Irrational amusements, theatre law, and moral reformers in nineteenth-century America: implications for later popular music study

Abstract

This paper considers several case studies of conflicts between moral reformers active in US cities and venues catering to working-class audiences from the 1860s to 1880s. For moral reformers, theatrical entertainments, particularly forms with no educational or moral purpose, were deeply corrupting and threatened not only the well-being of the individual, but also that of the nation. These case studies show that tensions emerged when popular styles sought to expand their audience beyond their traditional patrons or to move into respectable areas of the city – in other words, when they did not stay in their traditional place. This is also true of the many hybrid musical forms that combined European-based folk or religious styles with African-American music. Forms such as jazz and rock ‘n’ roll did not elicit significant protest until they began to find an audience in northern cities among middle- and lower-middle-class youth. Exploring how laws were changed in response to earlier conflicts adds a crucial historical perspective to popular music studies, which tends to remain firmly focused on music from the mid-twentieth century onwards.

Keywords:

• entertainment law
• leisure
• social class
• jazz
• rock ‘n’ roll

Notes

1. A good summary of the theatrical laws of the USA, dating from the colonial period forward, can be found in Bryan (1993). The first section of this work shows the development of American laws regulating amusements from English common law, the second part examines the development of laws relating to theatre in the USA through specific legal conflicts, and the third part provides texts and major amendments to the theatrical statutes of all of the states up to 1900. In addition to this text, I have examined local municipal ordinances from New York City, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Detroit and Saginaw, Michigan, Cincinnati and Columbus, Ohio, New Orleans, Louisiana, and Milwaukee Wisconsin. Despite small differences, the laws governing these cities are not significantly different from those listed in Bryan’s work. The major variation tends to lie in the licensing process undergone by theatres in these different cities.

2. While these attitudes differed somewhat by region, the grouping of all laws covering amusements, drinking, and Sunday laws together is reflects their somewhat disreputable status. In the laws listed in Bryan (1993), there are many illustrations of the suspicion with which Americans viewed theatre. For example, Connecticut passed a law entitled ‘An Act to prevent theatrical shows and exhibitions’ in 1800. Its preamble reads: ‘Whereas Theatrical entertainments lead to depravation of manners, and impoverishment of the people …’ (p. 187). In 1877, during a prolonged depression, New Jersey passed a law designed to limit the exhibition of entertainments, viewing them as having ‘no good or useful purpose in society’ and tending to ‘loosen and corrupt the morals of youth’ (p. 289). Licensing regulations were stringent in most of the eastern states, and fines for infractions also tended to be high.

3. The municipal archives of the City of New York, for example, holds files for a number of court cases initiated by complaints by moral reform societies. Reading these cases, it is clear that the reformers were sometimes frustrated by the impartiality of the legal system, and that the police and judges did not always share the views of reform societies.

4. For a history of early variety in the USA, see Rodger 2010.

5. ‘Chapter 281, An Act to Regulate Places of Amusement in the Cities and Incorporated Villages of this State’ (Bryan 1993, p. 299–302). This law required that theatres be licensed as provided in earlier statutes, but in addition it required that no alcohol be available in the theatre auditorium or lobby, and that any saloon within the theatre building be completely walled off and separate from the theatre. Theatre managers were forbidden from holding both a theatrical license and a liquor license and infractions of the law were punishable with a fine of $100–$500 or a prison term of three to twelve months, or both. Inspection of the theatres to insure compliance with the law became part of the yearly license renewal, and all officers of the law were reminded of their duty to enforce the provisions of the law. While many kinds of theatres in New York served alcohol in this period, this legal change disproportionately affected Concert Saloon offering variety because the cost of presenting a large, spectacular show at very low cost was underwritten by alcohol sales. See Rodger (2010, p. 59–71).

6. For an extended discussion of the Can-can raids during the summer of 1874, see Rodger (2010, p. 149–155).

7. The Cincinnati Gazette ran the expose of variety halls on Monday 11 November 1879, and anti-variety editorials and reports regularly ran in that newspaper between 1878 and 1881.

8. For a longer discussion of the fight over variety in Cincinnati, see Rodger (2010, p. 168–177).

9. The language used by both Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann during the 2011/12 Republican primary campaign was based on this kind of nineteenth-century moral logic, as was Rick Santorum’s speech to the Republican National Convention on 28 August 2012.

10. Elvis Presley performed a particularly potent hybrid music with roots that went back to the early days of both ‘race’ and ‘hillbilly’ recording in the southern states during the 1920s. Indeed, Elvis can be seen as continuing the traditions of earlier performers such as Jimmie Rodgers, another native of Mississippi, whose music drew on both the Delta Blues and the jazz traditions of New Orleans, and expressed the experience of rural southerners, black and white alike. Like many of the hillbilly artists of the day, Rodgers was recorded by Ralph Peer during the later 1920s. See http://www.jimmierodgers.com/biography.html (Accessed 3 March 2013, 4:16 pm).

11. It is too easy to forget that the American reaction to communism was also a reaction to atheism. The phrase ‘In God We Trust’ was added to American coins during the Civil War, another period of crisis, and it first appeared on bank notes in 1957 after the passage of a law by the 84th Congress in 1956. See http://www.treasury.gov/about/education/Pages/in-god-we-trust.aspx (last accessed 12 June12, 9:03 am).

12. Reading protests against this song in the late 1980s and early 1990s, especially in the wake of the 1992 riots, it was very clear that many of the most vocal opponents of the form had not listened to the song, but were reacting to the title. Similarly, rap was most often dismissed as ‘not music’ but as a dark, ‘primitive’ and dangerous force in ways that parallel the early reactions to jazz and rock ‘n’ roll, and also earlier reactions to the threat of the Can-can and low-class performance.