led him out of the church.

Sources:

Saints vol 2: No Unhallowed Hand.

Sam Brannan and the California Mormons by Paul Bailey

Over the course of the nineteenth century, however, Manifest Destiny and rapid industrialization transformed the United States into a significant military and economic power. By the century’s end, it possessed the capability to project power and defend its interests throughout the Americas.

Early in his presidency, Theodore Roosevelt confronted a crisis that prompted a major shift in U.S. policy toward Latin America. By 1902, Venezuela’s weak and unstable government had accumulated substantial debts to European creditors. Venezuelan president Cipriano Castro dismissed European threats of military intervention, assuming the United States would prevent such action under the Monroe Doctrine.

Read more

Read more

Subscribe now

When I was in third grade, I found a book in my school library about Operation Overlord. I read it and was instantly hooked on history. I loved constantly reading history books (especially textbooks, oddly enough) and watching documentaries. In high school, my interests spread to geography and government and I became my school’s Sterling Scholar for Social Science.

During this time, I never seriously considered teaching history. I wanted my future wife to be able to choose whether she wanted to work full-time, part-time, or stay at home full-time. This meant that the career I chose after high school needed to provide enough income to comfortably support a family on one-income. Teaching did not fit that requirement so I set my sights on a career in business or law.

After serving a two-year LDS mission in Scotland and Ireland, I enrolled at Brigham Young University as a declared Finance Major. College was very difficult for me and I ended up being diagnosed with ADHD. However, despite the support that came with my diagnosis, I still struggled in my classes. After three semesters, I left BYU to pursue a career in Heating and Air Conditioning (HVAC).

During my time as an HVAC technician, I met and married my wife, who was in the Math Education program at BYU. After we had been married for several months, she accurately observed that I wasn’t fulfilled in my job and encouraged me to find a new career. Knowing how much I loved history, she suggested that I go back to school and become a history teacher. She was already planning to teach full-time, so we decided that we could raise and support our family with two teacher incomes. With my original concern resolved, I re-enrolled at BYU, choosing to major in Social Science Teaching since it offered more job opportunities.

Learning and understanding history has given me a better perspective on life. It has shown me that I am standing upon the shoulders of giants, imperfect men and women who rejected the harshness of their times and built something with their lives. It has made me a more informed citizen, helping me decide who to vote for and which political causes to support. Knowing history, particularly US history, has been a positive force on my life and I want to pass that down to the next generation.